Monday, July 24, 2017

... on Kent Hovind / Bill Ludlow debate, first half


Kent Hovind debates Bill Ludlow: Is there evidence for human evolution. (BEST DEBATE TO DATE)
Steve McRae
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul_F9sY-Rk


Video is 1 h 27 som min long, Bill's presentation made me want to wait, I started at 29:30 and went on to about 46:00 sth. Keep looking out for updates with second half. The same debate is also uploaded on videos by both Kent Hovind and Bill Ludlow, on their channels. This one is from the one who I think arranged the debate./HGL

29:30 While I agree with Kent Hovind that the idea of human evolution is part of the general idea of amoeba to man evolution, adressing the one is not a substitute for adressing the other.

As to human evolution, I can't dispute we are related to Neanderthals and Denisovans, I simply think they were pre-Flood races related to some inlaws of Noah. Neanderthals having been part of lineage of Mrs Japheth, and Denisovans either of Mrs Japheth or of Mrs Shem, unless you could argue South East Asians stem mainly from Ham. I think certain Christian authors who did believe table of nations considered at least the Chinese as a melting pot of diverse people from mainly Shem's lineages. On the other hand, European whites and Asiatics "yellows" form a spectrum which involves clearly Japhethic people (Scythians arguably from Magog) having clearly Asiatic features.

And I found some evidence Japs and Romans could both be related to Hittites, via Puduhepa figuring as "Venus mater" (she was an Ishtar priestess) and as "Amaterasu" (she was also priestess of the sungoddess of Arinna). But Hittites would seem to come from the oldest son of Canaan, on Ham's side.

37:00 sth

Cave paintings.

Probably a short period - about a century or two or three - and possibly same artist.

Mr or Mrs Japheth, since many of them are in Europe. Possibly provoked by a sense (fairly obvious after the Flood) of : the world is changing, let's document it!

38:09 Yes, exactly, we don't have Neanderthal Y chromosomes and a population replacement of predominantly Neanderthals to exclusive Cro-Magnon happened in Europe between "39 000 BP" and "30 000 BP" - you just hit the nail with my argument of Neanderthals being a pre-Flood race.

38:24 I agree they were not modern humans, which means post-Flood descendants from Adam via Noah.

Also, while we have Neandethal hastags but no cave paintings, that could be because there was a Flood washing away the paint after Neanderthals doing them. No Flood after Chauvet, then.

41:37 do we or do we not need "to prove a fossil had children"?

If we can assume for a fossil it had typical traits of its population on this or that item, we can assume that the population had these traits.

However, this immediately rules out using one single fossil as proof of a population since it could be abnormally formed.

But also, when it comes to humans, I think populations of abnormally formed and perhaps not very likely to have children many more generations have existed.

In China, you have dwarf villages. I sometimes suspect tribes in the woods of trolls would have been tribes of trisomy 21, especially in Sweden or Norway (down in France or England, the Downsers as some like to call them were values as family members and once they usually died young from heart failure as praying for their families, since baptised and having all their life been incapable of committing mortal sins after baptism). But in Sweden and Norway, there is a tradition about "bortbytingar" (troll children left in normal human cradles instead of the real child) and there is some speculation these could be children with Downs syndrome. Ergo, when some recovered "their real child" by mistreating the troll child, could the troll child have gone to a secret colony of Mongos?

Seeing child welfare these times in those countries, perhaps some élite (clergy or nobles, not sure which is most suspect) would have done exchanges and instead of killing could have set up colonies, leading to stories of trolls in the woods.

Dwarf colonies are more likely to lead to reproduction, but hardly to have evolved to us, rather for a while from us. I e, from normal stature, not from humanity as such. But people with Downs can reproduce too.

So, suppose we really do have very close intermediates on every step between ourselves and Australopithecus, not saying I grant that, and we should conclude they are related to us, could they have been some kind of colony of abnormals or some kind of genetic experiment farm for "orc breeding" from men?

That is one possibility I have not entiremy thrown out.

