tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34133871095421769832024-03-18T19:50:25.723-07:00HGL's F.B. writings<a href="http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html">Be my - local or otherwise - editor, if you like!</a> : <a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2013/12/il-vous-est-arrive-de-plier-un-papier.html">Soyez mon éditeur local ou plus large, si vous voulez!</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger595125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-59815723247133395732024-03-15T08:23:00.000-07:002024-03-17T08:55:22.675-07:00Rosén, vs Nygren<br />
<dl><dt>Mikael Rosén
<dt>4 mars 2024
<dd><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgWze3GbNdAJ_GHWyn5_UtO9Nl82-ibNZYUmcrmkHiSBjBhs9MY70w4RPL4BqU75pCfX-RdMBrKmutTrgU-rtm8HivupV5CxuyUiuiXNvbqHHkHudX2GaY12QSrxGj7ZJ9unh3fCd1_-vzFzQ-tzxVa9N1vaIfb6V8WXuMJXT_PVzf8NOZwNeNd8GUPo/s727/meme.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="727" data-original-width="722" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgWze3GbNdAJ_GHWyn5_UtO9Nl82-ibNZYUmcrmkHiSBjBhs9MY70w4RPL4BqU75pCfX-RdMBrKmutTrgU-rtm8HivupV5CxuyUiuiXNvbqHHkHudX2GaY12QSrxGj7ZJ9unh3fCd1_-vzFzQ-tzxVa9N1vaIfb6V8WXuMJXT_PVzf8NOZwNeNd8GUPo/s320/meme.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Nej, verkligen inte. Katolska kyrkan grundades på 300-talet.
<br /><br />
<dt>Mikael Rosén
<dd>Isak Nygren Petrus var alltså inte "Klippan" dvs. den förste påven?
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Mikael Rosén Petrus var aldrig någon påve.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marcus von Gdansk
<dd>Isak Nygren Du har helt fel.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://labarum.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/pope-fiction/">Pope-Fiction | Av Peter Madrid
<br /><i>Labarum | Berndt David Assarsson | 23 mars 2011</i>
<br />https://labarum.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/pope-fiction/</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Marcus von Gdansk Humor när en blogg försöker bevisa något utan att lyckas. Hade katoliker följt Bibeln hade de inte varit katoliker.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marcus von Gdansk
<dd>Isak Nygren Humor när en icke-katolik inte förstår Skriften utan försöker lära oss katoliker något om vår egen heliga Skrift. Stor humor också hur historiskt illitterata protestanter är, "Katolska kyrkan grundades på 300-talet" 😆
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Marcus von Gdansk Jag är inte protestant. Ni katoliker tror att ni ligger bakom Bibeln. Om det vore sant, så är det märkligt att ni polyteister tar avstånd från precis allt Bibeln förespråkar. Själv är jag teolog som har studerat Bibeln på originalspråken. Ni katoliker (och ortodoxa) har mer gemensamt med hinduismen än med biblisk tro.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Isak Nygren Du nämnde hinduismen ...
<br /><br />
Antar du tänker på mantras, rosenkrans, Jesus-bön, tungotal ...?
<br /><br />
Och Mt. 6:7?
<br /><br />
Om du nu är theolog, antar jag att du känner till rot-orden bakom sammansättningen batto-logein, samt den hedniska samtiden i Romarriket. Det var intet Ashoka som mynten i dåtidens Palestina buro bilden af, utan Caesar ...
Har du lust att klargöra litet?
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Jag känner till vad som troddes på i romarriket. Jag gjorde en mer modern jämförelse med nutida religioner.
<br /><br />
Hinduismen (t ex krishnaismen) definierar sin gudom på ett liknande sätt som katoliker och ortodoxa gör. De säger att det endast finns en gud, men dyrkar olika avatarer. Många låtsaskristna gör något liknande. Treenigheten är en liknelse, men ännu fler liknelser har man med idoldyrkandet när katoliker och ortodoxa ber till döda människor.
<br /><br />
Folk dyrkade inte Caesar. Jesus praktiskt taget separerade religionen från staten med sin myntliknelse.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Jag noterar att du undvek frågan.
<br /><br />
Ang. ditt påstående skulle helgon vara jemförbara med avatarer ... menade du Treenigheten med? Är du JV?
<br /><br />
Men ok, du tar den sidan ... vet du hvilka fem religioner hedniska romare blandade ihop till en? Hinduism, Buddhism, Judendom, Christendom, Bacchus-dyrkan. Altsammans sammanfattades som "Bacchus-dyrkan" ungefär som tidig germansk Odens-dyrkan betecknades som Mercurius-dyrkan af Tacitus.
<br /><br />
Att du nu tar hinduism som "källa" till en "förorenad" Christendom är märkligt om du anser att ROMAREN Constantin förfalskade tron. Som sagt, han var efterfölgare till Tiberius Caesar, som dyrkade Jupiter snarare än Bacchus. Intet till Ashoka. Har jag lyckats klargöra hvar jag anser ditt argument är ytterst svagt?
<br /><br />
Tänker du undvika DET argumentet med, som du gjorde med min anmärkning om batto-logein?
<br /><br />
<dt>Tillagdt
<dd>efter två dars tigande från Isaks sida.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Isak Nygren <i>"Folk dyrkade inte Caesar."</i>
<br /><br />
Underlig commentar, dessutom, från en theolog.
<br /><br />
Christna dödades på löpande band för vägran att offra till kejsarens genius.
<br /><br />
Är du en sådan der GT-exeget som helt undviker NT i vanliga fall och tagit infon från halfglömda minnen af föreläsningar med conversationer under en caffe-rast?
<br /><br />
Men min hufvudpoäng var altså att Tiberius dyrkade Jupiter, intet Brahma, Vishnu och Shiva. Så din theorie om var Catholska Kyrkans gudsuppfattning kommer från är ytterst mysko.
<br /><br />
Motsatt proportion af närvaro afsaknad är hvad Ashokas välde skulle ge vid handen.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marcus von Gdansk
<dd>Isak Nygren Med det svaret är du lika mycket "teolog" som jag är kejsare av Kina.
<br /><br />
Att det är Katolska Kyrkan som sammanställt Bibeln är ett obestridligt historiskt faktum. Så att ni heretiker ska låtsas undervisa oss om vår egen bok är bara ett dåligt skämt.
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Du skriver helt obegripligt. Jag är inte JV, men de har betydligt mer rätt än vad Katolska kyrkan har.
<br /><br />
<dt>Isak Nygren
<dd>Marcus von Gdansk Om det vore sant att Katolska kyrkan sammanställde Bibeln, så är det ännu märkligare att RKK inte följer sin egen skrift. Ni heretiker vet inte ens vad som står i Bibeln. Antingen följer man Bibeln eller så följer man katolicismen i detta fall. T o m muslimer följer Bibeln bättre än katoliker. Ni är polyteister och därmed inte kristna.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marcus von Gdansk
<dd>Isak Nygren Du lider uppenbarligen av vanföreställningar. Jag önskar dig lycka till och ber för dig.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Isak Nygren <i>"Du skriver helt obegripligt."</i>
<br /><br />
Du svarar ytterst tactiskt.
<br /><br />
Har du blifvit grundligen vederlagd, är det ju enklast att låtsas att den som gjorde det är obegriplig.
<br /><br />
Vore det nu händelsevis ngt du hade svårt att begripa, huru vore det med en direct fråga?</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-78639886521440735952024-03-15T07:19:00.000-07:002024-03-18T19:49:52.084-07:00He did some answering, though, to others ...<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-is-carbon-dating-more-important.html">Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-science-cannot-prove-earth-is.html">Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/ken-wolgemuth-understood-argument.html">Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/if-ken-wolgemuth-avoids-answering-me.html">If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/he-did-some-answering-though-to-others.html">He did some answering, though, to others ...</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin, Principal contributor
<dt>4 March 2024
<dd>Why a C-14 date of 20,000 years doesn’t disprove a 6000 year old earth.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/100076370270119/videos/7884801801549887/">https://www.facebook.com/100076370270119/videos/7884801801549887/</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><ul><li> 1) It is not strictly true that the Flood removed all living carbon from the biosphere, unless you assume that it reversed the proportion of marine to land biosphere, which now is predominantly marine. But a predominant marine biosphere before the Flood is also argued by the prevalence of marine fossils, so this is unlikely.
<br /><br />
If he meant "from the atmosphere" that's true, since non-aquattic biota outside the Ark perished.
<br /><br />
<li> 2) The C-14 to C-12 ratio would have been the same before and after the Flood reduced the amount of carbon. If a straw of grass held 1.628 pmC before the Flood, because the atmosphere did so, the fact that the Flood buried lots of straws of grass doesn't change that a straw of grass growing after the Flood would also hold 1.628 pmC the first years.
<br /><br />
Or if the C-14 was unevenly mixed, that it remained unevenly mixed after the Flood -- between 0.73 and 8.767 pmC both before and after the Flood.
<br /><br />
<li> 3) The real reason why Carbon 14 was low before and after the Flood is more empirical. Fossils dated to the Flood by their type of preservation and rapid burial and by their plenty would have this kind of low pmC, and the real physical issue is how and why C-14 rose rapidly after the Flood to 100 pmC in less than 2000 years rather than in 30 000 years (minus some).</ul>
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>This speaker clearly does not know that geochemists have developed a calibration curve that is continuous from 1950 back to 14,000 years with the ring data, and then on back to 50,000 years from the sedimentary varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. So he is blowing a smoke and mirrors story of ignorance.
<br /><br />
If he is a Christian, why does he dishonor Christ's like this, ignoring New Testament teaching to speak the truth?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth The previous replies have already brought on a somewhat long debate, on which my contribution would be marginal.
<br /><br />
Disagreeing that the treerings prove (taken together from 200 different tree fragments over 2000 years, fewer and fewer backwards) proves, ultimately, 13 000 years, and reasoning from a saner starting point, is that lying to you?
<br /><br />
We have already taken tree rings, we already both know we disagree, but let's take the moral problem : why do you have a problem with allowing someone to take a starting point outside academic consensus and considering him as still honest, even if he disagrees with you?
<br /><br />
The question was not if you considered him orthodox, a big disagreement may mean, you have no room to consider him orthodox, but why would that make you privy to his motivations and degree of honesty?
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl,
<br />//tree ring counting has been debunked//.
<br /><br />
I do not expect young earth creationists to agree with me, because they never will. The blanket statement above is a lie, because I have already shown the IntCal13 tree-ring data to 14,000 years. David Muncie can say he doesn't give it any credibility, but that credible counting of the tree rings still stands.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Let's note, the quote "tree ring counting has been debunked" is not a quote from me.
<br /><br />
I would say, tree ring counting, like the other lignine based chronology (writings from the times), becomes scarcer and more fragmentary the further back you go. I'll give it some credibility for the last 3000 years, but not further back.
<br /><br />
IF you prefer tree rings over Genesis 5 and 11, I think that says something about your faith, and it's not nice.
<br /><br />
You have still not explained why you took him as dishonest rather than just wrong. The quote is also not from the speaker Calvin Smith. And in a 38 second overview, you are entitled to lots of blanket statements, without including the fine nuance an opponent would prefer, just so his opponent has to communicate in a more cumbrous way, IF the statement HAD been from Calvin Smith in this clip.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dt>Admin
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Oh, IntCal13 approximation is based on data that has zero actual evidence backing said data.. it's based upon assumptions upon assumptions of stitching together tree rings into loose matches with such premature understanding of the dynamics of tree ring formation. It's just as medieval as the embryo gill slit theory, when the flaps behind the ears were loosely interpreted to be actual gill slits proving that we evolved from fish, amphibians, reptiles, and then pigs and dogs in our own mothers' wombs.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix Would you agree that tree rings seem to function for the last 2000 or perhaps even 3000 years?
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s been proven that tree rings have not been accurate for the last 2000 years.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>David K. Muncie How?
<br /><br />
There certainly was a test in the 1960's about wood in Arizona, tree rings and carbon dates, for trees that are growing same micro-climate basically, and it worked out back to 1400's or even 1300's ...
<br /><br />
What's the evidence for tree rings being inaccurate the last 2000 years?
<br /><br />
It would need to be a better evidenced thing, like history ...
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />The use of tree rings in dating
<br />Tree-ring data (Regional Curve Standardisation and Age- Band Decomposition) do preserve more medium and long-timescale evidence of growth forcing changes, but they very prone to bias.
<br /><br />
Uncertainty in the Interpretation of tree ring data:
<br /><br />
A major source of such uncertainty is the imposition/selection of a specific climatic parameter against which to ‘calibrate’ tree-ring chronology or chronologies. Many series have strong seasonal sensitivities, but their characterisation is also variable in time. Climate forcing is often time varying and its expression in different tree-growth parameters subject to complex lag effects. There is a likelihood of regression bias. Thus there exists very large potential for over-calibration in multiple regressions and in spatial reconstructions, due to numerous chronology predictors (lag variables or networks of chronologies – even when using PC regression techniques). Frequently, the much vaunted ‘verification’ of tree-ring regression equations is of limited rigour, and tells us virtually nothing about the validity of long-timescale climate estimates or those that represent extrapolations beyond the range of calibrated variability.
<br /><br />
We tested the level of uncertain identification of growth-rings in olive trees growing on Santorini. Cross sections of stems and branches of 37 live trees were sampled in June 2008. No specific permits were required for the described field studies because the trees were growing in abandoned fields, they were not privately owned or protected. All samples were analyzed using standard dendrochronological methods. Because the cross-dating was very difficult, we also prepared wood microsections with a sliding microtome, stained them with Safranin and Astra Blue to be analyzed under an Olympus BX41 microscope, using standard wood-anatomical techniques.
Five samples (L8, AT, E2, E3, T) were selected for a blind test involving six dendrochronologists working at the same laboratory (Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL) and four external experts based at: the Laboratory for Wood Biology and Xylarium at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium; the Wood Anatomy Laboratory, University of Haifa, Oranim, Israel; and two anonymous laboratories (one European and one North American) to count growth-rings.
<br /><br />
We also analyzed wood density by Neutron-Imaging Radiography at the cold-neutron-line (ICON) at Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. Scanning X-ray Fluorescence Microscopy (SXFM) using the F3 bending-magnet beamline at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS), Cornell University, Ithaca NY, U.S.A., was used to produce elemental maps along measurement radii of four of the samples, to detect elemental boundaries which might help to elucidate true growth-rings from IADFs and bands of phenolic discoloration. Of particular interest are changes in Calcium (Ca) already used to elucidate annual growth in ringless tropical species, or the impact of precipitation in African Acacia spp. Calcium is one of the most abundant and least mobile trace elements analyzed in trees and is primarily bound to the cell walls to provide structure and rigidity.
<br /><br />
the blind test, thin polished stem discs from five olive trunks were sent to all involved laboratories with the request of dating while marking the putative growth-rings with a pencil and giving age estimations for each sample. The WSL laboratory measured these dated radii and compared these data. The average number of counted growth-rings per person shows maximal deviations from the median over all experts from 24.5% (sample AT), to 41.2% (sample E2), 41.2% (sample E3), 50% (sample L8) and 56.3% (sample T). Specific radii in two of the five samples (sample L8: 50% and sample T: 56.3%) reached over 50% deviation from the median.
<br /><br />
The implemented blind test contains various sources for uncertainties: imprecision by marking the growth-ring borders, accidental interpretation by the growth-ring width measurement, and uncertainties because of the use of different stem discs although they were thin and followed each other at a distance of only a few millimetres within the stem sample. The analysis may result in different counts of growth-rings, if each radius is analysed independently. Inconsistent counts of growth-rings along one to four radii of each single olive stem disc were made by the different dendrochronologists (Table 1), so there was no agreed growth-ring count. The various irregular patterns of dark discoloration further complicated the growth-ring counts. The number of growth-rings counted on the microsections, with the aid of larger microscope magnifications that eliminated the effect of discoloration, did not match with those of the polished cross sections studied under a binocular microscope. Furthermore, even in individual microsections various anatomical types of putative growth-ring boundaries could be found. Because of all these types of growth-ring structure variability, cross-dating the growth-ring-width series of the samples was impossible.
<br /><br />
Neutron imaging of the growth-rings shows a similar spectrum of results as the traditional dendrochronological methods. The analyzed samples (L8, AT, E3) could not be dated and dating problems in the samples L8 and AT by neutron imaging occurred at the same locations as in the visual analysis of the stem discs and microsections. The high quality of the neutron image of sample E3 demonstrates the same problems of growth-ring boundary identification. Thus, demonstrating that the problem of dating tree rings is of a biological nature and not a detection problem. However, if the wood fiber direction is not exactly parallel to the direction of the exposure (samples E2, T) no usable results could be achieved.
<br /><br />
Our results show that adding high-technology growth-ring identification methods such as Neutron-Imaging Radiography to traditional optical microscopy does not provide better information on the nature of olive tree growth-rings, i.e., allowing to reproducibly determine the number of rings and whether or not they are annual. The problem encountered when dating olive growth-rings is thus not only their basic problematic anatomical nature, but also the inability to distinguish between annual growth-rings versus IADF’s.
<br /><br />
The bottom line is that no growth-ring measuring method currently used in dendrochronology, not even the most sophisticated methods, were able to reliably identify the annual growth-ring borders in olive wood from Santorini. The very variable counting results of the blind test by ten well-experienced scientists clearly demonstrates the problem of the identification of olive growth-ring boundaries. There were also large discrepancies in the growth-ring numbers among different radii of the same cross-section, even when analyzed by the same expert, and similar differences among experts.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Could olive trees be bad material for tree ring dating?
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl why would they differ?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>David K. Muncie Like, if the growth rings are finer and less marked?
<br /><br />
Less easy to see, simply, than growth rings in oaks or fir ....
<br /><br />
What paper were you citing?
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl "Perhaps?"... LOL that's a cute pleading.. 😛 The oldest tree dated by simple ring counting appears to be a 2,200-year-old redwood from northern California.
<br /><br />
The next oldest tree that was verified to be dated by actual ring counting in this database turned out to be 1100 years old. Here's a lengthy list of trees and the dating method used here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm"><i>Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research : OLDLIST, A Database Of Old Trees</i>
<br />https://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm</a>
<br /><br />
(also, the oldest tree to be directly C14-dated with verifiable source is 1275 years - "However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself.")
<br /><br />
2200 years is an extreme outlier here. Even most "1000-year-old" and much younger tree ages are extrapolated using cross-dating based on circular reasoning and scientifically immature premises of infantile dendrochronology that carried the same amount of understanding as the "science" of embryo gill slits that inferred that we started out as fish, then evolved into amphibians, pigs, dogs, etc. in our mothers' wombs - which some scientists still believe today.
<br /><br />
Oh, and 2200 rings might not mean 2200 years. Tree rings become a record, not of age but of climate conditions when they were formed and when successive rings formed. That means that simply counting rings is not a viable method of determining age. Studies over the past 18 years have shown that tree-ring growth in bristlecone pines is not limited to a single growth ring per year. Trees of genus Cedrela form one ring a year in several South American countries, but in Suriname, they produce two rings a year.
<br /><br />
In this case, the Bible probably needs less "faith" than quack pseduo-science of "Institutional Dendrochronology of the century-old set of assumptions."
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix 2200 rings are anyway beyond the 2000 years I considered minimal reliable time for tree rings.
<br /><br />
I am not putting tree rings against the Bible. Beyond 2000 years possibly and beyond 3000 (+?) years certainly, I hold the samples get too fragmentary and too scarce to give complete certitude. Precisely like papyrus records from Egypt are no match for the Bible, because they are much more fragmentary and further between than paper records from the 18th C.
<br /><br />
Affez Tlemsanix <i>"also, the oldest tree to be directly C14-dated with verifiable source is 1275 years"</i>
<br /><br />
By verifiable source, you mean for its actual age, right?
<br /><br />
Possibly. When "Old Tjikko" is carbon dated to 9000 years old, there certainly is NOT a source for that age, and I reduce it to after Babel. Between 2454 and 2437 BC.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl At least what this quote from the article means: ""However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself."
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl , they used electron microscope to try to count the rings, and still failed.
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />I can’t find a link it’s a pdf down load
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6oWsqAIVC_uYPnnURufxgIrIA18FVWEPi0xP91CQA5vQg9b8ZzKFn8AH8SwMG6gunuU44qToLHnHnnHDfH7PJnAIfMJL-QXARgzfufXSW4oqAw7E1zhPy55SpA-dr1OYwCy3kw9yYCxb4ZSc_Ig9m_07oR7KJpgCIiTIoxjO_7EBhZCXx67BIUXYMMw/s960/428712494_427751686447170_3309827394068409958_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="716" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6oWsqAIVC_uYPnnURufxgIrIA18FVWEPi0xP91CQA5vQg9b8ZzKFn8AH8SwMG6gunuU44qToLHnHnnHDfH7PJnAIfMJL-QXARgzfufXSW4oqAw7E1zhPy55SpA-dr1OYwCy3kw9yYCxb4ZSc_Ig9m_07oR7KJpgCIiTIoxjO_7EBhZCXx67BIUXYMMw/s320/428712494_427751686447170_3309827394068409958_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl, oops sorry not Electron microscope.
<br /><br />
with the aid of larger microscope magnifications that eliminated the effect of discoloration, did not match with those of the polished cross sections studied under a binocular microscope.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix,
<br />Here is the IntCal13 from 1950 back 14,000 years. You may not like it, you may refuse to believe it is real data for radiocarbon calibration, but it is made up of real C-14 data measured in real tree rings.
<br /><br />
Radiocarbon calibration goes back to 50,000 years with leaves recovered from Lake Suigetsu, Japan. I know you won't like that either, but it is from real carbon-14 data measured, and real sedimentary varves.
<br /><br />
Of course, you are free to reject this, as I expect you will. But this is still a real part of God's creation.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi15ZOvpPUS8UxrXZjPRV8PtzHLneaerPP6neVtXf_JRgarwodKj6M3eeQHToJIA5emy0_oBFU9Fr90Q2qrKROXRngv5ciHuJF6Mk8Q8j7oM6Rvdpc2dzTZQkUYnIUmnVoQwAFzsrwKSo8C-xenCA-iu2CrRvJoUeJMTP3njwkftvt3a58m6jKYPhyphenhyphenCrdc/s1318/432296882_927125922756061_3458734551808435940_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="984" data-original-width="1318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi15ZOvpPUS8UxrXZjPRV8PtzHLneaerPP6neVtXf_JRgarwodKj6M3eeQHToJIA5emy0_oBFU9Fr90Q2qrKROXRngv5ciHuJF6Mk8Q8j7oM6Rvdpc2dzTZQkUYnIUmnVoQwAFzsrwKSo8C-xenCA-iu2CrRvJoUeJMTP3njwkftvt3a58m6jKYPhyphenhyphenCrdc/s320/432296882_927125922756061_3458734551808435940_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth I think there are more punctual double-checks, whatever you called them, for the last two thousand years than for lots of the rest, if not all.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>David K. Muncie <i>"larger microscope magnifications"</i>
<br /><br />
Not an ideal way to get an overview over a larger thing. That's pretty well needed to count tree rings.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix Thanks for the clarification. You meant oldest carbon 14 dated tree among the ones considered by that page.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth <i>"But this is still a real part of God's creation."</i>
<br /><br />
For the record, so are planets coinciding with constellations, doesn't mean astrology is correct.
<br /><br />
<dt>Skipping
<dd>two for now.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl No problem. I only meant what the quote meant. Here it is again:
<br /><br />
<i>"However, radiocarbon ages of trees are considered if the date came from a piece of wood that can unequivocally be associated with the individual tree itself."</i>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix In that case, you should know that root material has pretty unequivocally been associated with Old Tjikko in Sweden, it's 9000 BP, and, as said, I consider that that uniformitarian radio carbon date gives sth a bit after Babel.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Hehe, that's a funny combination of words, "pretty unequivocally"... The word "unequivocally" is such a strong adjective that it is customarily used alone - to match it up with the word "pretty" defeats the meaning of the word "unequivocally".
<br /><br />
A jigsaw puzzle either fits perfectly, or it does not. Otherwise it is mis-matched. Cross-daters accept pieces that fit "pretty" good after applying for generous allowances in their calibrations to get almost any result that they need.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyeTiOi6YH8Pypse9hwr1sxXHJQBHRglNahuB0iwXS383H3KWIyJ7ywau6YQGlIZt_v9g8OaeVkBjjw_btos1I__PCKj5288nurAboflVkiIYH5ocQ0-Q7CzZh0tsKPDQGk1qmnWSIlR23Si6kMev4Rvvugbce8dL3u6b-u63yJf-3OEi1k4EucZaUKh8/s750/432367966_10228513660198964_7551700751356228629_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="750" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyeTiOi6YH8Pypse9hwr1sxXHJQBHRglNahuB0iwXS383H3KWIyJ7ywau6YQGlIZt_v9g8OaeVkBjjw_btos1I__PCKj5288nurAboflVkiIYH5ocQ0-Q7CzZh0tsKPDQGk1qmnWSIlR23Si6kMev4Rvvugbce8dL3u6b-u63yJf-3OEi1k4EucZaUKh8/s320/432367966_10228513660198964_7551700751356228629_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The root pieces from Old Tjikko are NOT dendro-chronology, they are JUST carbon dated.
<br /><br />
The root pieces were found under the living roots of Old Tjikko.
<br /><br />
And I am reducing the carbon dates. No offense against Biblical chronology involved, on my side.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix i think the wording fits well.
<br /><br />
unequivocal 9k inflated consensus is relatively mid Abraham (1948-2123) within decades of the 1996 start of the dispersion from Bavel. '9k' being relatively not long 9k after in relation to The ice ages (1657- about 1996, with Ur-Uruk founded about 175 years prior) and Egypt about a decade after 1996 anno-mundi.
<br /><br />
The 'pretty' qualifier is due to assuming consensus at least has the relative dating right. which is not always the case.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl (critically for Ken Wolgemuth to understand)
<br /><br />
Agreed, any "old" radiocarbon date suggesting well over 3K years is to be treated with a dramatically different calibration curve according to YEC science that is in line with the global flood taking place around 5000 years ago.