42:02 "you didn't prove any of the Neanderthal skeletons had children"

There is however proof that Neanderthal typical genome can account for up to 5 % of the genome of a modern European, perhaps including you. This means people genetically like them had children, but since both their Y chromosome and their mitochondrial DNA is different from ours, we would be dealing with sth like a woman marrying a modern human (Seth-Noah or "sapiens sapiens") man, herself having a modern human mother. As a woman she would not carry Y-chromosomes at all, and as having our mitochondrial DNA from her mum, she would not carry Neanderthal specific mtDNA either. But she would carry Neanderthal typic DNA on one of her X and of the autosomes from her Neanderthal dad.

And this, supposing Noah did not count Neanderthals as Nephelim tainted in chosing his daughters in law, would fit the profile of one wife of one son of his very neatly.

42:20

We are not dealing with Neanderthal genes identic overall to modern human, i e post-Flood human genes.

There are plenty of those too, probably the reason why one racist theorist has concluded Europeans are Neanderthals and not Homo Sapiens.

We are dealing with genes usually found in Neaderthals and not post-Flood men, but found in a few of us, typically Europeans or Asiatics.

This means there was common offspring, so we must conclude they are the same created kind as we.

Unless you prefer to say they were elves, the first born of Iluvatar, who only rarely and against His usual laws intermarried with us. I don't believe that, I believe Silmarillion is great Christian literature by an Old Earth Creationist who unusually much made the best out of it intellectually (even squeezing in an absolute truth for Mark 10:6, which is why Silmarillion is more intelligent than Evolutionism), but I believe it is based on speculation and that one on one flawed principle, acceptance of Old Earth, which we agree is wrong.

Therefore, the Neanderthals who had children with people like us and whose descendants live among us (we are probably among these) were human, descending from Adam, like we do. And this, with the rest, fits a pre-Flood race.

43:07 sorry, you missed the point.

If ALL men share certain genes with chimps (like the damaged gene for vitamin C production), this proves a common Designer (and in case of the damaging, probably also a common one Cursing the one for the sake of the Other).

But if most men do NOT share and some men exceptionally did share a gene with chimps, that usually would either prove some of us had mated with them, or that there had been a genetic experiment. Unless of course the difference from a more typical human version of it is not very great.

We are dealing with genes here that are multiple and on more than one chromosome, and this presumably excludes a genetic experiment with Neanderthals. And we are dealing with small but very many differences between certain of us and most likely random other human alive today, which are also identical to genes found in Neanderthal bones.

We also know one gene which Neanderthals did have in common with men today and with no other primate : the FOX2P gene is a version permitting human speech, I think it is the brain capacity for learning words or acquiring actively acquired associations. They were able to learn.

So, Neanderthals, whatever might be the case for Australopithecus, most certainly were men descended from Adam and Eve.

43:42 "why don't we find a single" - Ludlow says "human ancestor" - "in the same layers" - namely as modern humans, or reverse? What is Kent Hovind's explanation to that?

Mine is this: with Neanderthals, those that are carbon dated, we most certainly DO find human remains of them with human remains of our type. While there were few modern men in Europe while Neanderthals lived, there were some and in Romania a researcher from Barcelona found two brothers (or probable such) in a cave, who were as much intermediate between us and Neanderthals as Alicia Keys is intermediate between my whiter mum and the blacker daughter of Martin Luther King, to name one black woman I respect.

The non-finding of contemporaries with Heidelbergians, Antecessors, Erecti races is due to using other dating techniques than carbon falsely suggesting they could not be carbon dated and for that reason NOT carbon dated to same time BP. Also not carbon dated to a different time either. And obviously, if these other dating techniques apart from giving much larger dates are much more worthless too, unusable even for relative dating, then the arguent of Ludlow falls apart.

44:39 "not finding humans and X together" - I'd certainly second that with certain larger questions, like man and T Rex. If I lived before the Flood, I would have liked to keep a safe distance. Hence we are not found in the coast swamps now known as Cretaceous.

But this is not about Erecti, Antecessors, Heidelbergians, as much, since the specific point of contemporaneity is not so much being settled by biostratigraphy per se as by K-Ar.

I mentioned that if the Tautavel man were carbon dated, he would probably look like the carbon dating of pre-Flood humans, just he isn't. 50 000 - 39 000 BP - instead of the ten times older obtained by ... the footnote I found links to a site which does not say.

Well, the population was anatomically corresponding to 20 (TMan himself) and around there, even younger, oldest corersponding to 50. My theory is, they were pre-Flood men, aging slower, and were therefore also older.

45:09 "if you've [n]ever found a modern human in the same layers as these more primitive species, you never have"

In general a bluff. You usually don't find lots of levels of land fossils in the same place in layers above or below each other, mussels and shellfish squids don't solve anything for human evolution, even if some are found above each other in GC.

In this particular case, if you extend the word "same layers" to mean "layers dated to same time" you do find "H. sapiens" (so named after wisdom of its surviving member Noah and his family, no doubt!) dated to early enough to overlap with Neanderthal and I think Heidelbergenses too. Earliest, recent find in Morocco, for those who believe that dating method. I think it was ... yes, quoting : "The Moroccan fossils, by contrast, are roughly 300,000 years old. "

NYT : Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Our Species
Carl Zimmer : MATTER : JUNE 7, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/science/human-fossils-morocco.html


Speaking of a bluff, I have a slight suspicion of bluff too when it comes to eyebrow bones not growing. You may have one skull of a ten year old with thicker eyebrows than one of a 90 year old, but you won't get the skull of same ten year old when he dies again at 90, or of same 90 year old when he died first time at 10. In other words, to study that on skulls, you would need to get relics like this joke (I hope it was) about relics being forged some cases "this Church has the skull of St John the Baptist" - "yeah, OK, but we have the skull of St John the Baptist as a child!"

No, and fortunately I don't think this was typical, even if Reformers pretended so.

And checking, the "layer" of 300 000 years ago (as they say) in Morocco is contemporary to presumed span of existence of Homo erectus, presumed to have died out 100 000 years ago:

Homo erectus est un représentant fossile du genre Homo, qui aurait vécu en Asie entre 1,8 million d'années et moins de 100 000 ans avant le présent.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

45:26

"So a vast conspiracy is your answer" - "that is not my answer, that is a possibility"

There seems to be a very vast conspiracy to bring up the spook of "vast conspiracy" whenever someone mentions ANY conspiracy, even a small or partial one, in the field of evolution! I have heard it so often and it is so not to the point.

The Piltdown man was a forgery, and the conspiracy may of may not have included the non-Catholic Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, but it took two or three men to do that conspiracy.

If five men find a Homo sapiens of clear Cro-Magnon feature in a boxing match with a Homo erectus, and they decide "oh, this looks like Flood biology and evolution being wrong, we can't show this", they don't need ten million collaborators to hide one of the fossils. Five diggers can do that by themselves, and there is nothing vast about such a conspiracy.

There is however something really vast about a certain culture which intimidates anything reeking of creationism, which could theoretically inspire such a small conspiracy of five diggers.

45:43 "chicken are pretty recent" - how recent is "Red junglefowl"? Considered as Gallus gallus, but without adding domesticus, here:

Wickipeejuh sez so on "Red junglefowl"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl


If "chicken" is Gallus gallus domesticus and "red junglefowl" is gallus gallus, perhaps Kent Hovind is also including the non-domestic gallus gallus, the now named red junglefowl? [In chicken, for which he does not consider domesticus as denoting other kind.]

How nice is it to change terminology and try to paint the other guy as ignorant because he uses an older one.

I met someone according to whom we don't have 23 chromosome pairs, but 23 chromosomes - because what comes in pairs is really chromatids, while chromosomes are now chromatid pairs ... obviously the older and more well known terminology is that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chromatid is a word known more to specialists.

If you wanted to prove Kent Hovind is no specialist, congrats. You won that one, but I think it is a cheap one!

46:18 Ludlow really enjoys playing on terminology, he secretly assumes the "knowledge" that chicken only exist since 7000 and some years ago, when gallus gallus was domesticated and became gallus gallus domesticus, except those which didn't - while Kent Hovind, like most of us, is referring to red junglefowl as chickens, which fairly obviously they are.