<br /><br />
Here is an interesting use of wording in that wiki article Roger M Pearlman linked above:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>"Carbon dating is not accurate enough to pin down the exact year the tree sprouted from seed; however, GIVEN the ESTIMATED age, the tree is SUPPOSED to have sprouted around 7550 B.C." [caps-emphasized]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Probably as to why it was not considered as unequivocal association for direct RCY dating, this result was from pieces of wood found BENEATH the living trees, not sampled from them. Simply confirming that the specimens with the old dates had the same genetic material as the now-living trees (i.e. were clones) does not mean that it was directly from the living tree itself.
<br /><br />
Estimations based on circular reasoning of climatic data loosely extrapolated from embarrassing "science" of dendrochronology and assumed date of the recent ice age, radiocarbon dating table of inferences, also inferred from a narrow interpretation of lake varves, etc. make for such a fantastic "SUPPOSED" jigsaw puzzle for most to believe in.
<br /><br />
Oh well, here goes as to what constitutes as "real" science.. INTCAL13 just isn't one of them. It's artificial science, just like AI being able to make fitting jigsaw puzzles out of almost anything and making "curves" to fit whatever the agenda needs or to "deep-fake" any set of data as to make them appeal to atheist peer-reviewers for the sake of media publication and additional grants. If these same scientists still believe that these folds behind our ears when we were embryos meant that they were gill slits and that we were fish that turned into amphibians in our mother's wombs, it says a whole lots about them.
<br /><br />
Funny regarding Old Tjikko:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>"Interestingly, this tree’s date, Kullman notes, cancels out previous studies (“the general conception,” he says) that said the spruce migrated to the area only 2,000 years ago. Was that previous research in error, or has the perceived infallibility of radiocarbon dating overridden a more accurate account of these trees’ history?"</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/">AiG : Oldest Living Tree Located In Sweden
<br />https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/oldest-living-tree-in-sweden/</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd><i>“The tree itself isn’t that old, but researchers allege that the root system dates back 9,550 years.”</i>
<br /><br />
So they don’t have anything to base that on other than a guess
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Circular Reasoning 101:
<br /><br />
When looking at “false rings,” one study openly admitted the only way to determine that rings were not true annual rings was by cross-dating.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/X09-088">https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/X09-088</a>
<br /><br />
The problem, as mentioned above, is that cross-dating assumes one ring a year. As shown above, in some conditions, and in at least some genera, more than one ring a year form. That means cross-dating cannot be used to determine “false rings.” Therefore, “false rings” might simply be a second ring formed the same year, thereby eliminating the possibility of counting rings to determine age.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/ask-the-trees/">https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/ask-the-trees/</a>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHCeIHrePWBetPkzfwkC98Yi6Sr3kWBa-C3yD-DwYZTolGaZufx5Nydr8QB1taH1gRi-4Sx8xyx2Ox3Vi80aYfpeb8YSAglIXuyHEAFevy5XucGKzCebyFKeLVVxOWyHadrZUVTZvdxikUGDqyE4fwCPFZFpZppL5N3dDU_VoyE9uADNMPTUdfq4N9E1s/s260/432075833_10228514702865030_4257247624504978166_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHCeIHrePWBetPkzfwkC98Yi6Sr3kWBa-C3yD-DwYZTolGaZufx5Nydr8QB1taH1gRi-4Sx8xyx2Ox3Vi80aYfpeb8YSAglIXuyHEAFevy5XucGKzCebyFKeLVVxOWyHadrZUVTZvdxikUGDqyE4fwCPFZFpZppL5N3dDU_VoyE9uADNMPTUdfq4N9E1s/s320/432075833_10228514702865030_4257247624504978166_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth , you don’t have to call yourself an ignorant Christian, just refer to yourself as a Christian that has been missed lead into the worldview and needs correction.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Ken, you're broken-minded. What are you talking about? I quote the Bible more than you do. At least I think so. I could look up the history here in this group and see who quotes the Bible more per post.
<br /><br />
What really matters is that I quote the entire Bible, not just a few select parts of it like you do to try to gaslight others as to what a stumbling block is.
<br /><br />
<dt>Skipping
<dd>three comments.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />Genesis 5 and 11 is the creation of mankind from Genesis 1:26. In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth is Genesis 1:1. The verb tense for create is past perfect, according to Hebrew scholars.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Steve Meyers, I do fear God so much that I cannot add to Scripture what is not there. The Bible is not a science book and does not inform us about the age of the earth. The 6,000-years creation belief is not Biblical Doctrine or part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is adding a secondary issue,
<br /><br />
<dt>Steve Meyers
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth You fear God and stand to boldly call him a liar?
<br /><br />
<dt>Robert Bennett
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Steve Meyers yes, Ken Wolgemuth calls Christ a liar, while bolstering his man-made god.
<br /><br />
I'm with you brother Steve Meyers. God created ALL THINGS within six normal days, and I believe one of the reasons He did that was to leave no room for the man-made fairy tales of deep time and evolution.
<br /><br />
<dt>Steve Meyers
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth science can't determine the age of the earth. Scientists can make educated guesses that can never be verified.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Steve Meyers, I answer to God, not you. God cannot lie, and your claim is false.
<br /><br />
<dt>Robert Bennett
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth you don't answer to Christ, who inspired Moses to write that ALL THINGS were created in six NORMAL days.
<br /><br />
You only answer to the god you made. That's also in Exodus 20.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Robert Bennett Genesis 1:1 says God created in the beginning which is clear before the first "Yom".
<br /><br />
<dt>Robert Bennett
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth wrong, Exodus 20:11 says that God created ALL THINGS within six normal days. You are creating fairy tales when you try to add billions of years and evolution.
<br /><br />
Ken Wolgemuth there was NOTHING created before day one. NOTHING.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Genesis 1:1 is before the first yôm like a Saturday evening is before a Sunday morning.
<br /><br />
<dt>Steve Meyers
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Robert Bennett Everyone must choose whether to believe God's word or atheists words.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl if they just did a bling guess they (who view data via flawed current deep-time dependent current consensus assumptions) would have a much higher probability chance of being accurate.
<br /><br />
still their methods can help as far as relative dating.
<br /><br />
still often enough they do not even get that right.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix <i>"Simply confirming that the specimens with the old dates had the same genetic material as the now-living trees (i.e. were clones) does not mean that it was directly from the living tree itself."</i>
<br /><br />
The only thing that's affirmed is that Old Tjikko as it stands is a clone replanting itself since "7550 BC" (meaning, in reality, since 2505 or 2455 BC).
<br /><br />
[Here is where I had commented before, and it had disappeared, for the years, see my remake of the comments below]
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I think two of my comments have been deleted.
<br /><br />
I do not know if the admins in the group or the internet admins of the library are responsible. I'll retrace their content.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Genesis 5 and 11 are not "the creation of mankind" as you said, in Genesis 1:26.
<br /><br />
Between Genesis 5 and 11, on the one hand, and Genesis 1:26 on the other, you have Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, the fall and the murder of Abel by Cain.
<br /><br />
Genesis 5 and 11 are history and depending on text version pinpoint Adam's creation to 2000 to 3500 years before Abraham was born.
<br /><br />
This is human history, not creation account.
<br /><br />
There is also the theology that Adam was created just after the Universe, not millions of years between (Mark 10:6 and Exodus 20).
<br /><br />
IF you were slack on theology, on this point, you would have to admit human skeleta carbon dated to 40 000 years old. This would contradict the historicity of Genesis 3 (you can't keep a historic memory alive orally for 40 000 years) and arguably even the theology (God was not letting Adam's descendants wait 40 000 years for the Messiah promised in Genesis 3:15).
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix "7550 BC" in carbon dates.
<br /><br />
I'll give the utmost respect to the exactitude of their measures of carbon content, and assessments of where the date leads. In Uniformitarian dating.
<br /><br />
I'll still land on top as Biblically consistent, since I recalibrate this within the Biblical time frame.
<br /><br />
I also have a calibration, but based on Bible rather than tree rings.
<br /><br />
For the calibration I have been using for pretty long now, it's in 2455 BC:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2466 B.C.
<dd>53.2551 pmC, so dated as 7666 B.C.
<dt>2444 B.C.
<dd>54.5151 pmC, so dated as 7444 B.C.</dl>
<br /><br />
For the revision, in 2505 BC, here:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>2505 BC
<dd>54.394 pmC, so dated as 7555 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
<dt>Sources
<dd>are banned from FB, but here they are:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : The <u>Revision</u> of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Got it. This is a wonderfully respectable study of YEC, with corrected calibration curves being applied.
<br /><br />
I'm just wondering why spruce trees apparently were not in that area, as if the clones did not make any seeds for other trees to appear for thousands of years, if previous researches were correct.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The previous research was not correct.
<br /><br />
The spruce was a "Lazarus taxon" for the area.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Fine, I'll quote the Bible again for you, but you do not respond to that quote from Jesus:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>(Matthew 24:)
<br />37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
<br />38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
<br />39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
......
<br /><br />
Those who are not psychologically blind can see what Jesus was referring to, as to this context. Then there is the literal Genesis account of the global flood that utmostly stressed how it was indeed a global flood that covered all the mountains of the whole earth, beyond doubt. Anybody who is not psychologically blind can understand the literal account of the global flood that overwhelmingly outlined the details as to how it was an utterly global flood covering ALL the hills and ALL the mountains of the whole earth for well over a year (including exactly how much the highest mountain of the whole earth was covered), even explaining in so many additional verses as to the globality of the flood, how even the winged fowl of the sky needed the ark in order to survive, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's a no-brainer, for those with a brain and a functioning pineal gland that is not psychologically blind.
<br /><br />
Ken Wolgemuth didn't respond to this, and instead asked me to quote the Bible again. So, I quoted it again for him. He thinks he can just troll the living daylight out of us. I'll just keep on holding the cross of truth in front of him and see him squirm like a vampire all day long.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Steve Meyers, Geochemists have calculated that it would take 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay of uranium-238 to produce the lead isotope ratios that we measure today. The best inference is that God created the earth 4.6 billion years ago.
<br /><br />
<dt>Steve Meyers
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Prove that the lead was not present before decay began. And then prove that uranium could be formed without lead in existence.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth the best inference IF they are correct (about 4.6B age assignment) which has near a zero % chance of being correct, based on the highest probability explanation of all the empirical observations in context.
<br /><br />
So obviously one or more of their assumption premise are flawed.
<br /><br />
Based on SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model 'thousands not billions ' of years have elapsed subsequent to the 'day four' hyper cosmic inflation expansion epoch that was early on in history.
<br /><br />
start study at Pearlman YeC on researchgate.
<br /><br />
Aside from that falsification, one of our references / mentors on this specific issue is Yaacov Hanoka PhD chemistry Bor Hatorah journals 13, 15 and 17.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Steve Meyers true that. not sure what Ken asserted was false with your statement.
<br /><br />
science on the age of the, universe, Earth, life, and man is all probability based, thus not absolute, thus does not 'prove'.
<br /><br />
For absolutes look to scriptural testimony taken in context.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix, I believe completely that God directed Noah's to build the ark to protect Noah and his family from the judgment of ALL the wicked mankind and related animals that were alive that He intended to destroy with a catastrophic Noah's Flood.
<br /><br />
There is no Biblical case for Noah's Flood to have caused catastrophic volcanic activity. Period. The Bible says the waters came down, water rose up and up and up, and massive amounts of water came up out of the ground. Those are called springs. With 40 days and nights of rainfall, Noah's whole world was flooded.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Roger M Pearlman, I will not prove anything, because science is a process of investigation. Proof fits with math and liquor. You just don't seem to even understand science. In spite of all you doubts upons doubts, geochemistry still provides credible evidence that the earth is ancient.
<br /><br />
So does the Grand Canyon. Have you ever been there? If not, get and good picture of it and sit down to examine it. Try to find a picture that that includes the inner gorge. There are thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks that were deposited, and later tilted to 20 – 25 degrees and cemented to hard rock. Extensive erosion made to flat surface the the tilted beds below, and then another sequence of sedimentation of rocks that are horizontal
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth <i>"it would take 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay of uranium-238 to produce the lead isotope ratios that we measure today."</i>
<br /><br />
I totally second the request to prove there were not those isotopes of lead independently of decay of U-238.
<br /><br />
And in case you take "science does not prove, science investigates" how come you dismiss without investigation that the lead isotopes could be there anyway?
<br /><br />
<i>"There is no Biblical case for Noah's Flood to have caused catastrophic volcanic activity."</i>
<br /><br />
Here are the actual words:
<br /><br />
<b>all the fountains of the great deep were broken up,</b> (from Genesis 7:11)
<br /><br />
All the fountains or just the water fountains?
<br /><br />
Even if you take it as just the water fountains, what BROKE them up? Volcanic activity certainly would.
<br /><br />
The kind of volcanic activity we associate with Campi Flegrei would ALSO destroy large swathes of mankind if occurring independently outside the Flood. Indeed, the latest theory on why Neanderthals went extinct is, they came into the shadow of the volcanic winter caused by the Campi Flegrei eruption. And given that the carbon dates of the eruption and the carbon dates of living men coincide, you can't dismiss that as a pre-human event either.
<br /><br />
<i>"There are thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks that were deposited, and later tilted to 20 – 25 degrees and cemented to hard rock."</i>
<br /><br />
Sounds like a good case they were tilted while still soft.
<br /><br />
<i>"Extensive erosion made to flat surface the the tilted beds below, and then another sequence of sedimentation of rocks that are horizontal"</i>
<br /><br />
Except natural erosion over millions of years could not have made a flat surface, there would have been gorges. The thing being swept away by Flood waters while still soft makes better sense.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Roger M Pearlman I missed one earlier.
<br /><br />
You state carbon dates don't necessarily come in order. Or technically you didn't, you said uniformitarian dates. That would include K-Ar dates too, and I agree they don't come in order (I'd also say they are usually from the Flood), however it sounded as if you considered carbon dates between them also don't come in order.
<br /><br />
For carbon dates not to come in order, you need one of three things : 1) contamination in the earlier or reservoir in the later sample, giving an impression they are later and earlier instead; 2) bad mixing of carbon 14 with carbon 12, so the earlier sample comes from top of the pmC, the later from the bottom of pmC; or, most probably most of the time, 3) carbon 14 dates sinking.
<br /><br />
Now the numbers 1 and 2 are random and exceptional.
<br /><br />
The number three, fall of carbon 14 levels, is actually unlikely. Because, if we had very low levels to begin with, they needed to rise to get us to the level we have. Therefore, carbon dates, within them, are normally in order, if not to scale.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth i think you are falling into the uniformitarian assumption trap Ken, and not grasping The Mabul epoch potential.
<br /><br />
Study HTP hypothesis where we can get mature galaxies within 4 days.
<br /><br />
So a[[lies to element / rock formation too.
<br /><br />
Yes i have been to the Grand Canyon that looks about 4.5k rounded years old from my perspective, that your science teachers did not even know they did not know. You know you do not know, so the only honest thing you can do is admit you do not know if the actuality is within YeC and one day it might make sense to you like it does already to some of us.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl agree,
<br />one place i think they get the relative dating wrong is the founding and Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages.
<br /><br />
define The ice ages as materially lower ocean levels (so land bridges connected more of the continents.
<br /><br />
I hold by the end of Peleg (1996 anno-mundi the approx. end of The ice ages,
<br /><br />
Abraham already 48 and UR / Uruk found about 126 +/- years prior to the 1948 birth of Abraham.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I hold that the Ice Age ended (in these latitudes) in the time when Noah died (the ice edge had retreated to present day Stockholm when Babel ended).
<br /><br />
So, Younger Dryas ends in carbon dated 9500 BC or real 2607 BC. Noah dies and Göbekli Tepe begins under the direction of Nimrod. Jericho also begins at this time, and we have found paths of bricks and mortar in Jericho from this period. 51 years later, Peleg is born, 2556 BC, carbon dated to 8000 BC.
<br /><br />
Uruk seems to be founded in 5000 BC and Ur in 3800 BC. Note, one candidate for "Ur Kasdim" is Urfa, close to Göbekli Tepe, which is older.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html">Uruk:</a>
<dt>2182 BC
<dd>70.704 pmC, so dated 5032 BC
<br /><br />
<dt><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-revision-of-i-ii-ii-iii-iii-iv-may.html">Woolley's Ur, between these:</a>
<dt>2005 BC
<dd>79.859 pmC, so dated 3855 BC
<dt>1988 BC
<dd>80.681 pmC, so dated 3788 BC</dl>
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl so we agreement on the approximate end of The ice ages close to the passing of Noach.
<br /><br />
If Pearlman Torah Chronology that's in 2006 anno-mundi, 350 years post global flood (1656) so just a decade after a 1996 of Peleg (start of the dispersion from Bavel 'when the land divided'). 2006-1948 = when Abraham age 58.
<br /><br />
We also agree consensus is wrong even on the relative dating of Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages. They gave after we have they were founded prior, to the end of The ice ages .
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>"We also agree consensus is wrong even on the relative dating of Ur and Uruk in relation to the end of The ice ages."
<br /><br />
No. Ice age ends 350 after the Flood + 2242 = 2792 Anno Mundi.
<br /><br />
Uruk is founded in 3018 AM.
<br /><br />
Woolley's Ur c. 3204 AM.
<br /><br />
Abraham is born 2242 + 942 = 3184 AM.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl OK, sorry my misunderstanding. thank you for clarification.
<br /><br />
so while we agree The ice ages as defined above end at/near 350 post global flood, of the 2 models, only those who hold the flood was in 1656 have the founding of Ur and Uruk after the 350 years.
<br /><br />
when in anno-mundi do you have the founding of Gobekli Tepe?
<br /><br />
in Pearlman Torah Chronology within month/s off the ark).
<br /><br />
'350,..2242 = 2792 (typo)' = 2592?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Göbekli Tepe / Babel = between death of Noah, 350 after Flood, and 401, birth of Peleg.
<br /><br />
Genesis 5 = LXX.
<br />Genesis 11 = LXX without the second Cainan = Samaritan (and closeish to Josephus + second Cainan).
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Sounds right if LXX,
<br /><br />
if Messoric and if Pearlman Torah Chronology than:
<br /><br />
1056-2006 Noach 1056+600= 1656 Global Flood
<br />1757-1996 Peleg (so passes on just 10 years prior to Noach)
<br /><br />
then it makes sense if :
<br /><br />
1657 Gobekli Tepe then about 350/2= 175 years till
<br />1832 Settle in 'plains of Shinar' found Mesopotamia.
<br /><br />
1996 Peleg passes on, start dispersion from Bavel. Canaan and sons move into the Levant land of Shem.
<br /><br />
2006 Noach passes on Mizraim and sons found Egypt 175 post founding of Mesopotamia.
<br /><br />
So The ice ages span about the 350 years Noach passing of Noach. (i am fine with approximate 340 or 350 as a gradual end.
<br /><br />
with a healthy approximate 175 years (+/-25) from Gobekli Tepe till Mesopotamia and 175 from Mesopotamia founding till founding of Egypt.
<br /><br />
With Abraham 1948=-2123.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth RE: "I believe completely that God directed Noah's to build the ark to protect Noah and his family from the judgment of ALL the wicked mankind and related animals that were alive that He intended to destroy with a catastrophic Noah's Flood.
<br /><br />...
"With 40 days and nights of rainfall, Noah's whole world was flooded."
<br />____________________
<br />Cool, but it's not just that!!! It were not just some small springs and a little bit of flooding across the world, LOL..
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix Indeed, without a rather big height of the water, the waves would have been too violent for the Ark.
<br /><br />
While it probably had thicker walls than Wyoming, where Wyoming sunk in Nantucket Bay, the depth was medium 9 meters (5 fathoms).
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Roger M Pearlman If "Shinar" = Mesopotamia, then Göbekli Tepe IS in a plain (or just outside a plain) in the land of Shinar.
<br /><br />
Also, you have Göbekli Tepe just after the Flood, but you can't explain the jump upward in carbon 14 levels that that would mean.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Interesting.
<br /><br />
Perhaps an initial founding of Gobekli Tepe (GBT) soon off the ark, but it was used periodically even after the founding of Bavel?
<br /><br />
Perhaps when hunting and exploration parties would leave Bavel during the time of Nimrod, they would at times make a pilgrimage to GBT, and what they left is what is being dated to the tail end of The ice ages?
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth for sure Gen. 1:1 not 'clearly' before day one. Perhaps not clear enough that it is an intro, that will be backed and filled starting with verse 2.
<br /><br />
I think it may have been intentional to allow confirmation bias and free will. that all the details are not spelled out and that it takes a lot of good faith, study and consideration to understand in context.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Roger M Pearlman "an initial founding of Gobekli Tepe (GBT) soon off the ark,"
<br /><br />
You have TWO huge problems.
<br /><br />
1) Highest possible carbon date for the Flood year is to dated 20 000 BP. In your scenario, that's 2114 BC. When that is dated as 18 000 BC, the 15 886 extra years translate as 14.636 pmC — just after that, you have Göbekli Tepe, carbon dated 9500 BC. Just 7586 extra years which translates as 39.945 pmC. How do you rapidly rise from 14.636 pmC to 39.945 pmC?
<br />2) You have NO argument you have cared to state for Babel being elsewhere than Göbekli Tepe. If Shinar means Mesopotamia, Göbekli Tepe fits the bill. Moving from the Mountains of Armenia to Göbekli Tepe is clearly moving miqqedem.
<br /><br />
But those huge problems are shadowed by an even huger one. Göbekli Tepe was the base for some man who took heads of bodies, made holes in the skulls, stringed heads together, and who also left headless bodies to be devoured by vultures. To me, this screams that Göbekli Tepe was Nimrod's base, not just somewhere he from time to time visited "on pilgrimage" ...
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl The ark likely had perhaps a dozen of special "ring" anchors attached around the ends to do a fantastic job at stabilizing the ship, as some of these (weighing over a ton) were found in the vicinity of the Ararat region.
<br /><br />
Genesis 7:16 -- And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
<br /><br />
::: If the Lord did some divine intervention there, it would stand to reason that they were protected during the global flood from "hot spots", extreme tidal waves and winds, etc. by this same kind of divine intervention, while they were "shut in" the ark.
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, it was probably 10x stronger than the strongest ark that can be built today. Heck, if poorly-fed Egyptian slaves could build the pyramid, hauling 200-ton blocks that cannot be carried by the biggest machinery today, I'd imagine that pre-flood ancestors who lived for over 900 years could build such a fine ark with gopher wood that were much stronger and more massive, coated with gobs and gobs of bitumen pitch..
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />OK i had not caught that you place the tower of Bavel at Gobekli Tepe.
<br /><br />
If it was i would have to make several revisions to my model.
<br /><br />
Now while radio metric carbon dating in theory, based on the assumption of modern isotope saturation levels, caps out at after 60k year, based on the one historic actuality, that aligns with scriptural testimony, saturation levels, it might cap out at 20k or even under 6k years.
<br /><br />
So any results consensus dated 20k - 60k and most (all?) over 60k that do not have enough isotopes to date are likely from Mabul global flood residue and shortly thereafter earl The ice ages.
<br /><br />
Now in Pearlman YeC we have the break-up of the original single continent formed on day 3, 1656 years later, cause and effect due to the Mabul impacts year. Thus the global flood epoch can by some metrics account for hundreds of millions of consensus history.
<br /><br />
At least on the placement of the skulls at GBT i tend to agree they date from closer to the dispersion from Bavel, then too just off the ark..
<br /><br />
Not many people were dying during the 350-year span from the flood till the passing of Noach 350 years later. As several generations born after the flood living 400+ years as increase in entropy still in early stages of the 1k + year transition from Pre-flood to modern world levels.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"to do a fantastic job at stabilizing the ship"</i>
<br /><br />
In a river or shallow coast water yes.
<br /><br />
<i>"it would stand to reason that they were protected during the global flood from "hot spots","</i>
<br /><br />
I'd agree, but a very deep global ocean would be one of the means by which this is done.
<br /><br />
You see, whatever winds are on the Pacific, waves don't get very high compared to their width.
<br /><br />
Affez Tlemsanix <i>"I'd imagine that pre-flood ancestors who lived for over 900 years could build such a fine ark with gopher wood that were much stronger and more massive, coated with gobs and gobs of bitumen pitch.."</i>
<br /><br />
I'd agree on the stronger part. Greek translates gopher wood as "hyle kybite" = I take that means the thickness of balks was 1 or at least a 1/2 cubit.
<br /><br />
Still, stability would have suffered on a very shallow sea.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Roger M Pearlman <i>"So any results consensus dated 20k - 60k and most (all?) over 60k that do not have enough isotopes to date are likely from Mabul global flood residue and shortly thereafter earl The ice ages."</i>
<br /><br />
In carbon dates, we have two things.
<br /><br />
1) how much can be measured accurately, or rather how little.
<br />2) how many different levels could mix.
<br /><br />
If levels for up to 50 000 BP to 20 000 BP could mix, I don't reckon it correct to add 11 500 BP to that. As said, it would on your chronology involve a very rapid rise for a maximume of 14 pmC to 39 pmC.
<br /><br />
In the case of bad measurements, I think those levels are perfectly measureable.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-264436296476122782024-03-05T03:15:00.000-08:002024-03-17T09:03:20.838-07:00If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-is-carbon-dating-more-important.html">Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-science-cannot-prove-earth-is.html">Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/ken-wolgemuth-understood-argument.html">Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/if-ken-wolgemuth-avoids-answering-me.html">If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/he-did-some-answering-though-to-others.html">He did some answering, though, to others ...</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>Is radiometric dating REALLY a reliable dating method?
<br /><br />
This past summer, the 9th International Conference on Creationism was hosted by Cedarville University. Scientists from all over the globe attended this conference to present their research and hear from others in the creation science community.
<br /><br />
One group of researchers presented their new discoveries in the field of radiometric dating. What was so unique about their findings?
<br /><br />
In this video, Dr. Ken Coulson interviews the group to discuss radioisotope concordance. Check out the link below to learn more!
<br /><br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/jGlMfOLiXUs?si=eFdMKIi0e03vz8YL">Do radiometric "ages" always agree?
<br /><i>Creation Unfolding | 2 Febr. 2024</i>
<br />https://youtu.be/jGlMfOLiXUs?si=eFdMKIi0e03vz8YL</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"radioisotope concordance."</i>
<br /><br />
Nice, that one is a lacuna in my arsenal of refuting Old Earthers. I think I will!
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>This is just putting up more stumbling blocks to the Gospel, and bringing dishonor to Christ's name. That's what happens when YECs peddle their fake stories of God's creation with wild speculation and disinformation.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth explain your comment old fork tongue one.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth You're basically saying that about Genesis of the Bible, that it should be removed from the Bible or something like that.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>Affez Tlemsanix, Absolutely not. It's the YECs who tell tall tales of creation when Genesis 1 does not tell us how old the creation is. 6,000 years came from Bishop Ussher, not the Bible!
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth , you’re delusional
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>[first answer to KW]
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth <i>"6,000 years came from Bishop Ussher,"</i> AND a Masoretic text for Genesis 5 and 11.
<br /><br />
With a variety of two LXX readings and other text choices, earth is above 7200 or above 7500 years old.
<br /><br />
At least, that's when Adam was created.
<br /><br />
The problem with Genesis 1 being extended by Day Age or Gap Theories, is, since that was suggested, we have carbon dated human skeleta to over 40 000 years old. No big deal if Earth and Universe are young, just means that carbon 14 levels were still very low back when they lived, for instance 1.628 pmC in the year of the Flood.
<br /><br />
But if the universe is really much older, the samples would need to be presumed to reflect an atmosphere of already 100 pmC, which involves accepting dates before Adam should have lived for men who died.
<br /><br />
Genesis 5 and 11 are as much history with human observers as Genesis 3 is. If the historic memory of Genesis 5 and 11 got severely bungled, why would Genesis 3 be exempt?
<br /><br />
On the other hand, if Genesis 5 and 11 are correctly recorded (with the text variants taken into account, Seth born when Adam was 130 or 230, there being a generation in the Sem-Abraham space that was called Cainan or not, the differences are not of orders of magnitude), then that authentifies the historic memory of Genesis 3 being transmitted over a sufficiently low number of "necessary intermediaries" (i e people who are fewest possible counts of the intermediaries between two persons who didn't meet each other), with a sufficiently high number of "supplementary intermediates" for the transmission to be credible.
<br /><br />
Plus, Jesus in Mark 10:6 attaches the creation of Adam and Eve to "the beginning of creation" which also rules out Day-Age and Gap Theories.
<br /><br />
<dt>Affez Tlemsanix
<dd>Admin
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Not just that. You're dissing the entire lengthy and detailed account of the Global Flood.
<br /><br />
Any reader capable of understanding the words of any given Bible translation regarding the account of the flood would definitely get the picture of this "elephant in the room."
<br /><br />
But no, a lukewarm "CHRINO" (or a democrat Christian-in-name-only) keeps on bumping into this massive elephant. When others see that, they will automatically assume that the guy who keeps on bumping his head into the elephant's knees is blind, or at least severely visually impaired. A cane might help, but if that's what it takes because of the psychological incapacity to "see" the elephant, then a cane will do. A cane still cannot "see" the elephant for the person, though, and it will not hide the fact that the person is blind as to acknowledging the elephant in the room.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>David K. Muncie,
<br />Delusion: The definition is a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contrary evidence. So someone who believes that the Earth is flat is delusional. There is abundant and overwhelming evidence that the earth is ancient. The Pacific Tectonic plate has the evidence that it has been moving slowly, 2.6 to 3.6 inches per year, for 80 million years. So it appears you may be delusional, instead of your claim that I am delusional. Everything that I believe about the earth has some type of reasonable evidence, or I would not say it.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth , if you read the Bible, you would realize there is a zero evidence for an old earth. All you have is man-made tests that will produce the answers that you want, if it doesn’t fix your agenda you throw it out. For some reason you have it in your head that every rock made by God starts with zero daughter isotopes. Who comes up with these stupid ideas why do you think God had to have made all the rocks that way?well that’s just crazy and then to top off you ignorance you call Christian you know, the people who read God’s word and believes what God tells us word for word, you call them the nuts.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>David K. Muncie The Bible is silent about when creation occurred. God inspired Scripture to answer Who and what and why things happened in creation, but now when and how. God left these for us to discover. That's what science is about, with physics, math, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.
<br /><br />
If you stayed with reading the Bible and quoting it, and admitted that it does not give us the number of years since creation, you'd be fine. God guided me into chemistry and later into geochemistry. So I have studied God's general revelation for 60 years. I can say with high confidence that if the creation happened 6,000 years ago, there would be plenty of evidence. The methods of geochemistry help us understand the history of the earth, and we have followed that wherever it leads. I do not care how old the earth is, but want to know the best answer now.
<br /><br />
You are an admin for this group, and I've wondered, did you start this group? Your comments about my thinking God created the rocks with zero daughter atoms is you of your lies. I never wrote that, and know it is not true. Have you ever had a graduate course in geochemistry? It sure doesn't sound like it.
<br /><br />
My prayed for you is to learn to obey God's Word and speak the truth.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth
<br />The Bible tells us exactly when the Earth was created .
<br /><br />
Have you read the Bible? Your knowledge of it seems to be lacking.
<br /><br />
Ken Wolgemuth the number of years sense creation is spelled out. You should not lie.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>[not to KW]
<dd>David K. Muncie Exactly is a bit exaggerated. There are text versions and interpretation choices.
<br /><br />
Genesis 5 and 11 — Samaritan, Masoretic, LXX, and in the latter case the standard version or the one without the Second Cainan?
<br /><br />
Was There 70 or older when Abraham was born?
<br /><br />
430 years to Exodus — starting when Abraham went to Egypt and returned, or starting when Jacob went to Egypt?
<br /><br />
480 to Temple — is this the correct text, does "out of Egypt" refer to Exodus or was Sinai counting as Egypt in King Solomon's time, is the year a minimum or an exact number of years — if exact and starting with the Exodus, what do you do with Judges?
<br /><br />
Temple to Captivity — nitty gritty things to count together.*
<br /><br />
But yes, within this kind of parameter of variables, the Bible does say when Adam was created. And Jesus said that was straight on the creation of the universe, Mark 10:6.
<br /><br />
Adam was not created 10 000 years ago. And the universe was not created 10 000 years, let alone 13.8 billion years, before him.
<br /><br />
<dt>* Note:
<dd>the choices of the Roman Martyrology are apparently: LXX, without the Second Cainan. Thera was 70 when Abraham was born, and Acts 7:4 either refers to the spiritual death or Thera, or the death of his spiritual father, not to the physical death of Thera. The 430 years start when Abraham received his promise, so, the soujourns in Canaan are part of "soujourning in a land not your own". 480 is a minimum count after the overall chronology was neglected and recorded with gaps in the Judges period (Jephtha's 300 years are actually more years than that, but the Temple is roughly 180 years after Jephtha spoke). Kind David was anointed in 1031 BC.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>[second answer to KW]
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth <i>"I can say with high confidence that if the creation happened 6,000 years ago, there would be plenty of evidence."</i>
<br /><br />
Like fossils from the Global Flood? Well, there are!
<br /><br />
Ken Wolgemuth <i>"The Pacific Tectonic plate has the evidence that it has been moving slowly, 2.6 to 3.6 inches per year, for 80 million years."</i>
<br /><br />
Let's assume the 2.6 to 3.6 inches per year can be measured, how do you assess:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> that it was always so slow (it could have been faster after the Flood)?
<li> where the original position was?</ul>
<br /><br />
If you can't prove those, exeunt 80 million years.</dl>
<br /><br />
<b>Both did some answering.</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Main contributor
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, No. There would be no limestones, far fewer fossils, most sediments with the same fossil assemblages, very little coal, no oil and gas fields, very few humans, no high technology, no cars, no airplanes, etc.
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Here is the evidence that the Pacific Plate has been moving for 80 millions years. You use the word asking me to "prove" something. That is not the right question to ask of science. Go to mathematics and for "proof" of some theorem, and stay away from science and theology from the Bible. God provides abundant evidence that He exists, but we can never "prove" that God exists.
<br /><br />
Below is the evidence that the Pacific Plate has been moving slowly for 80 million years. These results from applying the potassium-argon radiometric dating methods correctly.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVVXX2SSxGCXPNHRycIMjEE6O0ofXQh5jI8D4u4ZpRj2HtSKj3ukWjA-8ikSTAzdb22d42YrixJ4-UjpqgokLnQzvweGii_8nFrs5_bVtzVCnsmiNMMwGLF6VBw7qtlCCqtQPhGk3w4_Z4g6sdYmJPLdiPPuUOV3hJb174b9j2LI8AkAe-SFs0_PZFIVA/s1686/429749719_920288263439827_8248962416652716756_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="1314" data-original-width="1686" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVVXX2SSxGCXPNHRycIMjEE6O0ofXQh5jI8D4u4ZpRj2HtSKj3ukWjA-8ikSTAzdb22d42YrixJ4-UjpqgokLnQzvweGii_8nFrs5_bVtzVCnsmiNMMwGLF6VBw7qtlCCqtQPhGk3w4_Z4g6sdYmJPLdiPPuUOV3hJb174b9j2LI8AkAe-SFs0_PZFIVA/s320/429749719_920288263439827_8248962416652716756_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl,
<br />Here is a graph showing the range of movement rate that I mentioned.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSUeVNQodPY3s6-yXuHfwWGmjWpwBSljul6pG8PBDq_raYIgfbVGGYNoBGX1wcWrHl4NeSWjqnIXw3CGDFVUDA80HkxZ3wwge0t__Ac_yluAXMgPH_iErpjv9UMnk9tdyN99LjtrZOD5vcBuUBHYWk140iKxVCOCxdgjBVIE-TBUkGzzHBvZ6Vm5r8Ag8/s261/430483912_920291500106170_6763823919286080658_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSUeVNQodPY3s6-yXuHfwWGmjWpwBSljul6pG8PBDq_raYIgfbVGGYNoBGX1wcWrHl4NeSWjqnIXw3CGDFVUDA80HkxZ3wwge0t__Ac_yluAXMgPH_iErpjv9UMnk9tdyN99LjtrZOD5vcBuUBHYWk140iKxVCOCxdgjBVIE-TBUkGzzHBvZ6Vm5r8Ag8/s320/430483912_920291500106170_6763823919286080658_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl .
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
<br /><br />
Mark 10:6
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”
<br /><br />
You’ll find no room for billions of years.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtdzQ1t5qWTHhpL8reZwOI6zq29yUG1eWMBwLqiY2oZrLahG88oVlQewzMPYcQ3C7pYxBeiE84JMwZfJ0Xzx-qDAUvAVNI9igKlKjZknyqiq7FEbhDZdaXlqhTdQiSsnJ3W03DukPfaor3TcIDp5d-mmHeRXtTd4995LqVGBChpdGUKGU59ZHrBLaSwkY/s960/428704603_422650570290615_954668440098344275_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="734" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtdzQ1t5qWTHhpL8reZwOI6zq29yUG1eWMBwLqiY2oZrLahG88oVlQewzMPYcQ3C7pYxBeiE84JMwZfJ0Xzx-qDAUvAVNI9igKlKjZknyqiq7FEbhDZdaXlqhTdQiSsnJ3W03DukPfaor3TcIDp5d-mmHeRXtTd4995LqVGBChpdGUKGU59ZHrBLaSwkY/s320/428704603_422650570290615_954668440098344275_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizjl8oWmPADitrJ7QYYFH9ClFPl3YuAixjVgPU97Pgk5I5VFFRc_g92WGkgUSYbMHg0rELH3VDxDa01LMfW9FyRaoXeHG19xXtB-45-a50D5akNkcvgQhrVv3wZbTSDgA5Gl6VaFLVmClZXbgp-MI9QoNrzpDmw7otT4tpR5L8osFugnxmUw7VrvroNu0/s800/428668403_422651076957231_8675457717797441242_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizjl8oWmPADitrJ7QYYFH9ClFPl3YuAixjVgPU97Pgk5I5VFFRc_g92WGkgUSYbMHg0rELH3VDxDa01LMfW9FyRaoXeHG19xXtB-45-a50D5akNkcvgQhrVv3wZbTSDgA5Gl6VaFLVmClZXbgp-MI9QoNrzpDmw7otT4tpR5L8osFugnxmUw7VrvroNu0/s320/428668403_422651076957231_8675457717797441242_n.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth I can not answer your anti-Duane Gish-Gallop in one word, so I'll pick it apart.
<br /><br />
<i>"There would be no limestones,"</i>
<br /><br />
From shellfish caught in Flood sediment.
<br /><br />
<i>"far fewer fossils,"</i>
<br /><br />
You think of how many millions of years it took to get together those we have, and simply divide? You miss that the Flood is an excellent time to get fossils in masses.
<br /><br />
<i>"most sediments with the same fossil assemblages,"</i>
<br /><br />
That's what we find. I have looked. In Karoo, Permian and Triassic are just as likely to be two collections of biotopes during the Flood as two eras successive to each other, both roaming the area.
<br /><br />
<i>"very little coal, no oil and gas fields,"</i>
<br /><br />
Coal from floating tree mats, covered by sediments in the Flood. Oil from seaweed, covered by sediments in the Flood.
<br /><br />
<i>"very few humans,"</i>
<br /><br />
Where the heck do you get that from?
<br /><br />
<i>"no high technology, no cars, no airplanes, etc."</i>
<br /><br />
Dito?
<br /><br />
Ken Wolgemuth <i>"These results from applying the potassium-argon radiometric dating methods correctly."</i>
<br /><br />
Potassium argon probably means what was cooled quickest at lava flows during the Flood, trapping most argon.
<br /><br />
Neither graph provides any evidence what is now 3700 miles from Kilauea started there. You left that part out.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>David K. Muncie <i>"You’ll find no room for billions of years."</i>
<br /><br />
Yeah, I think I said that.
<br /><br />
David K. Muncie Your longevity chart has the problem of being based on texts with Masoretic chronology. I checked it said 130 when Seth was born.
<br /><br />
I am into LXX chronology. I use a chronology made by St. Jerome, which is still quoted in the Christmas Proclamation, and it involves LXX readings for Genesis 5 and 11, and the one for Genesis 11 doesn't have the Second Cainan.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl , interesting.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>David K. Muncie Glad you found it worthwhile!
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I did. Thank you
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth I missed one part:
<br /><br />
<i>"God provides abundant evidence that He exists, but we can never "prove" that God exists."</i>
<br /><br />
False. Condemned as heretical by the Vatican Council in 1869 or 1870.
<br /><br />
We can, with the light of natural human reason, prove that God exists.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />Romans 1 20-21
<br />For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>It was in 1870.
<br /><br />
The same holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; 'for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,'271 but that it pleased his wisdom and bounty to reveal himself, and the eternal decrees of his will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, 'God, having spoken on divers occasions, and many ways, in times past, to the Fathers by the Prophets; last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by his Son.'
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html">Constitution Dei Filius.
<br />https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html</a>
<br /><br />
David K. Muncie As you can see, Catholics are not prone to deny this.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl I was raised catholic and I went to a catholic school, I was totally unaware of salvation by grace, it is a works belief. So many good people in the Catholic Church that need to hear the truth.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>We believe grace is not an account clearance, but the infused life of God.
<br /><br />
We believe Ephesians 2:8,9 is NOT a passage, but Ephesians 2:8—10 IS a passage.
<br /><br />
Here is from a response to a video, on that topic:
<br /><br />
// 2:50 What Catholics actually believe can be studied in Ephesians 2:8-10, which, contrary to Ephesians 2:8,9, is a meaningful Bible passage.
<br /><br />
Becoming justified from the state of mortal or original sin = Faith.
<br />Remaining justified when one already is justified = Works (which include, but is not limited to, Faith).
<br /><br />
Justification and sanctification are not separate.
<br /><br />
When one is justified, from previous sin, one is sanctified. When one stays justified, one proceeds in sanctification or at least stands still on a level of it. //
<br /><br />
<a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/03/catholicism-and-protestantism.html"><i>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Catholicism and Protestantism : Ecclesiology and Justification (1/3 of Video)</i>
<br />https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/03/catholicism-and-protestantism.html</a></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-52791697289804834722024-02-19T10:11:00.000-08:002024-02-21T07:53:09.192-08:00Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ?<br />
<b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/table-i-to-ii-perhaps-doubled-beginning.html">Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ?</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/convergence-of-uneven-pmc.html">Convergence of Uneven pmC?</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin
<dd>Principal contributeur
<dt>Quadragesima L.D. 18.II.2024
<dd>C14 is only found in organic remains or in the atmosphere.
<br /><br />
How about NO.
<br /><br />
C14 has been measured in volcanic gases.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/2817/2582">DETERMINATION OF 14C IN VOLCANIC GAS BY ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY
<br /><i>Hideki Yoshikawa1,2 • Hiromichi Nakahara3 • Mineo Imamura4 • Kouichi Kobayashi5,6 • Takashi Nakanishi1</i>
<br />https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/2817/2582</a>
<br /><br />
ABSTRACT. Radioactive nuclides such as radiocarbon can be good tracers for investigating the circulation of underground carbon and water. Volcanic gas can be sampled reliably for 14C analysis and prepared for analysis by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). In this paper, we establish a method for the measurement of 14C in volcanic gas, and measure the amounts of 14C in various volcanic gases. Samples of fumarolic gas from some Japanese volcanoes were found to contain 0.5 to 4.2 pMC, while those from White Island in New Zealand contained 2.6 pMC. Dissolved gas from Lake Nyos, Cameroon, contained 0.4 to 4.8 pMC. The data indicate a mixing process between surface carbon and deep carbon.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>From this quote:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Samples of fumarolic gas from some Japanese volcanoes were found to contain 0.5 to 4.2 pMC, while those from White Island in New Zealand contained 2.6 pMC. Dissolved gas from Lake Nyos, Cameroon, contained 0.4 to 4.8 pMC. The data indicate a mixing process between surface carbon and deep carbon. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
1) It's first immediate application is : it is obviously that we have a new known case of the reservoir effect. We already knew of marine reservoir effect, carbonate reservoir effect, now there is also volcanic reservoir effect.
<br />2) Next we have the question whence the pmC content comes.
<br />a) it could be produced by radioactive processes in the volcano, so, anything that has an unexpectedly high pmC content could have the extra from neutron contamination by the volcano, or by admixture contamination from the air;
<br />b) or it could be that all of this is variation reflects the variation of the original pmC content at the time of the Flood. I'll check the implication for that in a moment.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>My analysis:
<br /><br />
4980 years since the Flood
<br />0.5^(498/573) = 0.5474845100674124
<br /><br />
0.4 pmC = x1 * 0.5474845100674124
<br />4.8 pmC = x2 * 0.5474845100674124
<br /><br />
x1 = 0.4/0.5474845100674124 = 0.7306142779286075839 pmC
<br />x2 = 4.8/0.5474845100674124 = 8.7673713351432910067 pmC
<br /><br />
Carbon date range for the Flood:
<br /><br />
x1 => 40 700 extra years + 4980 = 45680 BP
<br />x2 => 20 100 extra years + 4980 = 25080 BP
<br /><br />
So, if we take this as coming from the Flood, we get:
<br />a) pmC varied between at least 0.73 pmC and 8.767 pmC
<br />b) carbon dates from exactly the Flood would vary between at least 25 080 BP and 45 680 BP
<br />c) which is consistent with my attempt at unifying it at 39 000 BP, which would instead then be one of the possible dates (that of Campi Flegrei)
<br />d) which is also pretty consistent with the CMI ballpark 20 000 BP to 50 000 BP.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Author
<dt>Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl I don’t quite follow you but that’s ok.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Resumé:
<br /><br />
IF the Flood was 5000 years ago, IF the levels mentioned are levels at the time of the Flood and then decaying, THEN the levels at the time of the Flood are compatible with:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> both the CMI ballpark of Flood 20 000 to 50 000 years ago
<li> and my own Flood date at 39 000 years ago, except it was less uniquely true for all Flood fossils.</ul></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-75687082483642677952024-02-10T11:04:00.000-08:002024-03-17T09:04:22.899-07:00Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-is-carbon-dating-more-important.html">Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon?</a> · <b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-science-cannot-prove-earth-is.html">Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/02/ken-wolgemuth-understood-argument.html">Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/if-ken-wolgemuth-avoids-answering-me.html">If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/03/he-did-some-answering-though-to-others.html">He did some answering, though, to others ...</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>James Young
<dd>Admin
<dt><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=391563246701496">20 January 05:26 AM</a>
<dd>No matter how many words the OEC world throws at this, it will remain an embarrassment for them.
<br /><br />
These test that were done have successfully debunked the claim that radiometer dated is accurate .
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://scontent.fcdg1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417545067_391563240034830_8515223518012844205_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_eui2=AeHWInba5ilW-YidW9QLZW2c2ydyYw14PK7bJ3JjDXg8rtnBaodXlzfhCbZne3OId-s&_nc_ohc=tuLIzqRr4LcAX8Fjhls&_nc_ht=scontent.fcdg1-1.fna&oh=00_AfC2NuoQZhOwbyMXHjJ5o6zX1wJuzmakVfR6y0_qxI7yaw&oe=65CD444F" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="755" data-original-width="720" src="https://scontent.fcdg1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417545067_391563240034830_8515223518012844205_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_eui2=AeHWInba5ilW-YidW9QLZW2c2ydyYw14PK7bJ3JjDXg8rtnBaodXlzfhCbZne3OId-s&_nc_ohc=tuLIzqRr4LcAX8Fjhls&_nc_ht=scontent.fcdg1-1.fna&oh=00_AfC2NuoQZhOwbyMXHjJ5o6zX1wJuzmakVfR6y0_qxI7yaw&oe=65CD444F"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>James Young,
<br />You seem to think that these types of results discredit all radiometric dating. These methods of age dating igneous rocks have been around for 70 years, with increasing accuracy in successive decades. For several decades, young earth creationists have compiled tables of results that are false, because the criteria necessary to obtain credible ages are violated. Since you lack an education in geology and geochemistry, you don't know the method has not been applied properly. IMO, you want to hear of false results, because you've already joined the religious/science sect of YECism. As a geochemist, I see through the smoke and mirrors in a few minutes.
<br /><br />
The sad issue is that unbelieving scientists observe this dishonesty, and Christianity is discredited. In this case, the YECs are a stumbling block, not because of Jesus, but because of your brazen abuse of his profession.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth "These methods of age dating igneous rocks" .... seem to be sensitive to cold water.
<br /><br />
Like a volcano on Hawaii, part of which went down into the water, nearby "1 million years old" and further out (in deeper and colder water) "2 million years old".
<br /><br />
According to the Bible, a specific year in the life of Noah was very wet.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Principal contributeur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, Those are evidence that for this lava that chilled so quickly and it retained non-radiogenic Ar-40. The timer had never been set to zero, so no radiometric dating age is possible. Reporting one as an age is fake science.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The point is, this happened during the Deluge too.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The guys who did the dates were not claiming the lava was 2 million years old out in the sea.
<br /><br />
They gave the date it would have in order to show this sometimes happens.
<br /><br />
That's not fake science even if it's non-standard procedure.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-62632419757202591242024-02-09T04:36:00.000-08:002024-02-09T04:36:39.708-08:00C S L meme actually correct quotation<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConfirmLewisQuotes/posts/2554446321293192/">Confirming C.S. Lewis Quotations
<br /><i>"I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that."</i>
<br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConfirmLewisQuotes/posts/2554446321293192/</a>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7ALywJAWSWXYkvge5u0V_RyvJP6f0Y2ROMwfa0D73X4pRlanax-ripzApm7je5mT70WnQoOSJgFS_YZkvRDyeNnEzD2BqleulDQHTyqbx7-zqOZF4ciGVaPPQWDkWVc7v9WlwkIIbBiA2yMVEt9MhvCWtUj5mo9h1qWkvi0BIB-L71RxI1ts75CfHog/s1600/csl.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="778" data-original-width="678" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7ALywJAWSWXYkvge5u0V_RyvJP6f0Y2ROMwfa0D73X4pRlanax-ripzApm7je5mT70WnQoOSJgFS_YZkvRDyeNnEzD2BqleulDQHTyqbx7-zqOZF4ciGVaPPQWDkWVc7v9WlwkIIbBiA2yMVEt9MhvCWtUj5mo9h1qWkvi0BIB-L71RxI1ts75CfHog/s1600/csl.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Marla Swoffer
<dd>I wish the picture wasn't of him smoking - kinda detracts from the sentiment ☺️
<br /><br />
<dt>Ron Cuellar
<dd>The smoking likely undermined his health. Some of us have one or more habits that undermine our own health.
<br /><br />
Mine often is eating too many Kettle Chips after work.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marla Swoffer
<dd>I only mentioned it because it was coupled with that particular quote.
<br /><br />
My health foible is not exercising.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Considering he died of kidney failure, I suppose three beers in penitential seasons and more outside them <i>and</i> some overlove of English cuisine <i>and</i> of great pots of tea had more to do with it than pipes or - as here - cigarettes.
<br /><br />
<dt>Marla Swoffer
<dd>...or it could have been the bottle of port he refers to in the quote, lol. My concern wasn't the health part, but of seeking the happiness he refers to through what can lead to a dependence on substances rather than relying on the Lord to give the joy that transcends fleeting pleasures. That's why I said the pic kind of undermines the quote.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I don't think he shared the concern about "dependances", even if he had a binge drinking brother.
<br /><br />
His point was anyway, Christianity is supposed to lead you to eternal happiness, it is not the best recipe for temporal one.</dl>
<br /><br />
Context provided by the group owner:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>William O'Flaherty
<dd>Admin
<dt>Principal contributor
<dd>Yes, it IS Lewis; from the article ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON CHRISTIANITY. It is found in God in the Dock essay collection.
<br /><br />
Here is the complete Q&A:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Question 11.
<br /><br />
Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness?
<br /><br />
Lewis: Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshipping oneself is the best.
<br /><br />
I have an elderly acquaintance of about eighty, who has lived a life of unbroken selfishness and self-admiration from the earliest years, and is, more or less, I regret to say, one of the happiest men I know. From the moral point of view it is very difficult! I am not approaching the question from that angle. As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity. I am certain there must be a patent American article on the market which will suit you far better, but I can't give any advice on it.</blockquote></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-28599908803827101262024-01-17T02:14:00.000-08:002024-01-17T02:16:12.434-08:00Ah, He's Back!<br />
<a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-had-hoped-to-show-dialogue-i-had-on.html">I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/01/ah-hes-back.html">Ah, He's Back!</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Zachary Miller
<dt>3 d a
<dd>Here's an interesting one that people are disagreeing about: if you're in McDonald's drive thru and pay for the next persons food at the first window, then, upon presenting both receipts, proceed to take both meals at the second window, and you do this maliciously because the next person beeped at you or something, I say you have committed theft. When you tendered payment for the meal as a gift, the next person owned the meal, and you took it.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>For my part, I'd also consider it theft, unless you were a diabetic and had a very urgent blood sugar drop, and needed more than you had paid for for yourself.