Show a child of ten a family of red junglefowl, he will call them chicken.

46:44 comparing living things with something in the fossil record is eminently rational! It is through living things that we get a clue of what fossils might mean, either directly, as when they look much the same, or indirectly, like when fossils look plenty different from anything the researcher considers alive today.

Kent Hovind's point is that chicken (normal sense, not restrictive one as excluding red junglefowl) cannot have appeared from nothing well after man was there. It is a perfectly legitimate point, Ludlow is deliberately obscuring his point, so that people who share his fairly ill-known knowledge that chicken now only means what evolved 7000 years ago FROM the chicken no longer called chicken but just red junglefowl (probably previously known phrase to chicken farmers as name of a non-domestic race of chicken) can smirk at Hovind not knowing this.

Does not prove anything, except perhaps Ludlow being a jerk and putting science in an inaccessible ivory tower where only specialists enter. Opposite of what was considered good manners in science back when I was a amateur scientist at age 8 and believing both evolution and heliocentrism and big bang!

Sunday, July 23, 2017

... and some minor quibbles about "islamophobia is not a word" video


"Islamophobia" is a non-word!
Barbara4u2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rxcf8scwSM


0:47 "islam is not a race"

OK. But prejudice need not be racist. It can be:

  • racist
  • sexist
  • ageist
  • ethnicist (even micro-ethnicist)
  • AND religionist
  • and professionist
  • and classist.


Example : "while Marxism per definition involves a classist prejudice against capitalists, there are capitalists who themselves have classist prejudices against marginals".

Such a prejudice could for instance involve one Marxist Swede from Stockholm having a prejudice against one entrepreneur from Stockholm because the entrepreneur is a capitalist, while this entrepreneur has a prejudice against a bum who is also a Swede in Stockholm, who has a prejudice against policemen. The prejudice against entrepreneur and bum would be classist, the prejudice against policemen perhaps professionist.

So, prejudice need not be racist.

If you were going to enumerate types of prejudice, just beginning with race (I'm just starting with the video), your list of types of prejudice would be incomplete without religionist prejudice, which would include islamophobia.

And if you were going to say "islamophobia is not racist", I agree, but that was not the title of your video.

You could of course also argue that a word ending in -phobia is too strong a term for a prejudiced aversion unless it is very strong, but that was not where your dictionary quote was leading either.

Feminist attitudes to Islam ...

One decade they criticise Catholic ethics and invoke the argument "that is basically like Islam" as a refutation, like "=we can't have that".

A few decades later, they defend Islam.

I'd defend a woman's right to wear a burqah if she claims it is her choice, but if she says her husband forced her, I think he should go to prison. Or both be thrown out, rather.

4:25 - that is actually a hijab, not a burqah.

Under the late Shah, women in Iran wore hijab, usually, but were not forced to. Burqah's became a thing under Ayatollah, and they do cover mouth and nose and forehead, only eyes showing, if even as much.

4:46 Would you mind also linking to what happened about a girl in Vienna?

I mean, Vienna used to be proud of having chased the Turks, that could have attracted some of the worst Muslims to my natal city. And I'd give cities like Vienna and Nizza and such which have many Pieds-Noirs chased from Algeria in 1962 the right to fine for wearing burqah, no problem. They have been traumatised.

If there were such a thing as islamophobia, they would have a right to it. Like a Nam veteran to PTSS.

7:30 Btw, since I have had a common cause with Muslims against Swedish feminism (I am a Swede, but I am no fan of Danish or Norwegian feminists either, nor of La Clinton), I have at least starting preferred a polite criticism.

Like "if Mohammed could be sure it was Jibreel, why could not Joseph Smith be sure it was Moroni?"

If a Muslim calls that Islamophobic, how is he not Mormonophobic?

[at last:]

I tried to give the video a thumbs up twice, but instead of making two thumbs up, the thumbs up disappeared, so I gave it a third thumbs up!