<br /><br />
But on a somewhat different ground.
<br /><br />
What one steals in that way is not money, not even so much money's value in strictly economic terms, as the goods paid for. What one steals is time and confidence.
<br /><br />
One robs the other of a carefree occasion to eat a nice meal. He's behind you, he has already left his place in the queue to someones behind him, and if he wants a meal the same place and him paying for it as originally planned, you have robbed him of the time he had originally, and made sure he's angrier and hungrier when he arrives in the queue, or he could have been forced to continue without the meal and buy sth more sugar and less consistent somewhere where it's faster.
<br /><br />
If it's done once, simply because one regrets the generosity, that's probably still venial, though depends on the size of the meal. In stealing, a day's wage is the limit between venial and mortal, I've been told, and just one meal is usually not the full usage of a days' wage, but it's a pretty substantial part of it.
<br /><br />
If people make sure to do so and similar things more often, it's systematically robbing someone of peace, it is manstealing, such people deserve the death penalty according to Exodus 21:16.</dl>
<br /><br />
Please arrange for his compositions to be played, someone!
<br /><br />
If you like to do the same for me, I'd appreciate./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-6840960804020807422024-01-16T11:54:00.000-08:002024-01-17T02:16:31.695-08:00I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day<br />
<a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-had-hoped-to-show-dialogue-i-had-on.html">I Had Hoped to Show a Dialogue I Had on Morals the Other Day</a> · <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/01/ah-hes-back.html">Ah, He's Back!</a>
<br /><br />
The wall under which it happened was ... a guy who is right now not active on FB.
<br /><br />
Hence, I have no possibility to go to his wall and copy his status and my comment.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimox5Q0Gs0yW897_5YY4zeNaOcf_lfBp2vJo0wZfqAEiyaxA13DQvHIhmn02Y4djD22Mia9SKJXIaiVOJKuBDTDyyvvrP-CMVV-zjtUCvCEcyTLCMdz373d9uB9W5vYzKAKUwRgX7KsSX3ow45QsKhL4-O2Xx806Xzqv3ReKMVcsRrkwbUCYCy1NyKpyo/s553/notunfriending.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="553" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimox5Q0Gs0yW897_5YY4zeNaOcf_lfBp2vJo0wZfqAEiyaxA13DQvHIhmn02Y4djD22Mia9SKJXIaiVOJKuBDTDyyvvrP-CMVV-zjtUCvCEcyTLCMdz373d9uB9W5vYzKAKUwRgX7KsSX3ow45QsKhL4-O2Xx806Xzqv3ReKMVcsRrkwbUCYCy1NyKpyo/s320/notunfriending.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
I anonymised the friend, but ...
<ul><li> if he himself on his own initiative disactivated his account, he's kind of the kind of jerk the dialogue was about
<li> if he didn't, two other possibilities are possible, and someone else is a horrible jerk:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> his father confessor is, if he was obeying him
<li> some censor on FB is, if he "needed help to" disactivate his account.</ul></ul>
<br /><br />
Right now, I'm getting a meal somewhere, and I'm not relying on the car in front of mine (non-extant object) to pay my meal .../HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-91112355434346446952024-01-15T18:27:00.000-08:002024-01-15T18:27:26.628-08:00Really From FB? Or Someone Trying to Hack Me?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUxCCCr-WpEZTdftngaFC62fL7vMZSqqsSMdUMuXcn2bCLrsgCXpO3c1x91zvQ2n6d1PYsVgxYAKccc-M1S6RLRq8K-yJtS6NKLwtszdgs4KmBP0zV50PQ_MUPPyJKWGibOkVZzyoNCvERLeXQeuRMqrv5cixcM9x6w6Hx_c6xoemaPaQUOSrCoE7xc0/s781/hack.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="578" data-original-width="781" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUxCCCr-WpEZTdftngaFC62fL7vMZSqqsSMdUMuXcn2bCLrsgCXpO3c1x91zvQ2n6d1PYsVgxYAKccc-M1S6RLRq8K-yJtS6NKLwtszdgs4KmBP0zV50PQ_MUPPyJKWGibOkVZzyoNCvERLeXQeuRMqrv5cixcM9x6w6Hx_c6xoemaPaQUOSrCoE7xc0/s320/hack.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
I don't know for sure, but look at this earlier one:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_beKDnjj6-bM0PORQTn550ieIufDfaSdAVmXzrFnFsYp1Pbh8OXCCQeX191UU77s5OUaC9VV-tK_4vFFiRZFM2-hp8OZN5nSYxBQqcHfVo0nZE7izaRBlXvtI1sGSAYtA3-RfHbbzrWyff9kb767T_5LC9RlfqQZS1X1s4yJtMmqsNw__RtQJEXrICs/s613/earlier.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="613" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_beKDnjj6-bM0PORQTn550ieIufDfaSdAVmXzrFnFsYp1Pbh8OXCCQeX191UU77s5OUaC9VV-tK_4vFFiRZFM2-hp8OZN5nSYxBQqcHfVo0nZE7izaRBlXvtI1sGSAYtA3-RfHbbzrWyff9kb767T_5LC9RlfqQZS1X1s4yJtMmqsNw__RtQJEXrICs/s320/earlier.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
If the earlier one is also an attempt to hack, it speaks the same story : someone doesn't like what I say. If it's not, but really from FB, it means someone else doesn't like what I say./HGL
<br /><br />
PS, here is my page, btw:
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063737091020">Hans Lundahl
<br />https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063737091020</a>
<br /><br />
Here is a picture on it:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB0zCOhUrjkxlidn_2mttewOg8VxN393vGgOhj8foEZw-nSZJm-6sUdhAS20et69NcEkuAfhbfqpn1g5l2vqPWKkglqCg3GjKLkf4P6lr9pLqA7kmlu5p0tWMo4f7yX7yhtUaES3zxHoFGzeVeLxYbqdtTDR_oPgY5Ti50UFP6TNXYQ5V72rCWfYaUKVY/s870/geo-helio.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="649" data-original-width="870" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB0zCOhUrjkxlidn_2mttewOg8VxN393vGgOhj8foEZw-nSZJm-6sUdhAS20et69NcEkuAfhbfqpn1g5l2vqPWKkglqCg3GjKLkf4P6lr9pLqA7kmlu5p0tWMo4f7yX7yhtUaES3zxHoFGzeVeLxYbqdtTDR_oPgY5Ti50UFP6TNXYQ5V72rCWfYaUKVY/s320/geo-helio.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
Is someone hateful of the suggestion that the geocentric and heliocentric systems cannot be totally distinguished by ocular evidence (though the most direct reading of it is geocentric)? Or that the universe could be small and the Distant Starlight Problem some allege against Recent Creationism is totally moot? Perhaps./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-82988388233910535612024-01-14T13:33:00.000-08:002024-01-14T13:33:00.150-08:00Young Earth? Old Earth? Which if Either is Unworthy of God?<br />
<b>Two Debates, first one:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Allen J Dunckley
<dt>6 Oct 2023
<dd>The God of the OECs and TEs is "Another Jesus"
<br /><br />
His is another Jesus whom the Apostles did not preach, 2 Cor 11:4.
<br /><br />
As a theologian who follows the Bible, I believe that the Jesus presented by Old Earth Creationists (OECs) and Theistic Evolutionists (TEs) is “Another Jesus” as revealed in 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians as "another Gospel." This means that their concept of Jesus is different from the traditional one. According to them, THEIR Creator Jesus did not CREATE SUPERNATUALLY ; instead, He created the world through a NON-MIRACULOUS natural evolutionary process that involved death, suffering, and bloodshed and was anything but “Very Good.”
<br /><br />
Furthermore, they believe that the flood described in the Bible brought by the pre-incarnate Jesus was only a non-registered, regional event and did not affect the whole world; hence, it was meaningless. Their version of Jesus aligns with modern scientific theories but does not match the Creator-God revealed to us in Scripture.
<br /><br />
If this Jesus is not the Supernatural Creator as Scripture Reveals Him to Be, then he cannot be their Supernatural Savior to save them from their sins.
<br /><br />
<dt>Allen J Dunckley
<dt>Auteur
<dd>To those that what I said not being clear, I clarified the "miracles" of the OEC version of Christ during creation in the above OP. There is nothing miraculous about Naturaliistic slow evolution over millions of years. That was the whole point the Deists, that is, the proto-atheists intended -- to have no miracles or SUPERNATURAL involved in Nature and its processes.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Allen Dunckley,
<br /><i>//Their Creator Jesus did not perform supernatural acts//.</i> This statement is simply false. I am an old earth creationist and I believe that Jesus Christ is the supernatural Creator of everything in the universe, and He created matter "ex nihilo", out of nothing. This is reported in the Bible in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Colossians 1:16:17. Furthermore, 'In Him all things hold together." So He sustains the universe continuously. I believe that God supernaturally destroyed all wicked mankind and associated animals by Noah's Flood as described in Genesis 6-8. What that looked like, I do not know. I believe that God supernaturally caused the walls of Jericho to fall down once the Israelites marched around the city as God had directed. It is possible that God used an earthquake to accomplish this, but maybe not.
<br /><br />
The reason I am persuaded that young-earth creationism is false is because of the evidence we see in creation itself that requires a long time to form. This accumulation of fossils in the sedimentary record I believe is real, because it is a repeatable science of observation today. Your children can go see this record for themselves and revise it with new discoveries. The gazillions of animals in the Paleozoic sediments, plus the completely different dinosaur animals during the Mesozoic could not have grown up in the few thousand years from Creation to Noah, to be buried in the one year of Noah's Flood as claimed by YECs. Then all the gazillions of mammal fossils to have lived in the last 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. This could not have happened with the present laws of physics, and principles of chemistry and biology during the young earth time frame. Period.
<br /><br />
Could God have supernaturally done this as you, Charlie, and millions of YECs believe? Of course.
<br /><br />
Let me state what your belief seems to mean. Sometime between 10,000 years ago and say 3,000 years ago, God miraculously created those gazillions of Paleozoic fossils, plus the gazillions of dinosaurs and Mesozoic fossils, and the gazillions of Cenozoic fossils of animals that never lived, and organized those gazillions of different species into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods to fool us into thinking these animals lived and died in their respective habitats. In my opinion, this makes your god to be more like a cosmic prankster than God the Creator who is the God of all truth.
<br /><br />
It sure seems to me that this makes the God of YECs into "Another god". How in the world can you explain the fossil record? The flood geologists' story just does not hang together, because all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic animals could even be alive physically on the earth's surface for burial in one year by Noah's Flood. I can't even imagine it. How many feet high would they be stacked on top of each other?
<br /><br />
I want to share one bullet point from Frank Turek in his lectures about creation. "There is no conflict between the Bible and the natural world. There may be conflict between some interpretations of the Bible and the natural world." I see YECism right here, at war with the natural world, due to their interpretation of the Bible.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6dHw6XexoJOsqRtYu5-TU8GX0y24dLbJ8llDXWwZcmC404dt3PrZ7rdOolM9dfehmenBWGMBFcR6SM-x8WjbMnyv2W7r8tQQnlEpC8gXY_4AKpkCKZiJoFQhuzOF66DtjLcKTxpfh2PrK1lAixgAsAZn65-gDobzNYYxD4pd9A-WleZOhzZxQwp46Bso/s1361/age-of.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="1361" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6dHw6XexoJOsqRtYu5-TU8GX0y24dLbJ8llDXWwZcmC404dt3PrZ7rdOolM9dfehmenBWGMBFcR6SM-x8WjbMnyv2W7r8tQQnlEpC8gXY_4AKpkCKZiJoFQhuzOF66DtjLcKTxpfh2PrK1lAixgAsAZn65-gDobzNYYxD4pd9A-WleZOhzZxQwp46Bso/s320/age-of.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth <i>"Let me state what your belief seems to mean. Sometime between 10,000 years ago and say 3,000 years ago, God miraculously created those gazillions of Paleozoic fossils, plus the gazillions of dinosaurs and Mesozoic fossils, and the gazillions of Cenozoic fossils of animals that never lived, and organized those gazillions of different species into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods to fool us into thinking these animals lived and died in their respective habitats. In my opinion, this makes your god to be more like a cosmic prankster than God the Creator who is the God of all truth."</i>
<br /><br />
I can be more precise about the date.
<br /><br />
2958 BC. God created LOTS of fossils by sending a Flood.
<br /><br />
But where do you get "of animals that never lived" from?
<br /><br />
Most of them were very well and alive 2959 BC (some were not made yet, and some were sick before they fossilised).
<br /><br />
<i>"into the orderly pattern of the 12 geological time periods"</i>
<br /><br />
Can you show me exactly one place on earth where:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> several different (at least three) of these "time periods" appear together?
<li> in the right order?
<li> in settings that were not aquatic when they lived?</ul>
<br /><br />
I add the last condition because it's fairly easy to have several levels of biota living above and below each other in water, less so on the flat surface called land.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, There are so many gazillions of fossils in the 12 Periods of Geologic Time that they could not be alive on the land at the same time, piled on top of each others. Not even time to grow.
<br /><br />
The Williston Basin in North Dakota has all 12 Geologic Periods in order. I will let you look it up yourself.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I did. Megamyonia is a brachiopod, and Kirkella is a trilobite.
<br /><br />
Did you miss that I spoke of LAND fossils?
<br /><br />
Williston Basin is Aquatic.
<br /><br />
At least for the Ordovician, which is the most typical result, I also caught a glipse of palaeocene plants.
<br /><br />
If you think there are different faunas of land fossils piled on top of each other, I suggest you help me look THAT up.
<br /><br />
My source for the two fossils, by the way:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://omnia.college-de-france.fr/discovery/fulldisplay/alma997046759207166/33CDF_INST:33CDF_INST"><i>Ordovician fossils from wells in the Williston Basin, Eastern Montana</i>
<br />Ross, Reuben James, 1918- author.; Geological Survey (U.S.), issuing body.
<br /><i>1957, Disponible en Ligne</i>
<br />https://omnia.college-de-france.fr/discovery/fulldisplay/alma997046759207166/33CDF_INST:33CDF_INST</a></dl>
<br /><br />
<b>Then the other:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Allen J Dunckley
<dt>6.I.2024
<dd>The Truth is...
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://scontent-cdg4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417882376_10224800770634512_5125154871875695091_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_ohc=W0X470LPgwIAX8CbauS&_nc_ht=scontent-cdg4-2.xx&oh=00_AfBkIk2zxf1ISR02nSz7JyyOxutLqnsCwqQFgGA6UqstGA&oe=65A3657F" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="488" data-original-width="800" src="https://scontent-cdg4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417882376_10224800770634512_5125154871875695091_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_ohc=W0X470LPgwIAX8CbauS&_nc_ht=scontent-cdg4-2.xx&oh=00_AfBkIk2zxf1ISR02nSz7JyyOxutLqnsCwqQFgGA6UqstGA&oe=65A3657F"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Charlie Wolcott*
<dd>The modern "Young Earth Creation" "movement" is the same as the Reformation. It is a RETURN to what <i>has</i> always been taught. It is a codification of what has always been taught. And it is a rise to confront a false teaching that has infiltrated the church for the last 200 years, a teaching that was intentionally set up to destroy faith in the record of Scripture but not let the Christians realize that is what it was doing. The deception worked and because the church slept on that point, it has taken a lot of work to undo the damage being done.
<br /><br />
<dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl*
<dd>Charlie Wolcott "is the same as the Reformation. It is a RETURN to what <i>has</i> always been taught."
<br /><br />
Not really.
<br /><br />
The modern YEC movement is a revitalisation of what has still always been taught and never ceased to be taught.
<br /><br />
A "return" to "what always <i>HAD</i> been taught" is contrary to Matthew 28:20.
<br /><br />
<dt>Charlie Wolcott
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not say "had". I said "has". It has never changed nor will change. Modern "science" will never be right because it is always changing.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Well, my bad, but then its not a return, and the comparison with the Reformation is fortunately moot.
<br /><br />
<dt>* (note)
<dd>Unless someone hacked, I misread what Charlie Woolcott wrote.
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Charlie Wolcott,
<br />Your idea of comparing this modern YEC movement to the Reformation sounds very confusing, because the categories are quite different. As I understand it, the Reformation was about core theology and the indulgences. The modern YEC movement is not about core theology but mostly tertiary issues of the age of the earth and the mechanism of biological evolution, neither of which affects salvation. The modern YEC from 1961 is significantly an anti-science movement of rejection of understanding God's truths revealed in creation, in light of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities---his eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." I know the passage is primarily focused at those who reject God completely, although God's character is still revealed to us as God's children.
<br /><br />
<dt>II a
<br /><br />
<dt>Charlie Wolcott
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth If you knew Romans 1 is about those who completely reject God, you would know better than to listen and side with those whom it is talking about. You would know better than to sit at the feet of those who mock and deny him and call their models science. You would know better than to teach the same thing those people do. You don't have to embrace YEC. But by teaching OEC and millions of years...you JOIN those whom Romans 1 is talking about. Those who deny God and worship the creation, putting it as the authority over all matters...as you have done...instead of letting the Creator actually be the Creator and TELLING YOU how he did things.
<br /><br />
Your understanding of theology is not exactly sound. Those in the days of the Reformation thought that it wasn't a salvic issue either. Neither did those who defended Arius in the 3nd century. They argued just as you did. I know YOU think it is not a salvic issue. But the last 200 years of seeing every church and institution that teaches OEC die and go full liberal should be enough compelling evidence that a born-again believer will want nothing to do with it.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Charlie Wolcott , is that so?
<br /><br />
<i>"Those in the days of the Reformation thought that it wasn't a salvific issue either."</i>
<br /><br />
I think the Council Fathers at Trent very much agreed the issue was highly important for Salvation of the individual soul.
<br /><br />
<dt>Allen J Dunckley
<dt>Author
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Charlie and I have shown Ken Wolgemuth the disaterous effect "enlightenment" thinking has had on the Gospel of Christ and the Character and Nature of God. Key theology, not secondary nor tirtiary! He hand waves this truth away in the name of His golden calf called NATURALISTIC Science.
<br /><br />
He is correct on one point: Romans 1:19-20 does say Creation points to the Nature and Character of God -- ONE WHOSE NATURE AND CHARACTER IS SUPERNATURAL and WHO created SUPERNATUALLY in a miraculous 6 normal earht days.
<br /><br />
THIS CREATOR GOD is the opposite of the OEC versoion of the creator.
<br /><br />
And he actually thinks the "speed of light" measures "time." LOL
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I actually also thing distance X speed of light measures time since light emitted.
<br /><br />
I also think the stars were one light day up on creation day 4, visible to fish and birds on day 5, either still that distance, or at most 3 and a half light years up, if, for instance the Antichrist defies Christ on the beginning of the final tribulation, and Christ immediately steps off his throne and goes down, at light speed, arriving at the end of the tribulation.
<br /><br />
As I am a Geocentric, I have no qualms about dismissing the pretence that "parallax measures distance" ...
<br /><br />
Also, the sole possible mechanism for Sun going around Earth each day is God moving the Heavens around Earth. Theoretically, angelic beings or supermen could be moving each body through complete void, but this option goes out of the window with Coriolis. And even when it was an option, it implied the diverse beings doing so obeyed a common plan.
<br /><br />
<dt>II b
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth If the world is billions of years, you are very hard set to find a first man within the last 7000 of them.
<br /><br />
If Adam was not the first man, original sin makes no sense.
<br /><br />
If Adam had biological ancestors who were not fully human, God was a monster to him before he sinned.
<br /><br />
If Adam lived 40 000 or 750 000 years ago, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history, and it has never traditionally been claimed as prophecy.
<br /><br />
YE / OE once WAS tertiary, before radiometric dates involved it with Christian anthropology. It no longer is so.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, Just because the earth is 4.6 billion years old has no implications about when Adam was created, whether 6,000 or 30,000 years ago or earlier.
<br /><br />
If you want to continue an exchange, send me a message to [omitted for his privacy]
<br /><br />
This group has become so toxic and Pharisaical that I will not try to continue a friendly exchange here.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth Our exchange is what it is, irrespective of the group as such.
<br /><br />
<i>"has no implications about when Adam was created, whether 6,000 or 30,000 years ago or earlier."</i>
<br /><br />
Yes, it has.
<br /><br />
It has via the carbon date of a Neanderthal woman called La Ferrassie.
<br /><br />
If Earth was created 7000 years ago, or little more, the carbon 14 content would have been still very low, like before the Flood.
<br /><br />
If Earth was created millions of years ago, the carbon 14 content would already have been like at present.
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Jeff Reichman
<dd>Than I have to assume you accept in his work "Confessions" and "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (also known as "De Genesi ad litteram"). Augustine was not a strict literalist when it came to interpreting the biblical account of creation.
<br /><br />
In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," Augustine argued that the six days of creation need not be understood as a literal, 24-hour day period. Instead, he proposed a more symbolic interpretation, suggesting that God created the world with a simultaneous ordering of potentialities rather than in a temporal sequence. Augustine believed that God's creation could be understood as a simultaneous act, and the six days were seen as a literary device to help humans comprehend the divine order.
<br /><br />
Augustine also emphasized the importance of interpreting biblical passages in a way that aligns with reason and does not contradict established knowledge. He cautioned against a rigid literal interpretation that might conflict with the empirical evidence available in his time.
<br /><br />
Of course it's important to note that Augustine's views were shaped by the scientific and philosophical understanding of his era, and his interpretations have been influential in shaping the approach of many Christian thinkers to the interpretation of Genesis.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Jeff Reichman It is highly worth noting that Genesis is more than just the creation account, that the timespan of that was if anything shortened in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII (specifically books 5 and 6), but that that shortening was optional. Yes, I checked a few years ago.
<br /><br />
It is if anything even more worth noting that this was why I set strict Biblical chronology to the side soon after converting, and returned to it on reading what St. Augustine wrote about what happened AFTER creation - City of God, which I suggest you check, and on any point after the six days account, like Genesis 5 and 11, you'll find he supports a literalistic understanding. Specifically he makes a Q and A session about them and about the Flood in books 12 to 16 of the work.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-5712506114498409742024-01-06T16:59:00.000-08:002024-01-06T16:59:00.131-08:00My New Tables And Their Theoretical Background, Discussed with Matthew Hunt and Ken Wolgemuth<br />
<b>I could not link to my New Tables post on FB, I know it is regularly censored as anything else on creavsevolu, but here is the link for you guys:</b>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html</a>
<br /><br />
<b>It's from 13.VIII.2020, incorporates work I did <i>on paper</i> during the lockdown, which blocked my internet access. Hence the I—II table, Flood to beginning of Babel, which should have began on 40 000 BP, began on 41 000 BP, and the correct carbon date for 2958 BC is just 39 000 BP.</b>
<br /><br />
<b>Anyway, here is the first debate:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Matthew Hunt
<dd><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/1047308916565786/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/1047308916565786/</a>
<dt>4 Jan 2024
<dd>Thanks to the geologists here, I have gained an understanding of radiocarbon dating as being different from the use of other radioisotopes for radiometric dating. You may have issues with the calibration curves, and my (brief) examination into this topic makes it appear very complicated. This however doesn't invalidate the dates that the simple method that I presented in the files section invalid.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I am sorry, but your last sentence seems somewhat of an anacoluthon. I e began from different view points.
<br /><br />
I suppose you mean (correct me if I am wrong), this:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>This however doesn't invalidate the dates <i>nor prove</i> that the simple method that I presented in the files section <i>is</i> invalid.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
That said, I would consider radiocarbon as the one radiometric method that's valid, only, when it comes to dates before the Fall of Troy, the direct dates need to be reduced if there was a carbon build up.
<br /><br />
Let a sample today have 15.603 pmC. This means it's carbon dated to "13 333 BC". 15350 YA, +/- 10 - 2024 = 13326 BC +/- 10.
<br /><br />
If the original carbon 14 content was 100 pmC, then 15.603 pmC means that.
<br /><br />
However, if the sample was from 2733 BC, and the original carbon 14 content in it was back then 27.679 pmC, that also perfectly accounts for the "13 333 BC" date.
<br /><br />
In such a case, I take 27.679 pmC, see that it means 10600 years, meaning that was the sample's instant age, and then add that to the real BC, making 10600 + 2733 = 13333 BC.
<br /><br />
I obtain the 27.679 pmC by "plotting a curve" (except I'm sore at graphs) from 1.4 pmC, now corrected to 1.625 pmC at the Flood to 42.8224 pmC when Babel begins. Dates are
<br /><br />
2958 BC read as 39000 BP
<br />2607 BC read as 9600 BC
<br /><br />
THOSE carbon dates I have from Campi Flegrei tephra and from lowest charcoal layer found in Göbekli Tepe.
<br /><br />
From the real and carbondated dates, I obtain the extra years, and from there the carbon 14 levels.
<br /><br />
Basically same thing that is done in calibration curves, except instead of giving real carbon 14 levels and deducing carbon date as that influencing the view of the real date, as long as the variations are seen as very small, they do calibration as percentages of carbon dates instead.
<br /><br />
I see the variation as much bigger, a major rise between Flood and Fall of Troy (archaeology of Hissarlik having a layer that matches the historic date of the Fall of Troy). The production rate of C14 was at times c. 10~11 times faster than it is on average now.</dl>
<br /><br />
<b>Here is another one:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/984572859506059/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/984572859506059/</a>
<dt>7 Sept 2023
<dd>Fred Mcnabb, To wrap up the tree ring segment for radiocarbon dating, I will show examples of the calibration curve. This first one is from 1950 to 2k, meaning 2,000 years BP, before present. Notice there are about 1,500 C-14 measurements for this segment along of the calibration curve. The for 2k to 4k there are over 200 points. Then the 3rd, shows the Biblical Archaeology examples.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcf8USMoliKvZtSRcGFlHv1AwdfdeEw94E1oV2IImVAHOvyDiGI0mZERZG-dYypuxZduJYKgNbKwYFbt9gcPlJsV_vX3QyCIlLUI8enoFZs0V4e3zDnzIAKH3WrN_l3YFM5BLXISc-OtGrLxzA7gVb0NGci2U4NmuzfBaSwcq_-0VF5zDvR0lD1y02I5k/s1144/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000038.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="922" data-original-width="1144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcf8USMoliKvZtSRcGFlHv1AwdfdeEw94E1oV2IImVAHOvyDiGI0mZERZG-dYypuxZduJYKgNbKwYFbt9gcPlJsV_vX3QyCIlLUI8enoFZs0V4e3zDnzIAKH3WrN_l3YFM5BLXISc-OtGrLxzA7gVb0NGci2U4NmuzfBaSwcq_-0VF5zDvR0lD1y02I5k/s320/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000038.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWPQcLlNDp3Ne-_hntiC_CWsdS2PKeYnpW-i8mayinvZlQaZcbpUoF2URJI8Ckuf3bENAVW_zKcZNjb2-y0C5sdxxakVL_0TBhoqw-BV6aRGFXW-yZ1nV8wPy-jNtySeWskRvzqhnCZ_pneuOK2cMtUxUmFxKICbd8KNu878qo6RxwwDq8L5oDlisb-iA/s942/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000157.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="942" data-original-width="733" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWPQcLlNDp3Ne-_hntiC_CWsdS2PKeYnpW-i8mayinvZlQaZcbpUoF2URJI8Ckuf3bENAVW_zKcZNjb2-y0C5sdxxakVL_0TBhoqw-BV6aRGFXW-yZ1nV8wPy-jNtySeWskRvzqhnCZ_pneuOK2cMtUxUmFxKICbd8KNu878qo6RxwwDq8L5oDlisb-iA/s320/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000157.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiPfC1yITyMhFZuJFODh71otslMmbE_Ms9TWaAzW4R6aGvL_TYccYl4z5O4kpkYJCf5Q14m0B2S0nTzkiHw1i2Kj3bhVPEZ6fLMeFME7n1Irsm51ObvtZMd4G6bFsAZ8cu_Ama4ANFr_4axiHWFKwsWSTcBXfiELFDd9Nt91dv8pCIIaXPcUK0LLDfXis/s951/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000256.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="720" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiPfC1yITyMhFZuJFODh71otslMmbE_Ms9TWaAzW4R6aGvL_TYccYl4z5O4kpkYJCf5Q14m0B2S0nTzkiHw1i2Kj3bhVPEZ6fLMeFME7n1Irsm51ObvtZMd4G6bFsAZ8cu_Ama4ANFr_4axiHWFKwsWSTcBXfiELFDd9Nt91dv8pCIIaXPcUK0LLDfXis/s320/Annotation%202024-01-07%20000256.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Matthew Hunt
<dd>So how do the calibration curves work? It isn't the same as the radiometric dating using other radioisotopes is it?
<br /><br />
Are there other radioisotopes that can be used as an alternative to carbon?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The calibration curves work like this:
<br /><br />
1) know the date by some other means
<br /><br />
2) note the difference from the raw radiometric date
<br /><br />
3) apply the same difference all over the board.
<br /><br />
The ones presented by Ken Wohlgemuth use tree rings, mine own uses Biblical events reflected in archaeology for the independent knowledge of the date.</dl>
<br /><br />
<b>A third:</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dd><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/979901389973206/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/201189381177748/posts/979901389973206/</a>
<dt>28 Aug 2023
<dd>TO: Fred Mcnabb
<br />This post is in response to your request quoted below. To be sure that you can continue to receive the steps of radiocarbon dating, I suggest you send me an email message to have a backup way for me to send the steps to you: [left out, since my readers are a wider audience than the group members in that closed FB group
<br /><br />
"I would be very interested in diving into that topic.
<br />Could you break it down into numbered steps so if I don't understand a point I can specifically refer to the number for clarification?"
<br /><br />
Thank you for asking, and I am willing to step through the process slowly. Step 1 is to understand that Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays bombarding the earth, hitting nitrogen-14 atoms, and converting them to carbon-14. This combines with oxygen forming carbon dioxide which is taken up by trees and plants for photosynthesis. Animals eat the grass and C-14 gets into their bodies and bones.
<br /><br />
It is well-known that C-14 production in the atmosphere is variable due to the variability of cosmic ray flux. This variability is evident in the attached graph by the squiggly red line. This means that a calibration curve must be constructed to account for all of those variations. (I will comment about Hezekiah's tunnel later).
<br /><br />
Step #2 is the Cross-dating process which I showed on another Reply in this group. It matches the tree rings patterns of dead trees to living trees to extend a continuous sequence in years back in time. Did you see that, or do I need to repeat it?
<br /><br />
More Later,
<br />Ken
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv1IgCagOcqwbA2xPG-wsxwHjUtNSifqy0QtM4OGJgf0o7kNRnvGNYhUB33VyypmuGcEuak5t-4tz759UiE6D0B1me-9q_v-NEnyyrc9aQzNHmXKCxCknJfSvmnzVHM8jyN5fSso6zu_y1wrY_8IZIo6oIkeFH1FIHW6sPw2atT5LZteFWM1QSiRgHTt4/s1204/Annotation%202024-01-07%20001449.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="990" data-original-width="1204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv1IgCagOcqwbA2xPG-wsxwHjUtNSifqy0QtM4OGJgf0o7kNRnvGNYhUB33VyypmuGcEuak5t-4tz759UiE6D0B1me-9q_v-NEnyyrc9aQzNHmXKCxCknJfSvmnzVHM8jyN5fSso6zu_y1wrY_8IZIo6oIkeFH1FIHW6sPw2atT5LZteFWM1QSiRgHTt4/s320/Annotation%202024-01-07%20001449.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Auteur
<dd>TO: Fred Mcnabb,
<br /><br />
This graph shows the criteria that are addressed with the 4,000+ sample red line I posted previously, back to 14,000 years. The two solid blue lines are the expected window for the carbon-14 content will fall if the tree rings are formed 1 per year, if the half-life has remained constant at 5,730 years over the last 50,000 years, and if the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere has remained with the limits of the squiggly line I showed before. The yellow dotted line would indicate that many rings per year were formed by the trees. The red dotted line would indicate there was much less carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and/or the decay rate of carbon-14 was faster over the last 50,000 years. This means the half-life changed and was much shorter than 5,730 years.
<br /><br />
As you saw in the graph for step # 3, the 4,000+ data points fall with the solid blue lines, affirming that, on average, German Oaks trees grow and form 1 ring per year, and the half-life of carbon-14 has remained the same, and the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere has remained very similar, with the variations due to variation in cosmic rays bombarding the earth.
<br /><br />
The next step coming later, # 4, will add sedimentary varves which extend the calibration curve from 14,000 years back to 50,000 years.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnLhUnYyDGytUkRv6_L4xHAEygbfu4eJmqTQC00s-3ABnfeRLdOt16KmLVmpx_ZQUL8lVCmNDFWTHcEocOOAFTRiq8iR-h0yyUyKhlHrO7loyvc6frOIDrNcCE5XdiyFjfy_kP5rJitdWkDqLthS3zQdichcnDgKU3G8UhsCc8vAj3WKCs4fI8gdHEuE0/s1199/Annotation%202024-01-07%20001616.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="951" data-original-width="1199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnLhUnYyDGytUkRv6_L4xHAEygbfu4eJmqTQC00s-3ABnfeRLdOt16KmLVmpx_ZQUL8lVCmNDFWTHcEocOOAFTRiq8iR-h0yyUyKhlHrO7loyvc6frOIDrNcCE5XdiyFjfy_kP5rJitdWkDqLthS3zQdichcnDgKU3G8UhsCc8vAj3WKCs4fI8gdHEuE0/s320/Annotation%202024-01-07%20001616.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth In order to do the steps for radiocarbon from tree rings, you need to have a much more exhaustive tree ring record than you have from that far back.
<br /><br />
I think Biblical history is more reliable than tree rings, like it is more reliable than tea leaves.
<br /><br />
The historic (not exclusively Biblical) dates, and the reasonably associated archaeology match at the fall of Troy, and diverge by 1500 years or more at Genesis 14. I'll believe Genesis 14 over tree rings. At fall of Troy, tree rings and carbon match the pagan account anyway.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Auteur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl,
<br />The Fall of Troy is certainly within the time window for the calibration curve derived from Tree Ring counting, about 3,000 years ago. Be aware that there are error bars for radiocarbon ages in the range of ± 50 to ± 100 years, depending where on the calibration curve the sample is located.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth I was not denying that. But Troy fell 1180 BC, Asason-Tamar was evacuated in 1935 BC (with Abraham born in 2015).
<br /><br />
Now, carbon dates for Troy are 1180 BC. Carbon date for evacuation of Chalcolithic En-Geddi (a k a Asason Tamar), is 3500 BC.
<br /><br />
I think that is a very much more reliable calibration than tree rings.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Auteur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl,
<br />I know that archaeology has various ways of assigning ages to events, but I have not studied them. So I have no background for discussion.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth I know for a fact that the findings from Troy involved burned wood, and the findings from a cave at a stream near En-Geddi involves reed mats.
<br /><br />
In other words, I know that these two datings repose on carbon dating.
<br /><br />
A reed plant is hardly eligible for reservoir effect. It gets its carbon from the atmosphere.
<br /><br />
A clam living in water that's rich in calcium is eligible for the reservoir effect. So is a man eating such clams.
<br /><br />
And there is more to it.
<br /><br />
Men have been carbon dated to 40 000 BP. Pretty many Neanderthals, Denisovans, and actually a few Homo sapiens. In a cave in Romania, two men were found, carbon dated to 45 000 BP, who were half Neanderthal and half Homo sapiens.
<br /><br />
It is certain that Neanderthals have shown human behaviour traceable in paleo-anthropologic archaeology. The hyoid bone in Kebara 2 had been using the tongue exactly the way a modern man would while talking over many years.
<br /><br />
1) If you don't admit that Adam was the first man, you are in trouble as a Christian, in many ways.
<br /><br />
2) If you think he could transmit the story of Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 faithfully to the time of Moses over that many generations, like between 38 000 or 43 000 BC to Moses c. 1511 writing the Genesis as a whole book, you have more confidence in oral tradition than I do.
<br /><br />
3) What time would you put the Civilisation of Nod?
<br /><br />
For me, Adam was created 5200 BC, Seth was born 230 years after that, so Henoch in Nod was arguably founded the same time, soon after Cain killed Abel, in 4970 BC. It lasted up to 2012 years later, at the Flood.
<br /><br />
It turned abhorrently evil after pretty few generations.
<br /><br />
God had a reason to wipe out even the material traces of it, so the worst we see of the pre-Flood world is cannibalism in country-bumpkins in Atapuerca or near the Solo river on Java. We have not seen wall paintings or wall carvings from Nod so far, because of that.
<br /><br />
However, if there were tens of thousands of years between Adam and the Flood, there must have been some civilisations that were not that bad, and which God therefore didn't wipe out even the traces of.
<br /><br />
Where are on your view the traces of Nod like cultures, that were not cursed by Lamech's behaviour?
<br /><br />
<dt>Ken Wolgemuth
<dt>Auteur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, I am glad that you understand the reservoir effect. YECs don't know radiocarbon dating, even the PhDs. I have never seen them show the calibration curve. Dr. Snelling said he did not have room for it in his 1000-page book. I have not studied the archaeology of early man, so have no comments.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Ken Wolgemuth well, among the YECs, I'm "the odd man out" with two more exceptions.
<br /><br />
Tas Walker some years ago did a very sketchy one, not much help for archaeology, too large resolution.
<br /><br />
Anne Habermehl did a recalibration, not of carbon specifically, but of all "conventional dates" lumped together.
<br /><br />
The difference between me and Tas is, he uses the Glacial maximum along with Oard's calculations on when that was as anchor point, I use archaeology of events related to (usually) the Bible.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-76273301288759590572024-01-02T14:03:00.000-08:002024-01-16T11:18:11.908-08:00Abusive Censorship Again<br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/neanderthal-speculations-and-certainty.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution: Neanderthal - speculations and certainty</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/neanderthal-speculations-and-certainty.html</a>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQMR2j0D2IndIqg9KdJA-cqgU42_jB_mpirxkt2YssTVotKnGfxqJUL305H47Omxhn1Tp6qTlMycEShOiEbMp6Hyhk2-aNjHLi9MRm-eol_u8Y4vrwuVk7VjyCDJLV-HA2L0QSViZS5BZBKUa9C-fuuMbke8nOfU4wZ27DI3vHoxE4_kz4SQml_qPYyHE/s549/fb.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="549" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQMR2j0D2IndIqg9KdJA-cqgU42_jB_mpirxkt2YssTVotKnGfxqJUL305H47Omxhn1Tp6qTlMycEShOiEbMp6Hyhk2-aNjHLi9MRm-eol_u8Y4vrwuVk7VjyCDJLV-HA2L0QSViZS5BZBKUa9C-fuuMbke8nOfU4wZ27DI3vHoxE4_kz4SQml_qPYyHE/s320/fb.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJHdK9XdbBHOxoXHiA4Vi4WoVJcCb4PiOd1Nsfm6gHoTCEJP7CuqCsT2dR6z7kBDNVDR-cl1WZ-XkW0pBaX10aid0lXpkPPenz_E0wPqEN2NH52s31OaVvEeELKfXxUYMraBVzLlywGFbF_mm2u8s3qKlA43I_yWu-iqlhhIWtYHeid5Own19je71l3II/s703/fb2.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="703" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJHdK9XdbBHOxoXHiA4Vi4WoVJcCb4PiOd1Nsfm6gHoTCEJP7CuqCsT2dR6z7kBDNVDR-cl1WZ-XkW0pBaX10aid0lXpkPPenz_E0wPqEN2NH52s31OaVvEeELKfXxUYMraBVzLlywGFbF_mm2u8s3qKlA43I_yWu-iqlhhIWtYHeid5Own19je71l3II/s320/fb2.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKZ47xRFGx3Nu09F96Ub_XHK79acLL2ciJrN8SPJu8siOhGIDK7-iCQ2UbJT3KabKBlgcOjc-zGV91mV4NqqkE_l2zh2wXE5iCs2BIngzS67Wux09sialz-nNQRdg4wb5CQ7lixb4fvlrLqBdhPbe_Fopr3Ixc34qj6_ocPZEvvH22K2PTE2zhIwMXs2Q/s751/fb3.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="751" data-original-width="549" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKZ47xRFGx3Nu09F96Ub_XHK79acLL2ciJrN8SPJu8siOhGIDK7-iCQ2UbJT3KabKBlgcOjc-zGV91mV4NqqkE_l2zh2wXE5iCs2BIngzS67Wux09sialz-nNQRdg4wb5CQ7lixb4fvlrLqBdhPbe_Fopr3Ixc34qj6_ocPZEvvH22K2PTE2zhIwMXs2Q/s320/fb3.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<b>Content unspecified, but also removed:</b>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-de-Es81hVAmRcFKYHnJ5FyCmOzjO3gzhFrPMmvPILv-cKSjk8qS_jF7B2HeXpXWkceP3Jg6Nx3d3ZN2L4ujN9NurRlkKcy60l-iO_pvZwpnDvBALHnCZGGRBL3qSHETGl4aEW8gUxKxmnIpnyjaGZpnCCOjx-4uccCrVwGGfW_BIhroFSHFyrD1Ggzc/s816/fb-again.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-de-Es81hVAmRcFKYHnJ5FyCmOzjO3gzhFrPMmvPILv-cKSjk8qS_jF7B2HeXpXWkceP3Jg6Nx3d3ZN2L4ujN9NurRlkKcy60l-iO_pvZwpnDvBALHnCZGGRBL3qSHETGl4aEW8gUxKxmnIpnyjaGZpnCCOjx-4uccCrVwGGfW_BIhroFSHFyrD1Ggzc/s320/fb-again.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Wes5_tamCGNW5yQ8xGZRg9EGlXmZRwUPr1G2wiiLgdkMHvOE2Rn4qrZk2RBCIS-UZkHvfX1-Gy34ZAo7WUiMb_GltA8YjuRl9E8F598bQY5gvdQlhEkZ9DNHxc6pVLwUaCGodwtTMicDmFGTX09Z4onbHAkl_kI8P3xO-a_26Qg4o4wy8Y2K3zX_7Yk/s553/no-issues.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="553" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Wes5_tamCGNW5yQ8xGZRg9EGlXmZRwUPr1G2wiiLgdkMHvOE2Rn4qrZk2RBCIS-UZkHvfX1-Gy34ZAo7WUiMb_GltA8YjuRl9E8F598bQY5gvdQlhEkZ9DNHxc6pVLwUaCGodwtTMicDmFGTX09Z4onbHAkl_kI8P3xO-a_26Qg4o4wy8Y2K3zX_7Yk/s320/no-issues.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmH6wCSO9dVKTkIwu5okeuTHbzh3pA8T3YCV5evrDatEv_ADfDG7mSHS2DOixW_a2aVWgar4E0V9HzXfCnxcdFGxc59A9LG2IZG33m_0lFnZkuHxrkPEDCZWXvCKKk_KhLgxYFhaHFfK9X-AF104Gs7o9o6pzTlILu_R6lIsUJc8lT6oojaJiIGKIaUI/s892/teams.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="862" data-original-width="892" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPmH6wCSO9dVKTkIwu5okeuTHbzh3pA8T3YCV5evrDatEv_ADfDG7mSHS2DOixW_a2aVWgar4E0V9HzXfCnxcdFGxc59A9LG2IZG33m_0lFnZkuHxrkPEDCZWXvCKKk_KhLgxYFhaHFfK9X-AF104Gs7o9o6pzTlILu_R6lIsUJc8lT6oojaJiIGKIaUI/s320/teams.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
More:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQRc_an3hu60x9sgc1sf5JkKcSB0rPThFGgVgysUw3d1ySOfdok91hkf29TWrDi0gRs7rKSwUInH8lmGuk8StimgiY9GeE63X56_0imSzUAmjW6lZhY8V_BYUh9P13JHwBGBQuwZcWj51Yd2WNnLTYk_pjvRzru4Qpk2ty7b1ituzTCpnzlqzJ4_VemcI/s545/zensur.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="545" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQRc_an3hu60x9sgc1sf5JkKcSB0rPThFGgVgysUw3d1ySOfdok91hkf29TWrDi0gRs7rKSwUInH8lmGuk8StimgiY9GeE63X56_0imSzUAmjW6lZhY8V_BYUh9P13JHwBGBQuwZcWj51Yd2WNnLTYk_pjvRzru4Qpk2ty7b1ituzTCpnzlqzJ4_VemcI/s320/zensur.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/durupnar-site-is-geographically.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : Durupınar Site is Geographically Possible, but the Drogue Stones are a Bad Argument</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/01/durupnar-site-is-geographically.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-77411697738692910412023-12-09T05:22:00.000-08:002023-12-09T07:57:14.078-08:00What Were the Options in 1950 ?<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/posts/pfbid02S2Lpf9hoUW2VedmY5QLuJhYP5geEPzMqSoT2cDRFXxs5hmiZQnPNmH3Jq7TCT1VLl"><i>What Were the Options in 1950 ?</i>
<br />https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/posts/pfbid02S2Lpf9hoUW2VedmY5QLuJhYP5geEPzMqSoT2cDRFXxs5hmiZQnPNmH3Jq7TCT1VLl</a>
<br /><br />
I don’t mean about the Blessed Virgin. The Assumption is not optional, neither is the Immaculate Conception (both feast days before being pronounced as Papal dogma).
<br /><br />
I mean about Humani Generis. One option was obviously to cling on to the traditional pov, that God had created Adam without any kind of biological ancestry. This is mentioned as sth that can be defended, and it was already held widely.
<br /><br />
What was the other thing one could defend ?
<br /><br />
It was not Sébastien Antoni, Assumptionist in conflict with Trent Session V, agreeing with the worst chapter (or one actually bad chapter) of The Problem of Pain. Adam definitely still was an individual man, and he definitely still was responsible, next to Satan’s temptation and more intimately than that one, for Original Sin.
<br /><br />
It was also not the idea that Jimmy Akin has proposed. You know, Adam was not actually the ancestor of all men alive at the same time as he, except Eve for whom he was also an origin, but Adam and Eve for some other reason became representatives of an already extant mankind, and people not born of them, even alive before they were created, fell into original sin when Adam sinned, because he was for some reason their representative. That was also not an option.
<br /><br />
The non-Creationist option was, and it was not one Pius XII explicitly said one could hold, it was one he explicitly said that learned men could defend, as much as the older idea, if they were « perit[i] in utroque campo » which according to the actual Latin doesn’t mean « experts in both fields » (or « on both sides » perhaps?) but « experienced men in both fields » (or « on both sides »), and whatever the canonists say, it’s grammatically unclear if it’s sufficient to be experienced in either Bible exegesis or natural sciences, or if you are required to be experienced in both. But, again, what was this alternative ?
<br /><br />
« de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi »
<br /><br />
So, what kind of living matter could that be ? I will kindly assume that Pius XII was not doing ecumenism with Odinists by portraying as licit the idea that Ask and Embla were created from two tree logs. But it is also not a very human language taken here. Indeed, in 1941 it seems he had told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that if Adam had progenitors, as they were not created in the image of God, as they were not human, they were not actually his parents in the full human sense.
<br /><br />
I would actually congratulate both Jimmy Akin and Sébastien Antoni to not be holding that position, even if I deplore they are not taking « one of the two positions licit back then » (i e the other one). Think about it. Howevermuch someone has both a human body and a human soul, he’ll not be able to learn language if he’s not exposed to language when he’s a certain number of months old. But on the other hand, human language reflects facts about the human soul created in God’s image. This means the hypothetical progenitors of Adam could not have had any human langage on this view. Hence, this view means, quite brutally, God was making Adam get born as a human among beasts, or get born as a beast to be only transsubstantiated into a human being later, as he was adult. The former of these options obviously involves Adam not learning language from those surrounding him, including the hypothetical progenitors. So does the latter, but according to the former view, this was an abnormal situation for the nature he was already having.
<br /><br />
God would have committed child abuse against Adam even before he had committed the first sin.
<br /><br />
I am happy to have not been among the comparatively few victims of a certain type of priests. But I am not happy about a theology which I suspect can have misled them. I don’t think any of the first child abusers (within the modern trend) was a strict creationist about Adam’s immediate origin.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-22518656483524828692023-12-09T04:34:00.000-08:002023-12-09T04:34:27.808-08:00Concept of FB Abused as Contact Inhibition<br />
I found someone was reacting with hearts to the links I shared about the Catholic Faith, and with tears to the links about abortion and the martyrdom of Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette, so, I found it was arguably a kindred soul.
<br /><br />
Here is what happened:
<br /><br />
<blockquote><b>Can't Send Request</b>
<br />It looks like you may not know this person. Send requests to people you know personally to see their updates on Facebook.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
This is highly abusive, since it stops FB from serving as a platform to gain contacts for those having none or highly inadequate ones around them./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-37995642866271912442023-12-09T02:54:00.000-08:002023-12-09T02:54:10.952-08:00Found on a Conlang Group on FB<br />
<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00238309231202944">Does Orkish Sound Evil? Perception of Fantasy Languages and Their Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics
Christine Mooshammer, Dominique Bobeck, […], and Qiang Xia +4
<br /><i>First published online November 29, 2023</i>
<br />https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00238309231202944</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-21460528030548954602023-12-09T02:49:00.000-08:002023-12-09T02:49:57.912-08:00There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/posts/pfbid032HXejfDpFR7cE9yTmpGPbPBMWSDBUE4V3TeW2x5JHHTmY3x51JSLNgTrWibsbV17l"><i>There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.</i>
<br />https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/posts/pfbid032HXejfDpFR7cE9yTmpGPbPBMWSDBUE4V3TeW2x5JHHTmY3x51JSLNgTrWibsbV17l</a>
<br /><br />
Let’s say a Catholic and a Protestant are for some reasons friends or business associates and from time to time speak of religion.
<br /><br />
<ul><li> A. Protestant or Catholic brings up a topic dividing the two confessions (the Protestant one not usually being European Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but more in the range of what Europeans would term « freikirchlich » in German, « frikyrklig » in Swedish and roughly speaking « Evangelical » in US American and Canadian English, probably used the same way in England too, but on Ireland, Calvinists would do this more often then Pentecostals, I think, and you also have Calvinists who are into this). The Protestant brings up a few objections. So far, hunky dory.
<li> B. The Catholic then does a fine job getting into all the intricacies of interpretation and exegesis and Church history to defend the Catholic doctrine. The Protestant listens patiently and nods.
<li> C. When the Catholic is done, the Protestant is then replying, « but why does it have to be so complicated ? Do you really have to know Greek and Latin Church Fathers to come to Christ ? How can you have your sins forgiven if, God forbid, you should miss a little detail in Church history ? We have a far simpler way of turning to God, you see, we are done with all these extra mediators ... »</ul>
<br /><br />
Why does this Protestant tactic make me sick ?
<br /><br />
On their view, probably because I have an issue with coming to Christ. They are witnessing of Christ you see, so if their tactic makes me sick, I must be under some kind of demonic influence, and therefore disgusted at Christ Himself, that being obviously ALL of their religion, and so on.
<br /><br />
There are other reasons, if you want my opinion.
<br /><br />
<ul><li> 1) It’s dishonest. You pretend to be interested in the intellectual side so as to bait a Catholic to waste his time as an intellectual, so you can end it all of by pretending he’s an intellectual instead of being a Christian. Part of the reason that particular Catholic has a well educated and to your view even complex intellect, is, he actually grew up close enough to Protestants to need to be able to give an answer well before you asked one of him. There are Protestants who are actually interested in the answers, as I while a Protestant was in the Catholic answer to my two main objections, that being Indulgences (not too interested actually, except it kind of made the Church I was attracted to look a bit bad) and Inquisition (far more interested). Picking up habits of intellectualism when growing up as a Catholic or a near Catholic semi-Protestant interested in converting, the latter my case, but growing up near people like you (I had met your kind in Austria) or near Commie like Atheists, an act of self defense, but also of outreach. You pretend this is how WE do « how do I get saved by the Cross » which is simply not the case. Confession may be irksome, but it’s not complicated. Fasting on a vigil day or the early hours of a day you intend to receive Communion may send you to a caloric breakfast when the fast is over, but that is also not complicated. Praying the rosary is pleasant, unless you have a problem with one of the prayers, as I currently have with the Our Father, which says « as we forgive those who trespass against us » this being my main problem for these last up to ten years I have not been praying the rosary.