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

... on a Certain Attitude to Creationism, Mainly


I was listening to this video:

Ken Ham on the Age of the Earth
Evidence Press
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dtVrtOEdB8


It kind of nearly reconciled me some bit with my recently passed away last granny being a school principal, even if she was not the class of Ken Ham's Father, obviously.

Then I noticed a dialogue where I burst in:

François D
Ken Ham should be incarcerated in psychiatric institute

Evidence Press
+François D That is the sort of thinking that killed 6 million Jews. Really, you want to incarcerate people that think differently than you? That's the kind of world you think is right and just?

François D
+Jim Bendewald The world will never be kind and just if we let these insanity propagate and seeing your page i know you are one of the dangerous bible freaks who spread lies based on a book written by men living in the dark age of humanity, torturing and burning people because they were thinking differently and you are saying «That is the sort of thinking that killed 6 million Jews». People should more afraid of you than the germans

Frups
+Evidence Press
If Hitler would have been incarcerated in the 1920s, then 6 million Jews might have survived.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Frups, Hitler was incarcerated in the 1920's. It was after the Bierhallenputsch, a Putsch which failed.

I had an encyclopedia from gramp, the main article on Hitler ends with him in prison and harmless. Only the appendix says what came on afterwards.

And François D:

"The world will never be kind and just if we let these insanity propagate"

That is exactly what Hitler and a few more considered about certain Jewish insanities (Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, Trotski and Bela Kun, AND the Rotschilds).

You sound like you want a "final solution".

Evidence Press, I have some reservations on the "6 million dead" but even if there were only 1 to 2 millions put in boot camps and only 200 000 to 300 000 dead as byproducts of bad hygiene in those boot camps, that is bad enough.


I wonder what exactly Jim Bendewald had said and what happened to his comment?

... on Old Norse Poetry (ft. a Jackson Crawford video)


Any response, to any of the questions, would be welcome, but most of all the one marked "at last".

The Art of Viking Poetry: A How-To (Includes Kennings)
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsX70ZSJkOQ


earning in yearnest .. or reverse ... this would be related to original yod sound being lost (year = år), and new yod sound coming from vowel e (jord = earth, Erde)?

Similarily, can't one alliterate v- with any back vowel, since v was lost before back vowels while still pronounced w?

How close or far is OE poetry to FYL?

The five patterns given in On Translating Beowulf, do they still hold as analysis?

Because if so, a clear "cretic" would be possible in FYL but impossible in OE poetry?

I suppose for second halfline it is still clear : only first stressed syllable alliterates? (OE) And in FYL it is not so?

13:58 any vowel alliterates with any vowel ... a vowel initial word, how close is it to beginning with knacklaut?

Could one say from Hebrew perspective aleph alliterates with aleph?

Plus, yod alliterates with aleph ...

17:46 til and frá are usually unstressed and preposed to a noun - here they are postposed to a phrase and are contrasting.

Could we be dealing with :

HEI-lir HIL-dar TIL
HEI-lir HIL-dar FRÁ

rather than with

HEI-lir HIL-dar til
and
HEI-lir HIL-dar frá?

20:57 It is rather that English has lenthened in Middle English period stressed short syllables fara = faran > faren > fare, with a long fa.

Swedish did the same, Old Swedish "skip" is either "skepp" (lengthened p, at least graphically still so) or "skep" (lengthened e instead, not the version which gave rise to standard Swedish version).

22:21 Supposing the psalms had been translated to Old Icelandic metre (didn't happen, unlike OE translation of first 50 psalms, ordered by King Alfred) - would they not have been trying sth like Dróttkvætt?

32:42 As a Tolkien fan ... Gladden fields ... the flower in question is gladiolus, right? Latin for "little sword" ..

Or wait, was gladiolus the mistranslation by Ohlmarks?

36:27 ek em at ... = I am at ... like in Celtic syntax (thá mí aig óibre or what "I am working/I am at work" is in Scots Gaelic)?

39:32 Sure almsíma refers to bow rather than to skis? Both are associated with Ullr ...

43:09 Hummingbirds are warlike? Is that a reason behind a certain character in Aztek myth?