<li> 2) It’s by that dishonesty underscoring your Protestant superiority complex in a way which doesn’t cost you any intellectual effort. It allows you to feel totally smug about not being Catholic and basically pitying Catholics, without your having any need to look for any answers.
<li> 3) It fools yourself and any Protestant listeners (of your type), but worse, it’s intended to fool me. I’d be ashamed of such dishonesty, so I don’t intend to get fooled. But some Protestants who are around are not ashamed of such dishonesty and do intend to keep trying.</ul>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-14852086268149394862023-12-01T14:39:00.000-08:002023-12-11T05:07:50.637-08:00The Concept of Spam is Abused as Reason for Arbitrary Censorship<br />
On June 18th, back in 2019, I wrote this article, and then shared it on FB, probably giving the link as a birthday present, same or one of the following days:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/06/edessa-in-mesopotamia.html"><i>Creation vs. Evolution : "Edessa in Mesopotamia"</i>
<br />https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/06/edessa-in-mesopotamia.html</a>
<br /><br />
On December 1st, 2023, more than four full years later, some person on FB does this:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOKhKsyp92TcG81jOn05RwwkrHpRtkl_eZ6MatzRJH_AT_n-ksQggCV8a-dCuJQN6_-_A-BlmkFBGOxc3dfFypeeQ9bHBogXtwUSuRRKXW6iHsuvdaxvmun9C8a3PZj-Onka7Y6Rdx-WNijvBvLFsvaKN-GTt5GBjrUwBD6nD1X1fUPxpniAc-7S_HGak/s526/misleading.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="526" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOKhKsyp92TcG81jOn05RwwkrHpRtkl_eZ6MatzRJH_AT_n-ksQggCV8a-dCuJQN6_-_A-BlmkFBGOxc3dfFypeeQ9bHBogXtwUSuRRKXW6iHsuvdaxvmun9C8a3PZj-Onka7Y6Rdx-WNijvBvLFsvaKN-GTt5GBjrUwBD6nD1X1fUPxpniAc-7S_HGak/s320/misleading.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
The allegation is, I tried to gain likes or video views or followers in a misleading way.
<br /><br />
If literally the only thing I posted was the link itself, or perhaps before that the words "some reading? here:" — how can <i>that</i> be misleading ? I have stated nothing about the text except where it is to be found, leaving the reader entirely free to like or dislike it as he prefers, to share or not share it.
<br /><br />
Obviously, someone, more properly someoneS, have found <i>even that</i> misleading. <i>Their</i> version of a truthful and honest Hans Georg Lundahl is a Hans Georg Lundahl who doesn't try to share what they don't want him to share. Or simply shares nothing at all, because they don't want me to be a writer.
<br /><br />
Please note, the criminal offense against freedom of speech has been ongoing manually.
<br /><br />
The links I posted are being eliminated one by one, therefore manually. And no, it's not the one having the wall eliminating my comment, FB itself is claiming "WE removed your comment."
<br /><br />
A few months ago, I heard of FB France having a security team who were diehard Muslims (was it of the Qatari extraction, which has some influence in France? I don't recall).
<br /><br />
Muslims have tried to put me into weakened positions or to admit not feeling very well or so, so they could eliminate freedoms for me in the guise of "helping" me, helping "poor" me ... meanwhile I am poor in another sense, namely if not directly broke at least deprived from income by their crimes.
<br /><br />
But also by the treason of Christians who accuse me of being a Muslim or an agent provocateur or whatever.
<br /><br />
Their main evidence for me being a pawn of possibly perverted élites is, I am getting help, juridically against direct captivity into psychiatry, policing against vandalism of my property, while I'm away, materially as to food and clothing items, pretty much from people close to the enforcers of law and order and therefore government and socio-economic élites. The reason I need this help in the first place is that such Christians, the most likely people to re-publish my blogs on paper, have drawn conclusions from a de facto protégé situation I did not chose. And therefore they have sided with the Muslim censors of FB against me.
<br /><br />
I think some of the Muslims on FB, certainly some elsewhere, started months ago, soon a year. What happened? Muslims have lost children in Eastern Turkey, near Edessa in Mesopotamia here mentioned. Muslims have lost children in Morocco. Muslims have recently been losing children, are perhaps still losing children, through the inhuman agression on Gaza prior to the ceasefire.
<br /><br />
<b>For whereas they would not believe any thing before by reason of the enchantments, then first upon the destruction of the firstborn, they acknowledged the people to be of God.</b>
<br /><a href="https://drbo.org/chapter/25018.htm">Wisdom 18:13</a>
<br /><br />
But even in France, a very anticlerical country, Christians, specifically Catholic Christians, could have helped me. I could have been enjoying well deserved incomes from my writing, but the ones addicted to recent changes in discipline specifically on Biblical exegesis, among the Catholic population (not saying "in the Catholic Church"), have preferred to side with those Muslims, or even to egg them on to their ill deeds./HGL
<br /><br />
PS, 10.XII.2023 (and I tried to appeal)
<br /><br />
<blockquote>10 déc. 2023
<br />Nous avons supprimé votre commentaire
<br />Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />16 oct. 2018
<blockquote>Sth to read?
<br /><a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/neanderthal-probably-innocent-of.html">https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/neanderthal-probably-innocent-of.html</a></blockquote>
<br /><br />
Vous avez partagé ce contenu sur votre profil
<br /><br />
Votre commentaire va à l’encontre de nos Standards de la communauté sur le spam.</blockquote>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-48291568254308117652023-12-01T02:12:00.000-08:002023-12-01T02:12:58.787-08:00Discussing Carbon 14<br />
<dl><dt>David K. Muncie
<dd>Admin, Principal contributor
<dt>27.XI.2023
<dd>Half rates, Does this make any sense?
<br /><br />
Let us use C-14 because it’s the fastest used in dating.
<br /><br />
C-14 in a weed is at atmospheric equilibrium in the say 4 months of its life. Then it dies and no new C-14 can enter it, by any means, not by water or air or any means, so the time clock starts ticking in 5730 half the c-14 has decayed and by 11460 years another 50% has decayed, by 100,000 years the last c-14 element decays, why did some c-14 decay by say 100 years and other last 100,000 years they are the same, they were taken in at the same time, and why is 5730 the magic number where exactly 50% of the remainder vanishes? This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that."</i>
<br /><br />
5730 years can be deduced from observing the halflife in shorter periods.
<br /><br />
5730 years is down to 50 % of original content.
<br /><br />
So, 2865 years would be down to ... if you know the A4 related formats and can use them on a xerox machine, you have already seen it : 71 % or 70.7 % ...
<br /><br />
1432 or 1433 years would leave what of the orignal? Sqrt of 0.707 etc is 84.09 %.
<br /><br />
Are there objects known to be from 590 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.
<br /><br />
716 years leaves what? 91.7 %
<br /><br />
Are there objects from 1307 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.
<br /><br />
Instead of a half life of 5730 years and a stable c. 100 percent modern carbon, one could theorise the possibility of for instance 11460 years and the carbon level still rising.
<br /><br />
I think that can be excluded, as I think there are objects from 50 years ago or so, which we know the carbon 14 content in back then, and can check the carbon 14 content now. BUT ... let's suppose it couldn't. It would not do much of a difference.
<br /><br />
I suppose, as a Young Earth Creationist, that the carbon 14 level has been roughly stable since the time when Troy fell, 1179 BC.
<br /><br />
If the halflife were twice what it is, that would mean the level when Troy fell was 4/5 of 100 percent modern carbon instead.
<br /><br />
We would still need a carbon 14 rise after the Flood. And not just the rate at which on that view carbon 14 had risen since the time when Troy fell. But a higher rate.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dt>Author, Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl, How long has carbon 14 decay been under observation in a single sample?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I looked up, and the answer seems to be:
<br /><br />
The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.
<br /><br />
I e, the oldest sample possible (not sure if actually extant) answering to the criteria of tested then and tested now would be 78 years old between the tests. It should have 99.061 % of what it had back then.
If the half life were twice as long, it should instead have the percentage for 39 years, as now counted. That's 99.529 %.
<br /><br />
If samples from 1307 and around then, reasonably presumed to have been effectively sealed off since then, have 91.7 pmC (percent modern carbon, corrected for pre-industrial values) or around that, either it had 100 pmC or around that and a halflife of 5730 years, or if it has a significantly longer halflife, the carbon 14 content in 1307 was significantly lower than now.
<br /><br />
<dt>David K. Muncie
<dt>Author, Admin
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is no one is interested in running another test to verify the decay rate.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Apart from measuring the decay in samples already tested, I don't think there is need of any.
<br /><br />
THAT is a much surer test than testing the rate in one year in a lab.
<br /><br />
My reason AGAINST decay rates of Uranium or Potassium 40 is, you cannot do this kind of over centuries test for either of them.
<br /><br />
Btw, the difference between straight 100 pmC X half life 5730 years and carbon level rising from 80 to 100 pmC in 3000 years X half life 11460 years, for the amount of time we can have sure historic samples from is actually LESS than the deviations we actually have in calibrations, like the Hallstatt plateau, if you've heard of it.
<br /><br />
I've done the math and I've compared to the calibrations.
<br /><br />
So, in practise this doesn't matter.
<br /><br />
This is in no way, shape or form an endorsement for taking carbon dates like 39 000 BP at face value. From the Flood to the Fall of Troy, carbon 14 rose very rapidly, was produced up to 10 times or a little more as fast as now, and 39 000 BP in a real Biblical calibration translates as 2957 BC, because the supervolcano explosions, including the so dated Campi Flegrei, are from the Flood, and it happened in 2957 BC. It's just that while decay happened since then at half life 5730, back then the atmospheric content was 1.625 pmC - around 1/61 or 1/62 of what it is now.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-58682331072400291622023-11-09T06:14:00.011-08:002023-11-09T06:14:59.994-08:00Which Argument Should One Use?<br />
<dl><dt>Alex Coleman
<dt>7.XI.2023
<dd>[shared]
<br /><br />
<dt><a href="https://www.facebook.com/stnicholasil">St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
<br />https://www.facebook.com/stnicholasil</a>
<dt>7.XI.2015
<dd>Trust The Scriptures. Look how often they are proven right.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGhnVqdzDJqYzl9JYlg8xY6wsGJAn24ALWHeFEItBKCunNqXddTkIFLqyhpIGcjI51QvzYYk28Y2CT81zMIB1zFuvz0ro0ift7uMgdD8sfE4eZYQY3qj9wgyWAZYQOBwvVZWryN5zRrE7a30kKWkOOQuxEQnu8APkiiGOjmKe65L6ih-NRQBOc6v2OxQ/s738/Ortho-Buccaille.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="738" data-original-width="590" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdGhnVqdzDJqYzl9JYlg8xY6wsGJAn24ALWHeFEItBKCunNqXddTkIFLqyhpIGcjI51QvzYYk28Y2CT81zMIB1zFuvz0ro0ift7uMgdD8sfE4eZYQY3qj9wgyWAZYQOBwvVZWryN5zRrE7a30kKWkOOQuxEQnu8APkiiGOjmKe65L6ih-NRQBOc6v2OxQ/s320/Ortho-Buccaille.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>I am sorry, but the part of the meme that says "science then" is very imprecise. As to time.
<br /><br />
If the time when St. Paul wrote Corinthians is included, it is wrong to include "the earth is a disc" in "science back then" ...
<br /><br />
For Isaiah 40:22 it could be argued that the wording is compatible with both flat and spherical earth.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. How much authority did Eratosthenes actually have among the learned pagans? Perhaps the anti-Christian Enlightenment thinkers have overemphasized his authority and influence among the educated heathens of Antiquity?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>No.
<br /><br />
As a historian of scholasticism, I am pretty sure.
<br /><br />
Details, but they detract from the whole of the meme.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. The whole of the meme is wrong in demonstrating the divine wisdom contained within the Holy Scriptures?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The whole meme would be better without the erroneous details.
<br /><br />
"Sick people must bleed" actually is a medical trend from late Middle Ages to when George Washington was bled too much.
<br /><br />
There is some truth to it when it comes to high blood pressure -- if it's done correctly with leeches. When it's done with knives as in late 18th C, the dosage can be overdone.
<br /><br />
In this context, it looks like if the medical trend was raging in the time of the Bible writers. Not the case.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. The Bible contains knowledge otherwise unknown to the ancients. This a strong piece of evidence for it being a divinely inspired document.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Possibly, but it is one which gets bogged down by fake examples.
<br /><br />
In fact, anyone who can only do "science back then" instead of looking up what non-Jewish and non-Christian sources from the precise time of a certain Bible book give you, is not doing the best for the meme.
<br /><br />
I would state, while modern geographical knowledge confirms 4 corners on a globe, and they would not be 4 outer corners on certain flat earth maps with the N pole in the middle, as far as the audience back then could make out, the hagiographers were not taking sides.
<br /><br />
I'd give you a real example if you like. The Bible hints at a) a hunter gatherer society that was generalised and b) spoke one language c) just after the Flood.
<br /><br />
How so?
<br /><br />
1) Name of Noah involves a prophecy of him giving "rest" from agricultural sweating
<br />2) Genesis 9:2 states sth about intensified hunting
<br />3) Obviously, the time from Flood to Peleg is the time from Flood to Babel, and before Babel all had one tongue.
<br /><br />
This is in fact confirmed.
<br />a) From the Upper Palaeolithic after last Neanderthals and Denisovans, we have found some, but exceedingly few traces of any kind of agriculture, but lots of traces of hunting and fishing.
<br />b) Genevieve von Petzinger has found 32 symbols (that's like an alphabet) in cave art all over the world, mostly from this period (the hashtag is one of them and was found from a Neanderthal inhabited cave, presumably carved into the wall before the Flood (note: the cave walls of that one had no paint, which might obviously have been damaged in the Flood, if the Neanderthals thought of doing it). Same script suggests either same language, or at least same culture.
<br />c) Unrealistically, for those taking uniformitarian dates at face value, that script, those 32 symbols, and the art style and roughly speaking the motifs, lasted 10 000 ~ 20 000 years. But those dates are mostly carbon dates. If you presume the Flood is what wiped Neanderthals out, and the Denisovans too, you get a carbon date of 40 000 BP or (Campi Flegrei) 39 000 BP for a real year 2958 BC (you would presumably say for 3267 or 3367 BC), this gives a carbon 14 level back then of 1/61 to 1/62 of the present one. The ensuing rise explains why just a few centuries of real time (a more realistic perspective for Upper Palaeolithic) is in carbon dates drawn out to several myriads of years.
<br /><br />
The Bible very clearly directly says, after Babel, you had different languages, and you also began to get kingdoms.
<br /><br />
This is confirmed by the fact that the 32 symbols cease before Göbekli Tepe (1000 years between 9600 BC and 8600 BC meaning real time 2607 to 2556 BC), and after Göbekli Tepe you find DIVERSE scripts, including the undeciphered proto-writings.
<br /><br />
As to kingdoms, you find settlements with longer habitation, and the ones surrounding Göbekli Tepe seem to have five major cities lining up with the list in Genesis 10 (Niniveh wasn't great in Nimrod's time, but Qermez Dere later became the greay Niniveh). You find traces of what seems to be either ritual murder or capital punishment from Göbekli Tepe (severed skulls stringed onto a rope through holes in the skull roofs) or Çatal Höyük (pottery depicting men lying down without heads and vultures going for them).
<br /><br />
Vulture like birds have been associated with power in lots of cultures since then. Condors in South America, American Eagle in Aztek Mexico, Eagles of Rome ...
<br /><br />
To me, it looks like Apocalypse 19 is going to involve Christ's payback against Nimrod in the use of vultures / eagles.
<br /><br />
By contrast, the example on Eccl. 1:6 seems to be another error, not just because it is pure guess work to say "winds blow straight" according to "science back then" but also because it's not even sure the verse mentions winds at all.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Ver. 6. Spirit. The sun, (St. Jerome) which is like the soul of the world, and which some have falsely asserted to be animated; or rather (Calmet) the wind is meant, as one rises in different parts of the world when another falls. (Pliny, [Natural History?] ii. 27.) (Menochius)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
1) St. Jerome takes it as the sun. Note, attributing an angel to the sun would literally fulfil it, even without the Sun itself being animated.
<br />2) While Calmet takes it of winds, he clearly takes an authority, not in modern science, which perhaps he didn't much read, but precisely in "science back then" (though Pliny admittedly is 1000 years after King Solomon).</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-46184470372083024052023-11-07T10:50:00.002-08:002023-11-07T10:50:50.854-08:00Debatte über Israel-Palästina und andere Debatten mit einem deutschen Freund<br />
<dl><dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dt>6.XI.2023
<dd>Für gefährlicher für den Weltfrieden als den Klimawandel halte ich:
<br />- Islam
<br />- Überbevölkerung und Überschuss an jungen Männern in unterentwickelten Ländern
<br />- Rückgang des IQ, auch im Westen
<br />- Putin und die ganze eurasische Ideologie
<br />- Den universalistischen Anspruch der USA
<br />- Erst dann kommt bei mir China
<br />Dann folgt tatsächlich der Klimawandel, der aber nur ein Problem ist, weil die Menschheit von oben genannten Ideologien und Problemen blockiert wird.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"Überbevölkerung und Überschuss an jungen Männern in unterentwickelten Ländern"</i>
<br /><br />
Diese Einstellung halte ich für schlimmer als Islam.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Was ist daran schlimm? Es gibt nun mal sehr viele junge Männer gerade in jenen Ländern, die diesen Männern nichts zu bieten haben. Nun drängen sie nach Europa, was das Problem nur verlagert. Außerdem sind Gesellschaften mit einem hohen Anteil unbeschäftigter junger Männer gefährlicher. Sie haben einen höheren Kriegsindex. Die Europäer sind nicht nur deswegen kriegsmüde, weil sie wohlstandsverwahrlost, überfüttert, Fernsehen-verblödet und durch Feminismus übergezähmt sind, sie haben auch gar nicht die Massen an jungen Männern für Kriege. Wer will schon den einzigen Sohn für's Vaterland in den Krieg schicken? Andere Gesellschaften mit einer anderen Alterspyramide haben da zum Teil eine andere Einstellung. Es ist auch keine Wertung, sondern eine Einschätzung meinerseits. Dem Weltfrieden ist es nicht dienlich.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"mit einem hohen Anteil *unbeschäftigter* junger Männer gefährlicher"</i>
<br /><br />
Das Problem ist Industrialismus, nicht Überbevölkerung.
<br /><br />
1792 hatte Paris -- nicht Frankreich, sondern nur Paris, u zw nicht einmal alle heutige Bezirke nach Haussmann -- hunderte Unternehmen für Production der Kleidung und etwa 90 ~ 100 für Production der Unterwäsche.
Production, nicht bloß Distribution. Industrialismus heißt Unbeschäftigte vermehren.
<br /><br />
<i>"Die Europäer sind nicht nur deswegen kriegsmüde, weil sie wohlstandsverwahrlost, überfüttert, Fernsehen-verblödet und durch Feminismus übergezähmt sind, sie haben auch gar nicht die Massen an jungen Männern für Kriege."</i>
<br /><br />
Sie haben AUCH nicht die Massen an jungen Männern um ihre Renten zu zahlen.
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dt>4 Nov 2023, 01:50
<dd>So sieht also der Apartheidsstaat Israel aus, dass er die Töchter und Schwestern seiner selbsternannten Feinde Informatik studieren lässt.
<br /><br />
[Sharing a meme from Israel my love about Mira Shalah]
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Tschuldigung ... lebte sie in Gaza oder auf dem Westbank?
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Sie lebte oder lebt natürlich in Israel. Aber eben die Unterstellung, Israel sei ein Apartheidsstaat greift ja den Staat Israel an und vergleicht ihn mit Südafrika und das ist nicht zutreffend. Für die Ausbildung junger Frauen in Gaza ist auch nicht Israel zuständig. Die Palästinenser bekommen aus dem Westen unglaubliche finanzielle Mittel. Ganz dumm sind die Leute ja auch nicht. Statt des Tunnelsystems für die Hamas hätten sie auch locker eine tolle Untergrundbahn bauen können. Nenne doch mal ein islamisches Land, das technisch und kulturell heute Spitzenleistungen bietet? Nenne ein muslimisches Land, in welchem heute Juden oder auch nur Christen im bürgerlichen Sinne so gleichberechtigt leben können wie die muslimischen Araber in Israel! Viele Länder werden es nicht sein. Selbst die Vertreibung der Araber aus Israel geht einher mit der Vertreibung der Juden aus den arabischen Nachbarländern, was auch gerne unterschlagen wird. Wer Israel einen Apartheidsstaat nennt, weil es sich aus Sicherheitsgründen zu Gaza abgrenzt, bestreitet übrigens die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung, denn er denkt die Provinz Palästina ohne Jordanien als ein Staatsgebiet. Gaza war nicht von Israel besetzt. Die Hamas hätte längst dort eine blühende Zivilgesellschaft aufbauen können.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"ein islamisches Land"</i>
<br /><br />
Wieso "islamisch"?
<br /><br />
الفلسطينييون المسيحييون † Palestinian Christians - ist dir das bekannt?
<br /><br />
Sogar in Gaza gibt's welche, ein 16-jähriger Bursche wurde durch Bomben auf einer Kirche getötet.
<br /><br />
Palestinier sind nicht collectiv für alle Araber, für alle Muslims zuständig, und auch nicht für nur Muslims oder nur Hamasniks ...
<br /><br />
Noam Chomsky hat gerade dir widersprochen über das "nicht-Sein" des Apartheidsystems.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUY1gB_QSbM"><i>Noam Chomsky : Israel sacrifices security for expansion</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUY1gB_QSbM</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl "Nach der Wahlen zur 20. Knesset (israelisches Parlament) im Jahre 2015 waren 13 der 120 Abgeordneten arabische Israelis. Sie sind Mitglieder der anlässlich der Wahl als Vereinte Liste auftretenden Parteien Vereinigte Arabische Liste, Chadasch und Balad und sehen sich als Vertreter der Interessen der israelischen Araber.[19] 2007 wurde mit Raleb Madschadele erstmals ein Araber in ein Ministeramt berufen.[20]" Zitiert nach der deutschen, eher links bis linksfaschistischen Wikipedia. Dass ein katholischer Anti-Modernist den Neo-Marxisten und im übrigen auch im wissenschaftlichen Bereich (Linguistik) unglaublich arroganten Chomsky zitiert, finde ich beunruhigend. Was du da betreibst, mit Christen in Gaza, ist Cherrypicking. Deine Liebe zu den Mohammedanern, die ich für eine gefährliche Ketzer-Sekte halte, irritiert mich schon länger. Die Vernichtungsphantasien der Hamas sind eindeutig islamisch motiviert. Lies deren Charta. Dort geht es nicht nur um die Vernichtung Israels, es geht letztlich um die Vernichtung aller Juden. Es gibt auch kein muslimisch geprägtes nicht politisch islamisches Land, weil Muslime nun mal keine säkulare Politik akzeptieren. Länder wie die Türkei und Magreb-Staaten sind europäisch beeinflusst und die Ausnahme von der Regel, weil sie von Frankreich beeinflusst wurden oder das Schweizer Gesetzbuch adaptiert haben (Türkei). In all diesen Ländern ist der reaktionäre Islam wieder auf dem Vormarsch. Der Islam hat in einem europäischen Sinne gar keine Staaten hervorgebracht, sondern das Kalifat. Dort herrscht dann echte Apartheid, bei der sich Juden und auch katholische Christen zu unterwerfen haben. Viel Spaß! Es kann ja auch sein, dass du in Frankreich gute Erfahrungen mit Muslimen gemacht, ich würde hingegen darauf hinweisen, dass eine Spur von Bataclan zur Hamas führt. Hier ging es aber um den Vorwurf der Apartheid und Apartheid trifft als System auf Israel nicht zu, wenn auch Israel völlig zu Recht bei der Umzingelung durch muslimische Staaten darauf besteht, seine jüdische Identität zu bewahren. In islamisch geprägten Ländern haben Juden in der Regel nicht die gleichen Rechte wie israelische Muslime in Israel. Leg hier bitte an deine muslimischen Freunde die gleichen Maßstäbe an! Danke! Und natürlich sind die Palästinenser nicht für alle Araber zuständig! Viele der Araber halten die Palästinenser für so schwierig, dass sie diese Leute ja nicht in ihren Ländern haben wollen.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Ein paar kluge Worte auch zum Islam vom letzten, halbwegs vernünftigem Papst:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLFH8w43dFM"><i>Die Regensburger Ansprache</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLFH8w43dFM</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Du meinst vermutlich diesen Vorfall:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.domradio.de/artikel/kirche-gaza-schwer-beschaedigt"><i>Kirche in Gaza schwer beschädigt</i>
<br />https://www.domradio.de/artikel/kirche-gaza-schwer-beschaedigt</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Das ist natürlich schwer zu entschuldigen. Die israelische Armee hat dies als Versehen auch eingestanden. Das ändert aber doch nichts an der grundsätzlichen Problematik, dass sich Muslime, da wo sie politisch Macht haben, Juden gegenüber rassistischer verhalten als umgekehrt.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson "Dass ein katholischer Anti-Modernist den Neo-Marxisten und im übrigen auch im wissenschaftlichen Bereich (Linguistik) unglaublich arroganten Chomsky zitiert, finde ich beunruhigend."
<br /><br />
Danke für "Neo" bei ihm. Die Neo-Marxisten haben manchmal sehr unrecht auf der ebene des sollens, aber sind oft besser unterrichtet als classische Marxisten UND AUCH conservative Protestanten über daß was einfach ist.
<br /><br />
Er wurde übrigens von den Seinen angeprangert weil seine Einstellung zum Allein-Sein der menschlichen Sprache den Creationismus bevördert, und war auch ein Befürworter der Redefreiheit als Bischoff Bishop R. Williamson in der Klemme war.
<br /><br />
In der Linguistik wurde Chomsky auf einen Punct im Irrtum erwiesen, u zw auf die Idee die atlantischen Kreolsprachen hätten ihre Gemeinsamkeiten (außer was europäischen Sprachen gemeinsam ist) aus dem Bauplan des menschlichen Gehirns. Wer ihn widerlegte war und ist warscheinlich auch Neo-Marxist, u zw John McWhorter, ein US-Amerikaner aus schottisch-ghanaischem Ursprung.
<br /><br />
Ein Catholik der conservativ oder sogar Anti-Modernist ist, ist nicht einfach ein conservativer Protestant aber mit austausch des rein geistlichen Dogmas. Wenn Du das dachtes, na dann willkommen in die Wirklichkeit!
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson <i>"Was du da betreibst, mit Christen in Gaza, ist Cherrypicking. Deine Liebe zu den Mohammedanern, die ich für eine gefährliche Ketzer-Sekte halte, irritiert mich schon länger."</i>
<br /><br />
Meine was?
<br /><br />
<i>"Liebe zu den Mohammedanern"</i> -- wie bitte?
<br /><br />
Nein, ich habe eine Fürliebe für muslimische Palestinenser weil sie Palestinenser sind, nicht weil sie Moslems sind. Übrigens halte ich sie auch für eine gefärliche Ketzer-Sekte, u zw für eins der vier Leoparden-Häupter in Daniel. Die anderen drei sind Rabbinisches Judentum, puritanischer Protestantismus, theistische Freimaurerei. Lutherthum und Anglicanismus halte ich eher für Aspecte des babylonischen Löwen (mit Hindus, Buddhisten, Sikhs zusammen).
<br /><br />
Was du bei mir für "Liebe zu den Mohammedanern" hältst spiegelt eher deine eigene Unliebe zu manchem was Catholiken und Mohammedaner gemein haben.
<br /><br />
Meine Priorität in der gegend sind die Christen, und ich habe auch vorhin Mohammedaner in Gaza angeprangert weil sie denen gegenüber Tyrrannei begangen haben. Zur Zeit ist ihre größte Sorge vielleicht NICHT diese Tyrranei, sondern ...
<br /><br />
<a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/10/derniere-nouvelles.html"><i>New blog on the kid : Dernière nouvelles</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/10/derniere-nouvelles.html</a>
<br /><br />
Ja, ich meinte gerade diesen Vorfall.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Meine Bemerkung gegenüber Chomsky bezog sich auf seine Universalgrammatik, die aus evolutionärer Sicht eine Urgrammatik ist, die eigentlich seine einzige wirklich interessante, ruhmreiche Tat war. Seitdem quatscht er genau das dumme Zeug, das linke Intellektuelle gerne hören, ist auch Unterstützter der links-radikalen B.L.M. und so weiter. Sein Anti-Zionismus ist nicht menschenrechtlich, sondern rein marxistisch motiviert. Und genau das ist auch das Problem mit seiner Universalgrammatik: Da stand nicht die genaue Analyse am Anfang, sondern der Wunsch die Menschheit einheitlich zusammen zu fassen. Dies ist übrigens Teil der Linken, die sie vom Christentum geerbt haben, wie überhaupt Marxisten Protestanten ohne Gott sind, weswegen ich sie zutiefst verachte. Sie haben auch in der Vergangenheit mehrfach bewiesen, dass ihnen Menschenleben völlig egal sind, sind sie erstmal an die Macht gelangt. Bei dem Juden Chomsky zeigt sich die protestantische Überheblichkeit im Umgang mit Kritikern seiner Theorien. Von der Universalgrammatik, die er ständig revidieren musste, ist nur die Idee der Rekursion geblieben. Diese wird durch die Feldforschungen von Everett in Frage gestellt. Ich kann unmöglich beurteilen, ob Everett Recht hat und du auch nicht und Chomsky kann es auch nicht. Es ist aber bezeichnend, wie Chomsky darauf reagiert: Wie ein gekränkter Guru, und nicht wie ein Wissenschaftler. Chomsky wird einfach überschätzt. Ich kann den eitlen Zausel nicht ertragen.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson <i>"Es kann ja auch sein, dass du in Frankreich gute Erfahrungen mit Muslimen gemacht, ich würde hingegen darauf hinweisen, dass eine Spur von Bataclan zur Hamas führt."</i>
<br /><br />
Ich habe in Frankreich oft genug schlechte Erfahrungen sowohl mit Juden als mit Mohammedanern gemacht.
<br /><br />
Ich habe auch nicht Hamas verteidigt. DIE PALESTINENSER SCHON.
<br /><br />
Wie ich in 1945 nicht Hitlertum verteidigen würde, die Deutschen aber schon.
<br /><br />
Und in beiden Fällen zunächst die catholischen des jeweiligen Volks.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Es bestehen große Unterschiede zwischen Katholiken und Moslems. Die Katholiken sind mir im übrigen auch viel sympathischer, was du wissen solltest.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson <i>"Leg hier bitte an deine muslimischen Freunde die gleichen Maßstäbe an!"</i>
<br /><br />
Welche "muslimische Freunde"?
<br /><br />
Ich habe ab und zu muslimische <i>Wohltäter</i>, wie ab und zu jüdische ... aber eigentliche Freunde bei beiden Gruppen eher nicht.
<br /><br />
Du redest irre so als wäre jede Verteidigung der Palestinenser (die Muslims mit einbegriffen) eine Verteidigung Islams. Ich tu solche tarnreden nicht.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson Dankeschön.
<br /><br />
Aber manchmal denke ich Protestanten die uns den Moslems vorziehen haben eine Tendenz die Unterschiede zu übertreiben, und mich dann als eine Moslem einzuschätzen weil es bei mir weniger functioniert.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Das verstehe ich nicht ganz! So wie ich dich kenne, denke ich mir, dass dir vielleicht der Anti-Modernismus der Muslime sympathisch ist. Er ist aber doch ganz anderer Art als der der Katholiken. Und natürlich gibt es nicht nur kluge, gebildete, milde Juden, es gibt bestimmt auch schwierige, überhebliche, anstrengende Juden, so wie es auch arme Juden gibt und nicht nur reiche Juden. Allerdings haben nun mal alle Christen die Aufgabe, sich der Frage zu stellen, was es heißt, dass sie mit den Juden die gleichen Bücher teilen. Die Mohammedaner tun das aber nicht. Sie, die andere "Schriftfälscher" nennen, sind die größten Schriftfälscher. Für mich stehen sie außerhalb. Aus christlicher Sicht: Sie erkennen nicht in Jesus den Messias und sie glauben nicht an den dreieinigen Gott. Sie teilen auch nicht die Evangelien, sondern nur einzelne Geschichten daraus, die sie dann verdreht wieder geben, wie sie die ganze Bibel zu ihren Gunsten verdreht haben. Ihre Anmaßung unterstreichen sie durch die größte Gewalttätigkeit, die je eine Religion innehatte. In dem Sinne halte ich auch die katastrophalen Kreuzzüge eher für einen europäischen Abwehrkampf. Letztlich gilt doch das Wort: "An den Früchten werdet ihr sie erkennen!" und die Früchte der Mohammedaner sind nun mal seit Jahrhunderten bescheiden und beruhten in der Vergangenheit auf Ausbeutung der Christen und Juden und auf Sklaverei, gerade diese Dinge, die sich der Westen gerne selbst vorwirft. Und ich sehe beim jetzigen politischen Islam keine Besserung.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson <i>"So wie ich dich kenne, denke ich mir, dass dir vielleicht der Anti-Modernismus der Muslime sympathisch ist."</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Mancher</i> Muslime, bitte.
<br /><br />
<i>"Er ist aber doch ganz anderer Art als der der Katholiken."</i>
<br /><br />
Ist auch der Fall mit dem Anti-Modernismus <i>mancher</i> Lutheraner, wie ich einer war, <i>mancher</i> Freikirchlichen, <i>mancher</i> Juden auch ...
<br /><br />
<i>"Allerdings haben nun mal alle Christen die Aufgabe, sich der Frage zu stellen, was es heißt, dass sie mit den Juden die gleichen Bücher teilen."</i>
<br /><br />
Ja, es heißt das wir diese Bücher verstehen, und die Juden sie Mißverstehen. Stimmt auch zu weiteren 27 Büchern zwischen uns und Protestanten.
<br /><br />
Übrigens gibt es noch sieben Bücher welche Juden halt nicht mit uns teilen, Protestanten auch nicht, obwohl sie zum Alten Testament gehören.
<br /><br />
<i>"Die Mohammedaner tun das aber nicht. Sie, die andere "Schriftfälscher" nennen, sind die größten Schriftfälscher. Für mich stehen sie außerhalb."</i>
<br /><br />
Es ist nun eine Frage ob sie
<br /><br />
<ul><li> Heiden sind, weil sie mit uns keine Bücher teilen;
<li> Ketzer sind, weil sie (sehr nominell) sich zum Gott Abrahams bekennen.</ul>
<br /><br />
St. Thomas sagt Heiden, St. Johan Damaszen sagt Ketzer.
<br /><br />
<i>"Aus christlicher Sicht: Sie erkennen nicht in Jesus den Messias und sie glauben nicht an den dreieinigen Gott."</i>
<br /><br />
Sie erkennen *schon* Jesus als Messias, u zw als den kommenden triumfierenden Messias, ungefähr so wie Juden auf *jemand anders* als den kommenden triumfierenden Messias warten. Du meinst wohl, sie erkennen nicht Jesus als Erlöser von der Sünde.
<br /><br />
<i>"Ihre Anmaßung unterstreichen sie durch die größte Gewalttätigkeit, die je eine Religion innehatte."</i>
<br /><br />
Und eins der ersten Opfer waren Mitzrahi-Juden und Christ-Palestinenser, von denen sich Teile schon unter Omar unter Zwang dieser Religion zuwandten. Das Ergäbnis eher als die Täter sind die Muslim-Palestinenser.
<br /><br />
Verstehst du jetzt ENDLICH mal was ich FÜR Muslim-Palestinenser habe? Sie sind Söhne Abrahams, Isaks, Jakobs, Nachkommen der Juden, Samarier und Galiläer zur Zeit Jesu. Gilt auch für die Christ-Palestinenser.
<br /><br />
Für mich ist in den Conflicten zwischen Israelis und Muslim-Palestinenser ausschlag-gebend wie Christ-Palestinenser, und zwar Catholiken vor Orthodoxe, darüber denken.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus der Messias - Jesus war der Messias, das ist jedenfalls doch wohl der christliche Glaube? Er war nicht irgendein Prophet. Als ich das erste Mal, noch fast ein Bube, den Koran gelesen habe, war ich entsetzt, wie dort geschrieben wurde, Jesus würde wieder kommen und mit den Muslimen in den Krieg gegen die Christen reiten. Die Mohammedaner sind meiner Meinung nach beides: Heiden und Ketzer! Ketzer sind sie wohl vom Ursprung her, denn ich denke, dass es zunächst eine syrische Sekte war, die die Trinität abgelehnt und sich vom Christentum abgespalten hat. Diese hat sich aber ganz mit dem heidnischen Ararbertum vermischt. Ich kann jedenfalls im Koran beim besten Willen nichts erkennen, was darauf hindeutet, dass der Gott da der gleiche Gott des Volkes Israels ist. Das ist für mich so, als würde jemand behaupten auch Allvater Wodan wäre eigentlich JHWE oder meinetwegen Zeus (der ja eher Tyr entspricht).
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Ich kann dir nur sagen, dass für mich persönlich Jesus der Messias ist und zwar der jüdische Messias, auch wenn Juden das natürlich ablehnen und sie aus der Geschichte, die das Christentum mit dem starken Antijudaismus nun mal hat, auch wenig Veranlassung haben, sich Jesus zuzuwenden. Das erwarte ich auch gar nicht. Meine Liebe zum Judentum ist da durchaus uneigennützig. Ich denke, dass Jesus tatsächlich den neuen Tempel errichtet hat, nämlich den Tempel des heiligen Geistes. Es ist meiner Meinung nach auch kein Zufall, dass letztlich christliche Länder den Juden Israel zurückgegeben haben. Ich halte das für die Bestimmung der Christen. Christen und Juden sollten sich endlich versöhnen. Sie werden, wenn auch anders interpretiert, von dem gleichen Geist geleitet. Sehr orthodoxe Juden lehnen Israel ab und denken, da käme nach einem Erdbeben der Messias und würde den Tempel neu bauen. Ein Erdbeben wäre auch nötig, denn da stehen ja muslimische Bauten im Weg. Ob der echte Tempel jemals wieder errichtet wird, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Aber der Tempel des Geistes kann errichtet werden von Juden und Christen gemeinsam. Wollen Moslems daran teilhaben, müssen sie der Gewalt gegen Christen und Juden abschwören und anerkennen, dass nun mal die Juden das ältere Buch haben. Es glaubt sowieso jeder Mensch etwas anderes. Ich habe jedenfalls noch nie zwei Menschen getroffen, die das gleiche meinen, wenn sie "Gott" sagen. Jeder Mensch macht seine eigenen Erfahrungen mit Gott. Ich bin übrigens, wie du weißt, obwohl sehr konservativ, kein Anti-Modernist. Ich finde die naturwissenschaftliche Perspektive sehr spannend. Meine Glaubenskrise war auch nicht durch die Evolutionstheorie bewirkt, sondern durch protestantische Pfaffen, weswegen ich auch die Lutheraner verlassen und eine Zeit lang nur katholische Messen zu Weihnachten besucht habe.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Harold Godwinson <i>"für mich persönlich Jesus der Messias ist und zwar der jüdische Messias"</i>
<br /><br />
Ich halte mit. Laut dem ist er auch der Erfüller von Jesaias 11.
<br /><br />
Und dieses irdische Gebiet ist die nah-ostliche Christenheit. Wovon auch die nah-ostliche Ummah abstammt.
<br /><br />
<i>"aus der Geschichte, die das Christentum mit dem starken Antijudaismus nun mal hat"</i>
<br /><br />
Das Judentum des Alten Testaments hatte auch einen starken Antisamaritismus. Samarier haben sich trotzdem dem Juden Jesus zugewandt.
<br /><br />
<i>"Es ist meiner Meinung nach auch kein Zufall, dass letztlich christliche Länder den Juden Israel zurückgegeben haben. Ich halte das für die Bestimmung der Christen."</i>
<br /><br />
Ich denke die Catholiken Palestinas und Roms sind bessere Christen als die Modernist-Protestanten Englands zur Zeit der Balfour-Declaration.
<br /><br />
Dies zu billigen weil *die* Länder (England, Siegermächte) in dem Sinne mehr oder weniger christlich sind ist, aus der Christenheit quasi ein Kalifat machen.
<br /><br />
<i>"Ob der echte Tempel jemals wieder errichtet wird, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Aber der Tempel des Geistes kann errichtet werden von Juden und Christen gemeinsam."</i>
<br /><br />
Weder noch. Jesus hat ihn am Dritten Tag wieder errichtet.
<br /><br />
<i>"Es glaubt sowieso jeder Mensch etwas anderes."</i>
<br /><br />
Ich denke, h¨ttest du mehr Erfahrung von Catholiken würdest du es so nicht sagen. Jeder Catholik glaubt nicht etwas anderes.
<br /><br />
<i>"Ich finde die naturwissenschaftliche Perspektive sehr spannend."</i>
<br /><br />
Ich nähre meinen Anti-Modernismus gerade auch aus naturwissenschaftlicher Perspective. Wenn La Ferrassie 1 wirklich vor 40.000 Jahren lebte, ist das Christentum logisch (nicht unbedingt sozial) pfutsch. Wenn Genesis 3 wirklich so passiert ist und geschichtlich weitererzählt wurde, zwischen Adam and Abraham, dann lebte sie vor viel weniger als 40.000 Jahren, z. B. unweit vor der Sintflut in 2958 v. Chr. Die Tabelle die ich da herausbekomme ist bis jetzt nicht naturwissenschaftlich oder archäologisch mehr als nur sehr marginal widerlegt worden.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl <i>"Dies zu billigen weil *die* Länder (England, Siegermächte) in dem Sinne mehr oder weniger christlich sind ist, aus der Christenheit quasi ein Kalifat machen."</i> Nein, da muss ich dir ganz deutlich widersprechen. Säkulare Länder können dennoch vom christlichen Geist erfüllt sein. Europa gründet nicht nur auf den Hügeln Roms, zum Glück, das wäre auch ein abscheulicher Kontinent. Europa gründet auch auf Athen und Golgatha. Aber nicht in einem theokratischen Sinn. Das Kalifat gründet aber nur auf den Hadtihen und dem Koran. Es kennt nichts anderes. Es gibt kein Wechselspiel der Kräfte. Und letztlich ist es nur meine Interpretation als Christ. Wirkt Gott in der Geschichte oder ist die Geschichte gottesleer? Die Shoah muss uns glauben machen, dass Gott nicht mehr wirkt. Dennoch denke ich, dass der heilige Geist die christlichen Nationen durchdringen kann auf eine leise Art und es eine Art Bestimmung gibt. Das ist aber meine Privatmeinung. Ich bin auch staatstheoretisch für eine Trennung von Kirche und Staat. Ich bin als Konservativer aber der Meinung, dass wir als Gesellschaft die Verankerung im Christentum brauchen.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><i>"Säkulare Länder können dennoch vom christlichen Geist erfüllt sein"</i>
<br /><br />
Das Kalifat war manchmal ganz schön säcular ... ich meine du gibst der protestantischen Christenheit so was wie die Loyalität die ein Muslim dem Kalifat gegenüber hat.
<br /><br />
<i>"Die Shoah muss uns glauben machen, dass Gott nicht mehr wirkt."</i>
<br /><br />
Wenn es die gab.
<br /><br />
<i>"Dennoch denke ich, dass der heilige Geist die christlichen Nationen durchdringen kann ..."</i>
<br /><br />
Spanien und Österreich, ja, Irland und Malta auch.
<br /><br />
England, nicht so sehr ... die USA, jedenfalls weniger damals als jetzt (Progressive Era war schlimmer als die Jahre der Abschaffung von Roe durch Dobbs).
<br /><br />
<i>"Ich bin auch staatstheoretisch für eine Trennung von Kirche und Staat."</i>
<br /><br />
Das ist aber ein Catholik nun nicht. Tactisch manchmal acceptabel, aber ideal nie.
<br /><br />
"Lehret die Völker" sagte Jesus den ersten catholischen Bischöfen, und das dann mitsammt dem Staatswesen dieser Völker.
<br /><br />
Auch ein Grund wieso manchmal Protestanten meine catholische Auffassung für muslimisch oder muslimisch beinflußt hält.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Es spielt für den Glauben an den lebendigen Gott meiner Meinung nach keine Rolle, ob es vor 40.000 Jahren Neandertaler gegeben hat.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Doch.
<br /><br />
Wenn La Ferrassie 1 vor 40 000 Jahren lebte, dann:
<ul><li> entweder war's nicht ein Mensch (unmöglich nach dem wir über Neanderthaler wissen, sowohl ihr Benehmen wie auch die Einmischung des Neanderthaler-Genoms ins heutige "Homo sapiens")
<li> oder ein Mensch vor Adam (dann war er nicht der erste Mensch, und seine Sünde hat der Menschheit nicht den Tod gebracht)
<li> oder Adam selbst lebte vor 40 000 Jahren oder noch mehr, und dann ist Genesis 3 nicht Geschichte, denn nicht geschichtlich überliefert.</ul>
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Ich bin weder Geologe, noch bin ich Evolutionsbiologe, also was ich darüber weiß, habe ich aus indirekten Quellen. Ich habe aber gerade über Evolutionsbiologie sehr, sehr viel gelesen. Der Neandertaler war ein Mensch. Sicher nicht so wie du und ich, aber auch heute noch sind die Unterschiede zwischen Menschen sehr groß, wir leugnen das nur aus politischen Gründen, weil wir das für Rassismus halten. Sicherlich war der Abstand des Neandertalers zum heutigen Menschen größer als der Abstand der Menschen heutiger Ethnien, Rassen untereinander, aber ich würde ihn dennoch für einen Menschen halten. Darauf deuten auch die Einkreuzungen nicht nur in unser Genom, sondern auch in das Genom des europäischen Neandertalers. Ich denke, dass bereits der Homo erectus in einem gewissen Sinne ein Mensch war und der Neandertaler und der moderne Mensch eben wie zwei stark getrennte Rassen, die sich in ähnliche Richtungen, aber dennoch unterschiedlich entwickelt haben. Die Bibel ist nicht Gottes wortwörtliche Wort für mich, sondern durch Gottes Geist inspiriertes Wort. Deswegen ist sie trotzdem wahr, aber es ist auch wahr, dass Menschen sie nur aus dem Verständnis ihrer Zeit schreiben konnten. Die Sintflut hat ganz sicher stattgefunden und einen historischen Kern. Deswegen muss sie aber nicht mit der Arche genauso stattgefunden haben, wie es dort steht. Für mich enthalten die Bibel und besonders auch die Evangelien so tiefe Wahrheiten, diese liegen weit unter und auch über dem Textwort. Siehst du, es hat meinen Glauben nie berührt. Als Kind war ich davon überzeugt, dass es einst Drachen gab. Mein Vater hatte das verneint. Dann sah ich in einer Art Kindergarten ein Buch mit Dinosauriern. Also hatte es doch Drachen gegeben, nur eben vor langer, langer Zeit. Es steht mir auch nicht zu, zu beurteilen, was es für Gott bedeutet, dass es lange vor dem jüdischen Volk schon Menschen gab. Auch wenn es irgendwo weit weg auf fernen Planeten Leben gibt, steht dieses Leben unter Gottes Gewalt und Schirm. Trotzdem kann ich glauben, dass die Geschichte der Menschheit auf der Erde auf Jesus Christus zugelaufen ist und seitdem einen anderen Sinn hat.
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Und: Ich will dir natürlich nicht in deinen Glauben reinreden. Für mich funktioniert es zusammen.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Es geht nicht darum in den Glauben reinzureden, ich habe schon ein festes Intellect dazu ...
<br /><br />
Homo erectus war ein Mensch, aber entweder Nephelim oder von den Nephelim genetisch modifiziert zur Dummheit. Ob auch Neanderthaler oder Denisover zu den Nephelim irgendwie gehören weiß ich nicht. Jedenfalls zur Menschheit.
<br /><br />
U. zw. zu einer Menschheit die auf Adam zurückgeht, und zwar auf einen Adam der nicht allzu lange vor Abraham und Moses lebte.
<br /><br />
Der catholische Priester Haydock commentiert zu Genesis 3:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Mit anderen Worten, wenn die Neanderthaler und Denisover die wir haben WIRKLICH (und nicht nur laut verschrägten Datierungen) vor 40 000 Jahren starben oder noch früher, dann fällt diese geschichtliche Verlässlichkeit von Genesis 3 aus.
<br /><br />
Ohne diese Verlässlichkeit von Genesis 3, auch die Lehre von der Erbsünde und von der Sündfreiheit der hl. Jungfrau.
<br /><br />
Mit anderen Worten, acceptieren dieser Daten ("40 000 vor der Gegenwart") zerstört das catholische Dogma.
<br /><br />
Und sind auch wissenschaftlich unnötig. Liest du Spanisch?
<br /><br />
Ich machte gestern und heute ein Paar Posten auf dem (u. a.) spanischen Blog hierzu:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/11/la-datacion-carbonica-conflito-con-la.html">La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica?</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2023/11/denisova-en-atapuerca-y-otras-cosas.html">Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas</a>
<br /><br />
Das meiste was die Rassisten über Rassenunterschiede faseln sind Volgen der Erbsünde, die für allen Menschen etwa gleich ist, aber ungleich ist das culturelle, punctuelle und ungenügende Unterdrücken der Ausdrucke der Erbsünde.
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>übrigens ... sie selbst ist auf FB nicht da, und auch auf Stanford nicht ...
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Nun, es kann natürlich sein, dass ich einer Fälschung auf den Leim gegangen bin. Das werde ich jetzt so schnell nicht herausfinden. Worauf möchtest du, Freund, aber hinaus? Das ist mir etwas unklar!
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>1) Ist der Westen noch ihr Freund?
<br />2) Was würde sie selbst dazu gesagt haben daß es in Israel keine einmal "Halb-Apartheid" gibt?
<br /><br />
<dt>Harold Godwinson
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Gute Frage!</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-4545563354979408132023-10-24T05:10:00.008-07:002023-10-24T10:19:42.041-07:00Dishonesty of Abortionists feat. Dr. Randall<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVJwR7xnEWxSZ6ysg42HbBlsTaVas5o_hl5Urk1rqyiMqsrW_NA2LjK9ZuCb7pa5UNI64dVVA2vY6Qd-RvNauAq_Btz_r27blQqQpVJucZXN-tMQaMkclLk9Nqtb0s7kdVCHm-6bpjKuXujcRviaiv7Lg7sG9lU0JpgxZ1eqRpf9RJIMJkPVQPVKra0vk/s756/randall.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="756" data-original-width="683" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVJwR7xnEWxSZ6ysg42HbBlsTaVas5o_hl5Urk1rqyiMqsrW_NA2LjK9ZuCb7pa5UNI64dVVA2vY6Qd-RvNauAq_Btz_r27blQqQpVJucZXN-tMQaMkclLk9Nqtb0s7kdVCHm-6bpjKuXujcRviaiv7Lg7sG9lU0JpgxZ1eqRpf9RJIMJkPVQPVKra0vk/s320/randall.jpg"/></a></div>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-613481489304669842023-10-24T02:41:00.008-07:002023-10-24T02:41:41.604-07:00A Situation Mistreated for Very Long<br />
<dl><dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>24 October 2010
<dd>At LAST out of hookup hotel!
<br /><br />
Last redaction of what I wanted: a wife, but not from "here" - meaning that site.
<br /><br />
When I started studying again in 2003, I should have gotten out, but did not think about it. From 2004 to now, restrictions on many computers I have used have stopped me from getting out, till today.
<br /><br />
<dt>6 commentaires
<dd>of which only my three reply comments remain, the other person deleted the comments.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>site for flirts for casual sex
<br /><br />
was in it a year or two while desperate about getting a wife and not having one yet
<br /><br />
most places where internet is for free, the site is blocked, so I could not get my account finished until today
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Thank you, but do not bring that up please.
<br /><br />
Stop.
<br /><br />
People who pray about that staying an option pray about me staying celibate. I sometimes want to kill such people.
<br /><br />
I do not want to stay celibate.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Some people were spying about the emails I got, I presume. Including the ones from that site.