45:12 pain of pine trees = wind?

Well, there is a Swedish pop song echoing this to this day ...

Gunde Johansson Torparvisa
lunkentuss51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4CyvVvRBMo


at last

Once again, a certain challenge ... try something in the metre of Beowulf or of Heliand ... put either into the Proto-Norse etymological equivalents. Check out how that metre is, if it is mostly regular, even out the mistakes. THEN get that into Old Norse (kuningaz > konungr and so on), also irrespective of whether the words exist or not. Would the metre NOW involve mostly the kind of halflines you get in 1, 2, 4, 5 of Ljóðaháttr or halflines of FYL, and sometimes things like 3, 6 in Ljóðaháttr, somewhat irregularly, like in Galdralag?

If so, Havamál could be inherited with slight "retouches" according to how to regularise the 3/6 longer lines from a poem in Proto-Norse - a language Odin must have spoken if ever he communicated with Swedes in such time that his stepgrandson Fjolner could died in the reign of Caesar Augustus.

So, how about giving it a try, you who are the linguist in Germanic esp. Scandinavian and esp. Old Norse languages?

Pretty please!

Friday, July 7, 2017

... on Time Travel, Teleportation, Bilocation (quora)


Q
Is it possible someone in history had an "impossible experience," such as traveled universe, teleported, time traveled or visted another dimension?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-someone-in-history-had-an-impossible-experience-such-as-traveled-universe-teleported-time-traveled-or-visted-another-dimension/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 2m ago
To God nothing is impossible.

This means, some things which are impossible for us would be possible for God as to how He deals with us, including with His prophets.

This means that time travel in the sense of briefly visiting future or past is one option for how God revealed last times to St John on Patmos (see Apocalypse) or pre-human creation days to Moses on Sinai (see Genesis 1).

Moses and St John NOT visiting past and future are also possible, since God who is eternally present in all times and beyond can also accurately describe them.

So, if St John knew ASCII it could be because God took him from Patmos to a modern bureau with computers, or because God knowing of all eternity about modern bueaux of computers was able to convey them to St John on Patmos.

It is also possible God just told him of the gematria without telling him of the details, but it is also possible God gave him details which He told him not to disclose, as they would be apparent later.

In other words, from a Christian point of view, it is perfectly possible that Apocalypse 13:18 is talking of ASCII or that Apocalypse 9:3 or 9:7 is describing helicopters which were invented near two millennia after St John was on Patmos. Or that Apocalypse 17 is describing an ecologist light show on the walls of the Vatican a few years ago.

On the item “teleported”, how about even better, bilocated?

Padre Pio bilocated from Italy and heard a confession in Chicago (the dying Italian woman could not get a good priest or perhaps even a priest at all who knew Italian, and unlike her younger family members, she had not learned English).*

This is also possible in the case just because nothing is impossible for God.

I know, atheists will prefer to blame the TARDIS, but we haven’t seen one.


* He did not have the gift of tongues and could not have heard a confession in English!

More on Anthropology


... on Anthropology concurring with Noah's Flood (a refutation of AronRa) · More on Anthropology

Remember this video?

How Anthropology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34


Well, I got some debate under one of my comments there! It will also involve commenting on another video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
9:14 "none of these should exist"

Not the young Earth creationist view of them.

Lucy, Arti = apes. [I meant Ardi, sorry!]

Homo erectus (or most of, Peking man and Java man dubious), Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis, Denisovan and Sapiens Sapiens = human, descended from Adam.

But you might be coming to a defense of the implication, waiting ...

9:27 When exactly did we Creationists say that Homo erectus cannot exist?

Especially all of us?

Velo Ciraptor
You should check out another video he did regarding the classification of different human species with regards to evolutionary ancestry. It seems that the actual science does not imply such a hard and fast division as your comment implies:

(https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Will see.

About 5:22 in it.

I have seen:

  • 1) generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo even according to evolutionists and no proof it does so apply;
  • 2) beginning an application on Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, as others have claimed, when most YEC anyway, including me, at least those I know of, think that Neaderthals were anyway human, were anyway descending from Adam.