<br /><br />
Which presumably brought me bad reputation behind my back - who would care to admit they listened to that kind of spies? - and therefore bad luck, if not with girls themselves, at least with their brothers, parents, uncles, aunts, sisters ... or even grandparents.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-90629349262187132332023-10-22T12:49:00.005-07:002023-10-22T14:42:54.993-07:00Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem<br />
<b>New blog on the kid:</b> <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/09/not-so-far-away-not-so-big.html">Not So Far Away, Not So Big</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-long-time-ago-in-galaxy-far-far-away.html">"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/10/how-do-we-know-stellar-distances.html">How do we know stellar distances?</a> · <a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/10/but-angels-dont-move-planets-they-are.html">But Angels Don't Move Planets, They Are Guardian Angels!</a> · <b>HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS:</b> <a href="https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2023/10/cosmic-banana-vs-distant-star-light.html">Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>While the title is a clickbaiting reference to Ray Comfort and Singing Banana (the former discussed in a video I was hearing while making the html), whatever view you take of the heavenly bodies, even a Heliocentric one, it is kind of a cosmic version of Ray Comfort's well designed banana which fits the human hand. Here are CMI doing a Heliocentric version:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system"><i>Remarkable evidence of a designed, young, and stable solar system</i>
<br />by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
<br /><i>Creation 45(4):55, October 2023</i>
<br />https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system</a>
<br /><br />
But the problem is, it doesn't take care of the Distant Starlight Problem, Geocentrism does.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Gary Robokoff
<dd>Admin, Meilleur contributeur
<dt>17.X.2023
<dd>The age of the universe is all over the place.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmK8OXcHslVzFeUJoxuy75tmC7jjbVTPWRsV8lROSkreAM4RXRxMZwerW_TnbJQBUy852NfyvGAE2Lqp3W4Z_8aBXER74oLljBguJERpipM8CtknqsnUs3Z8mSKREb3lTJ5Tc-RS7bEZh4U36yULD1_2N02RojtvZzrjgARVjUbSrzdpnoYNMQxJeElxQ/s684/status.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="684" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmK8OXcHslVzFeUJoxuy75tmC7jjbVTPWRsV8lROSkreAM4RXRxMZwerW_TnbJQBUy852NfyvGAE2Lqp3W4Z_8aBXER74oLljBguJERpipM8CtknqsnUs3Z8mSKREb3lTJ5Tc-RS7bEZh4U36yULD1_2N02RojtvZzrjgARVjUbSrzdpnoYNMQxJeElxQ/s320/status.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Geocentrism.
<br /><br />
Recall how the shortest distance measures are done that involve light years, e g 4 light years to alpha of the Centaur? Trigonometry. If earth is what is moving, sun and star both are relatively still (though moving on a very much more long term basis), then we have one distance and two angles and can do trigonometry. If the Sun and the star is what is moving and if we can't guarantee the stars moves in stride with the Sun, even if we see it is in pace with the Sun, then we have simply one angle and no distance. Not enough to do trigonometry.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dt>Admin, Meilleur contributeur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY and needs revision once more data available, even under 1k LY.
<br /><br />
Any claim of accurate parallax or any light departure point of light visible here and now over 5,784 (minimum value SPIRAL LY radius i the nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed) is disputed science.
<br /><br />
SPIRAL shows why basic physics and math explanation of the vast body of empirical cosmological observations, attest the vastly higher probability science is the year age of the universe is capped by the LY distance SPIRAL radius i. So the mantle of science is firmly within the universe being 'thousands, not billions' of years old.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Roger M Pearlman <i>"my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY"</i>
<br /><br />
The problem is, above that, there are other methods taking over.
<br /><br />
Parallax X optic size of star is supposed to break down to certain star types with certain typical sizes, like main series has a size 1 ~ 2 times the sun. By this method, astronomers think they have gone far beyond 1k LY.
<br /><br />
And from there, Cepheids take over until you have the 13.8 billion LY away.
<br /><br />
I do not have the book you have written on spiral cosmology, but Geocentrism actually takes away the need, since it involves no reliable reason to take even alpha Centauri as even 4 LY away.
<br /><br />
And how does Geocentrism work?
<br /><br />
Two options.
<br /><br />
Riccioli: angels move individual heavenly bodies through a void from East to West, but are not keeping the same speed.
<br />Thomas Aquinas: God moves the upper heaven, which moves spheres below it, from East to West, and in each sphere angels move the celestial bodies the other way round.
<br /><br />
In the mechanics of St. Thomas, I analyse the miracle of Joshua's long day as follows:
<br /><br />
a) God obeyed Joshua, by ceasing to move the heavens westward
<br />b) the angels of sun and moon also stood still in their habitations (which is why they did not move slightly eastward either).
<br /><br />
This way, Joshua 10:14 is true:
<br /><b>There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel</b>
<br />and Habacuc 3:11 is true:
<br /><b>The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.</b>
<br /><br />
And the thing which God moves directly and in which angels move their orbits can be considered as the firmament, which also reaches down in this circular motion to the surface of the earth, which is why we have Coriolis effect and winds of passage and oceanic currents. The matter of which this is made is presumably aether, i e the actual non-void in so called vacuum. Not only celestial bodies, but also atoms, are suspended in aether. However, the aether between the atoms in our bodies does not belong to the firmament, as it is not firmly tied to similar positions in relation to other parts of it.
<br /><br />
Note, when an object starts to fall, the reason it does not fall westward with the aether is, while it was suspended before the fall, it acquired an eastward momentum through the aether of the firmament, this being also why geostationary satellites work.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dt>Admin, Meilleur contributeur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<br />In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we illustrate how/why even if parallax was accurate up to 30k LY (somehow able to account for all gravitational lensing...) based on the highest probability science it would still align best with the most distant stellar objects light departure point of 5,784 (6k rounded) light years to date maximum. As one needs to take into account the change in density of the universe at light departure. All over SPIRAL Radius i departed on day 4. The more distant the stellar object, the earlier on day 4 in passed that distance from us. We conclude a Earth-sun elliptic centric universe.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dt>Admin, Meilleur contributeur
<dd><a href="www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261">(PDF) SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the universe exhibit A
<br />www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261</a>
<br /><br />
MVP hypothesis, i will see if i have an excerpt on the cosmic distance ladder.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Unlike a blog, your link to researchgate won't open on this computer.
<br /><br />
It may be interesting, but I think it is also superfluous.
<br /><br />
<dt>Roger M Pearlman
<dt>Admin, Meilleur contributeur
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl see if this link works on SPIRAL Blitz PDF on the comic distance ladder. if not i will see if i have the link to it on academia.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder"><i>(PDF) Parallax, Gravity and The Cosmic Distance Ladder.</i>
<br />https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder</a>
<br /><br />
Hans-Georg Lundahl there can be more than one viable hypothesis on reconciling the cosmic distance ladder, a light speed limit of standard light speed, and the universe being 6k rounded years. It is good to have more than one in case one is falsified.Either way, time (and or our One common father) will tell which one best describes the one actuality.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis"><i>SPIRAL 'Blitz' cosmic distance ladder hypothesis.</i>
<br />https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Thanks for sharing.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Don't assume uniformitarian assumptions. Do you assume a stellar object 15k LY, 1.5M LY, 1.5B LY.. has always been at that approximate distance?
<br /><br />
Obviously if it was subjected to a material amount of cosmic expansion it was not. So the light we see here now from all objects at and over 5778 LY, could have departed when 5778 LY distance. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The problem is, on your view, the views we have of the stars OUGHT to reflect, not the actual distance now (if anything like known), but the distance within 5778 LY.
<br /><br />
Because you see, when a modern cosmologist says "those far off stars are 13.8 billion LY away" he means they were so 13.8 billion Y ago, and that they could now be very much further off.
<br /><br />
The REAL logical result of your theory being true is, no star should even by uniformitarians be measured further away than 5778 LY, since the "distance measured" reflects very strictly the conditions of the light we receive, filtered through certain assumptions.
<br /><br />
The positions given by astronomers are definitely NOT meant as "what the distance is now, long after the starlight was emitted" bt ONLY "distance when the starlight was emitted" ..
<br /><br />
So, your solution seems to be a non-solution.</dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-31874144479178104652023-10-16T07:19:00.008-07:002023-10-16T07:23:16.056-07:00Än mer Censur<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkycCabOIxeyBzng0XOVmLwH_KKTRUK3aM4etCo9d7kOEtD7gaS-74LiLvOTihiIybB9r7da1hhFuWlRo0LlvTivEL-4oSNocI6tnRK8Ywb8jA8acEIysjnmZm-IzOKBYhxIz4JB3MBL-N5jdid5pcsQWJRn4oNl7IS4Ii6lC248tXaB5afRqrEZWlB2g/s544/stephan.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="544" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkycCabOIxeyBzng0XOVmLwH_KKTRUK3aM4etCo9d7kOEtD7gaS-74LiLvOTihiIybB9r7da1hhFuWlRo0LlvTivEL-4oSNocI6tnRK8Ywb8jA8acEIysjnmZm-IzOKBYhxIz4JB3MBL-N5jdid5pcsQWJRn4oNl7IS4Ii6lC248tXaB5afRqrEZWlB2g/s320/stephan.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
På Stephan Borgehammars mur.
<br /><br />
Innehåller en reference till hans verk. Är på tyska:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2019/11/reliquien-echt.html"><i>Antworten nach Sorte : Reliquien, echt!</i>
<br />https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2019/11/reliquien-echt.html</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-84769389728169609142023-09-28T15:30:00.005-07:002023-09-30T03:28:21.355-07:00Defending and Explaining St. Thomas to some Orthodox<br />
<b>Or at least one or two of them are, Alex Coleman and probably Brandon Igler.</b>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Alex Coleman
<dt>25.IX.2023
<dd>Tertullian held that the heart is the location of the human soul. Thus, he was a follower of Aristotle. The sage of Carthage was wrong to charge Plato with being the father of all heresies. That title rightly belongs to the tutor of Alexander.
<br /><br />
Tertullian held that Christ is not eternally begotten from the Father. Whereas the Platonist, St. Justin Martyr, held to the eternal generation of the Son.
<br /><br />
<dt>I
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Alex Coleman I have known if several Baptist who deny the eternal generation of the Son, as well. Ironically the guy was a scripture scholar. I guess Sola Scriptura can’t answer the most basic principles of Trinitarian and Christological wonder.
<br /><br />
<dt>John-Paul Beaumont
<dd>Alex Coleman where does he say that may I ask?
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>John-Paul Beaumont. In his Dialogue with Trypho, I think. I cannot recall with certitude. As regards Tertullian, I believe he states his view in Against Praxeas.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Brandon Igler. The 18th century English Protestant scholar, John Gill, wrote a work defending the Holy Trinity. I would like to see how the Trinity can be adequately defended without reference to the Holy Fathers. I would like to read that work at some point. Gill frequently quotes rabbinic sources in his biblical commentaries but rarely cites the Church Fathers.
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Alex Coleman this is a mistake that most evangelical make today, they would rather quote rabbis than Christians. Catholics do this as well. I think I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism. I may be wrong on the topic but I chuckled because that is so wild to denounce one of the most brilliant minds within the Church and really on earth, and side with Maimonides. I remember when I was taking my Judaic studies more serious, I was recommended to read the guide for the perplexed and it’s basically just Aristotle, I didn’t read much of it. Long story short, This fact just piggybacks your theory that you see Platonist and Aristotelian thought running parallel throughout history.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Brandon Igler. Thank you for that insight. We are picking up bread crumbs on a trail. On the trail of the assassins, eh Timothy Kevin Ready? More will be revealed........
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Brandon Igler <i>"I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism"</i>
<br /><br />
I'd very much like to know where Jay Dyer got that from.
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl it would have to be on one of Thomas’s apologetics for divine simplicity. I haven’t read the summa but I’m sure it’s in that. Possibly. Hope that helps
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>In Orthodoxy, St. Justin Martyr is referred to as St. Justin the Philosopher.
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Alex Coleman for good reason
<br /><br />
Alex Coleman when I first came across the idea of Logos Spermatikos and went back and read the Torah and the Gospels, from the I AM to the Incarnation of our Lord, I was in pieces. Everything made sense and now when I read anything it either lines up with Christ or it is indeed Foolishness. All of the Wisdom literature came alive again and especially his dialog with Pilate “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
<br /><br />
Alex Coleman think of Israel, the wrestling with God, Wisdom, and the gentile tradition of Philosophy, the Brotherly love of wisdom. It’s beautiful
<br /><br />
<dt>John-Paul Beaumont
<dd>Alex Coleman thanks I’ll have a look!
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Brandon Igler "Question 3. The simplicity of God" in the Summa - I did an F search for "Dam" and found nothing. Damascene or of Damascus is not in that question.
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah, I haven’t read the summa. Wouldn’t mind reading it some day just to understand their position or reasoning better. This quote may not even be in the summa, I’m just assuming it would be.
<br /><br />
<dt>Peter Gilbert
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl Thomas Aquinas cites Maimonides especially in his tractate on Creation; he agrees with Maimonides (following Aristotle) that reason does not rule out an eternal creation, but at the same time (not following Aristotle) reason does not necessitate an eternal creation; if we hold that there is a temporal beginning to creation, it is because that is something revealed to us.
<br /><br />
As for disagreeing with St. John of Damascus, this probably refers to the Damascene's statement that "We do not say that the Spirit is 'from' the Son." On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong.
<br /><br />
<dt>Brandon Igler
<dd>Peter Gilbert thank you. I wasn’t familiar with all the citations, I just heard it discussed on one of Jay Dyers talks about Latin Theology.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Peter Gilbert. What exactly is meant by, eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Peter Gilbert <i>"On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong."</i>
<br /><br />
On that point.
<br /><br />
And on that point he follows Western Patristics, which reaches back well before St. John of Damascus.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Alex Coleman If you'll excuse me bumping in:
<br /><br />
<i>"eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it"</i>
<br /><br />
Eternal creation means that the universe has always existed, and that God has always provided its existence, ab aeterno, with no beginning.
<br /><br />
Aristotle did not figure out why God would chose to create or chose anything, God being totally blissful, he considered God would be incapable (from that simple fact) of any kind of initiative. So, he considered the universe eternally comes into being by its matter adapting to God by a kind of love or longing for His inattainable perfection.
<br /><br />
On this point, St. Thomas considered that we know from Revelation that Aristotle was wrong, while St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus considered we can know even from reason that the universe had a beginning, when God made an actual initiative to create it or some other more putting it from non-being into being.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. If the universe is eternal, how then is God the Prime Mover? St. Bonaventure and Scotus were Platonists. Note that St. Gregory Palamas had the same essential system as Duns Scotus.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Alex Coleman God is prime mover, because He is the principal mover of the daily motion of the universe around Earth.
<br /><br />
This is how Riccioli interpreted prima via.
<br /><br />
To Aristotle this means, the beauty of God, without any decision on His part, makes the universe dance around Earth, and first of all the sphere of the fix stars.
<br /><br />
To St. Thomas this means, God is consciously and by divine fiat moving the sphere of the fix stars around earth each day, which then drags the sphere of Saturn with it, which then drags Jupiter along, and then Mars, and then Sun, Mercury, Venus, Moon, and finally aptmospheres and seas.
<br /><br />
St. Thomas could have explained the Foucault pendulum as some kind of participation in this daily motion. I do so. Not believing spheres are solid bodies, I still believe the heavenly bodies are within an aether, which is the kind of substance that space consists of, as well as being the kind of substance of which electromagnetic rays are ripples and so on. As opposite parts of this aether space remain opposite, and as parts of this aether space at a given height above earth remain that height (though the heavenly bodies may vary in height, apogee and perigee), this means the aether forming this space has a kind of solidity corresponding to the concept of stereoma.
<br /><br />
Prime mover and creator in time are two different concepts.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yet if the universe is eternal, so must be it's motion. If the universe has always existed, then the motion within it must be perpetual. Where is there, thus, any place for a first cause?
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>The question is not about earlier cause vs later effect, but about contemporary cause and contemporary effect.
<br /><br />
Like when you hold a hammer and bang with it, your hand is cause of the hammer moving, and the hammer moving is cause of some metal being hammered, even if they happen at the same time.
<br /><br />
First cause does not equal kalam.
<br /><br />
<dt>II
<br /><br />
<dt>Ernesto Raimondi
<dd>Beyond the objections to philosophizing Christianity that Mr. Ostrowski and Mr. Leonardi gave above, which I largely agree with, the very consideration of the soul being located in a particular organ, rather understanding the soul as the spiritual dimension of the body which animates it, and thus in/with the whole body, strikes me as quite bizarre. It doesn't seem to be compatible with anything I've learned from Christians about the relationship of the body and soul. Always the Christians I've known (aside from the neo-Gnostic types who see the eschaton as strictly spiritual) have indicated to me that they understood the soul to be in a natural union with the body, and the soul is localized because of this union, so that its location is the body, not one particular part of the body.
<br /><br />
In addition to it seeming to be an aberrant belief, I think this notion of the "location of the soul" is in danger of running into the sorts of conceptual problems that Descartes ran into with his mind-body dualism, and the pineal gland theory of the communication of the two. If the soul is not embodied, is not what gives the body form by being its animative principle, then how do we explain the communication between the body and the soul? Descartes had to come up with very odd ideas about animal spirits in order to give an explanation, and generally it's understood to not even have been a good one.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Ernesto Raimondi. I believe that Tertullian is not speaking of a physical location but rather as to what constitutes the essence of the human being. Given that he is arguing in the treatise for the corporeality of the soul as a general principle and that he states elsewhere in the treatise that the soul fills the whole body, this stands as evidence for my assertion.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ernesto Raimondi
<dd>Alex Coleman The idea of a part being the essence of a composite doesn't sound right to me. Essence is supposed to give the "what-it-is", so to speak. If we say "central muscular organ that pumps blood throughout a fleshy body", then we have one account of what a heart is. One conventional account of the essence of human being is "rational animal". How a heart or a head could give us this for the human being, I can't begin to imagine.
<br /><br />
The only way I could see this approach making sense would be if Tertullian were speaking of the heart and the head in a symbolic/spiritual sense. If that's the case, then of course the critique I gave above is not relevant. On the other hand, if we're talking about the heart and the head in figurative senses, I also don't see why either one could not be plausible candidates for giving the essence of human being. Is this what you were objecting to in the first place, the figurative heart being the essence of the human being? If so, what is your problem with this view?
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Ernesto Raimondi. Yes, I believe he was speaking in a symbolic fashion. My objection is that by affirming that the essence of man is heart, Tertullian is implicitly denying that man is made in the image of God. The problem is that Tertullian was a materialist and argued elsewhere in the treatise that being made in the image of God means nothing more than that we are representative of His physical shape. Being a rational animal is not to be in the image of God. It is merely to be a beast with the added attribute of instrumental reason. Aristotle sees no qualitative distinction between man and animal only a quantitative one.
<br /><br />
<dt>Ernesto Raimondi
<dd>Alex Coleman I know that Tertullian was a heretic, but the issue isn't just with his views. What you've effectively said is that Aristotelianism is the font of all heresies. In this particular matter (the essence of human being), you seem to be setting up a dichotomy of Platonist and Aristotelian views of the human essence, the former being linked to head symbology, and the latter to heart symbology. Further, you've now elaborated that the latter view implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God. Can you explain how the heart account implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God, while the head account does not?
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Ernesto Raimondi. For Plato, man is defined by his capacity to grasp the Forms. In Christian Platonism, the Forms are ideas in the mind of God. Thus, man is uniquely connected to the mind of God, in Platonism. "Man is the creature who desires to know. Thus, the delight that he takes in the senses." Thus Aristotle locates the capacity of man to obtain knowledge within the confines of sense-perception. We share sensation with the beasts. Thus, God commands that we care for them and protect them. For Plato, the Forms are the ultimate reality and form is always separate from matter but linked through participation. For Aristotle, form is always united to matter. His idea of concept formation is identical to that of Hume.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>For Christian Aristotelics, forms have three realities.
<br /><br />
Before the thing, in God's mind, in the thing, and after the thing in man's mind.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yes, but Aristotle himself did not hold to such a view. Aquinas's attempt to baptize Aristotle, was ultimately, an exercise in futility.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>No, because he made a valid philosophy better than Aristotle's.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps, in his zeal to baptize Aristotle, Aquinas misunderstood him........
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>No, Aquinas certainly did understand Aristotle.
<br /><br />
When he credits Aristotle with an error, he is usually showing how Aristotle could have avoided it by applying his own principles more consistently.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps Aquinas interpreted Aristotle in a manner such the Stagyrite would be rendered acceptable to Christians, despite the essential heresy of his teachings.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>There is no "essential heresy of his teachings"
<br /><br />
There are his teachings, and there are heresies that are in them and which St. Thomas upfront called out as lapses on the part of Aristotle ...
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Hans-Georg Lundahl. Are the fundamental principles of Aristotle congruent with the teaching of the Church? Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? Is Materialism, it's ontology? Is empiricism, it's epistemology? If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? St. Thomas was a genius but the principle of contradiction is a necessary truth. True in all possible worlds.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>Let's break this down.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Two remarks.
<br />a) Tatian is an expert on the Bible, not necessarily on Aristotle.
<br />b) St. Thomas on occasion observed that Aristotle's view was only rational from an innerworldly perspective, which is not concerned with holiness.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Some degree, yes.
<br /><b>Charge the rich of this world not to be highminded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, (who giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy,)</b>
<br />[1 Timothy 6:17]
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Is Materialism, it's ontology? //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Materialism:
<br /><br />
Democritus
<br />Epicure
<br />Lucrece
<br /><br />
NOT Aristotle who was hylomorphist (i e held that the most usual substances are those composed by matter and form).
<br /><br />
Aristotle was far closer to Plato than the real materialists were.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Is empiricism, it's epistemology? //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Yes:
<br /><b>And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony.</b>
<br />[John 3:32]
<br /><b>For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.</b>
<br />[Acts of Apostles 4:20]
<br /><b>For thou shalt be his witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard.</b>
<br />[Acts of Apostles 22:15]
<br /><b>That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.</b>
<br />[1 John 1:3]
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
First, he's not a materialist.
<br /><br />
Second, the hedonistic ethos is not always contrary to the Christian ethos.
<br /><br />
<dt>III
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>This penchant to quasi-dogmatize philosophical systems is itself alien to the gospel and the fathers. Philosophical systems are man made tools which are indeed useful but being man made they will always remain faulty to one degree or another. Take whatever is good and useful in each system, modify that which needs modification, but forget about this nonsense of constantly narrowing of the gates for the sake of advancing a silly Eastern Napoleonic complex.
<br /><br />
<dt>John Nikolov
<dd>Craig Ostrowski
<br />I agree with you about philosophy. It can be useful, but that’s about it.
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>John Nikolov
<br />Yes. It's very valuable, but the problem arises when people begin to confuse philosophy with divine revelation. Alex Coleman is pretty much doing that here, but not explicitly.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. In Antiquity, Christianity was called, "The Divine Philosophy." Christian teaching is the revelation of the mind of God. Of all earthly philosophies, which most closely resembles Christianity? The answer is Platonism. Thus, St. Clement of Alexandria taught that Plato was to the Greeks what Moses was to the Jews. Namely, a Schoolmaster who leads to Christ. Thus, St. Athanasius called Plato, "that giant among the Greeks." Thus, Neitszche said that, "Christianity is Platonism for the masses." Thus and so........
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>Alex Coleman
<br />Read up about Clement of Alexandria. He had his problems. I'd I remember correctly, Photios even denounced him. Nevertheless, in no way am I condemning the use of philosophy. In fact, I've noted here how useful it is. If you read Pope Benedict XVI's famous Regensburg address you'll find that he nailed it about the use of philosophy. As the saying goes, it's the hand maiden of theology. It's not theology itself. When you lose sight of that fact, as you have, you've gone too far because you've confused human wisdom with all of its limitations with divine revelation. Then you end up making the further mistake of condemning those who don't make your mistake.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. St. Photios reduced the veneration of St. Clement by abolishing his feast day. Although Clement is still referred to as a saint in Orthodoxy and there are icons of him. The Catholic Church also abolished his feast in the 16th century. What is the essential distinction between philosophy and theology in your view? Through God's revelation, which is a theology, we are given an accurate metaphysical picture of reality which is a philosophy. Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous.
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>Alex Coleman
<br />Divine revelation is divinely revealed information about God and His relationship to man. Theology, properly speaking, is the study of God. Philosophy is comprised of various man made metaphysical systems, none of which were divinely revealed. Thus, again, your conflating divinely revealed truths with man made metaphysical systems utilized to systematize those truths. The two are not synonymous by any means. Again, this is one of the underlying reasons why and how EO's end up rejecting their own fathers.
<br /><br />
There's a reason why Photios did with he did concerning Clement of Alexandria. As I previously said, he said some troubling things.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. Thus, in your definition, theology is that which is revealed by God, whereas, philosophy comes from the mind of man. That is the essential distinction?
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>Alex Coleman
<br />Yes.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. Platonism is almost Christianity. Platonism is THE philosophy of man that comes closest to the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index.
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>Alex Coleman
<br />Satan almost conveyed the word of God. Philosophical systems are not divine revelation, so don't treat them as such.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? Did they not call him, The Philosopher?
<br /><br />
<dt>Craig Ostrowski
<dd>Alex Coleman
<br />That's mostly a misconception. The Dominicans favored Aristotle but they were the minority. The Franciscans, i.e. Ss. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, far outnumbered the Dominicans. While those two schools had their share of battles, Rome wisely never dogmatized any philosophical system.
<br /><br />
<dt>Alex Coleman
<dd>Craig Ostrowski. I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. Scotus accepted the ontological argument whereas St. Thomas rejected it. St. Thomas's argument against the ontological argument is one of brilliance. He is rightly called, "The Angelic Doctor." It was Descartes who revived the ontological argument, in the West.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd><blockquote>// Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Rather, natural theology is synonymous with philosophy, a friendliness towards wisdom, revealed theology is sophia, wisdom herself.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
There was no Index.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
In calling Aristotle "the philosopher" they arguably followed Averroist usage. Please note, they equally referred to Averroes as "the commentator" - which makes sense in this perspective.
<br /><br />
Averroism provided cultural imports, but Averroism as a whole was consistently rejected.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>// I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. //</blockquote>
<br /><br />
If you'd like to story non-Thomistic, Orthodox, Scholasticism, take a view on the condemnations of Stephen II Tempier, bishop of Paris.
<br /><br />
Link:
<br /><a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html">EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
<br />http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html</a></dl>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0