Speaking of Neanderthals, the last Neanderthals disappearing c. 40 000 BP or 39 000 BP fits Noah's Flood very well, if carbon content was low enough back in 2957 BC or 3358 BC when the Flood was (St Jerome's or George Syncellus' Biblical chronologies). No Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and no Neanderthal chromosome Y DNA surviving would suggest that for instance the wife of Japheth had Neanderthal heritage on her father's side. Since she was a she, no transmitting of chromosome Y through her, since her Neanderthal parent was not her mother, no transmitting of mitochondrial DNA of Neaderthal type through her either.

About 9:28 into it, Leakey has written to say YECs are quote miners, and Homo florensis shows traits not found in Homo erectus, but in australopithecus.

The former is not to the subject.

The latter, well, those traits could be because Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease.

Velo Ciraptor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions. In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong. The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens. If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you. But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed.

For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans.

(http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm)

But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So I am not entirely sure what it is you are objecting too because you seem to just be throwing out bald ass assertions."

I don't know where you get that impression from.

Maybe because there were nine hobbits? Well, ok, first check I found one, then I found another saying nine.

Or because I said the non-human traits could be due to a bone disease? That is not an assertion, it is a suggestion.

"In speaking of Young Earth Creationism you are simply wrong."

I think someone was speaking about bold assertions?

"The entire argument is that if God created human beings in their current form then we should not see any evolutionary lineage of non-human primates or hominids developing into homo sapiens."

  • 1) But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens! That mirage is due to mistaken datings. Carbon dates can be squeezed, but K-Ar dates should be just discarded. In layers which seem to be from before the Flood, we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP. We cannot by carbon dates say which is earlier. If we presume the lineage of Noah was pure, Adam was probably closer to Cro-Magnon than to Neanderthal, but Neanderthals can't have been too badly tainted by Nephelim either.
  • 2) What is true is that you say we should not see an evolutionary lineage, and discarding the K-Ar dates, we don't. What remains untrue is what AronRa said that the skeleta found should not have been found. You are attributing to AronRa a clarity of thought and expression which is your own, not his.


"If you are willing to grant the concession that populations of organisms neither chimpanzee nor human diverged over "time" into what we see today as two distinct species of ape (with of course a large number of transitional species in between) then I can agree with you."

I disagree.

I understand what diverging groups mean, but I disagree on man and chimp being two such from common ancestor.

"But it is not clear that you actually understand the science that is being discussed."

Meaning I disagree with your pseudo-science, of course.

"For instance when you say "generalities and an explanation, not specifics about how it applies between Australopithecus and Homo" I cannot believe that you actually watched this video. Maybe you just could not wait to actually see what he has to say because at the 10:24 mark ..."

I actually marked my comment with 5:22 for a reason. On that video, I commented about his allegation. For instance, if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints, which analyse as from larger individuals than Lucy and which don't tie to any skeleta? On my view, the Laetoli footprints could be from flood and from a man not remotely like an A. afarensis. And obviously the main argument against this being a dating of them to "before H. sapiens", this dating is however K-Ar, i e fairly bogus.

"he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human. Specifically just to look at brain capacity you can draw a strait line between the brain capacity of Australopithecus and that of modern humans."

Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself, and the "straight line" is only such one if you accept the dates.

"But putting aside the strange assertions you made about what would or would not be compatible with your interpretation of an impossible story you also seem to simply be not aware of the facts in science. When you say "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" that is simply false. Full stop. Not only does the chart in the video that AronRa made show this to be false (it lists 8 individuals at the time) but we currently have found bones and teeth from 12 individuals including nearly complete skeletons. So all I can say is where are you getting your information, because it seems to be completely incorrect?"

I took first link I found when answering, since answering in haste.

I then corrected it in a comment under that video, though I had not yet found 12 individuals, just 9.

Will look up links, though.

Looking at first link, I verified for A. africanus and afarensis.

I found Laetoli footprints, as expected.

I also found for "early afarensis" a postcranial skeleton of a child. That would imply, with feet. However, post-cranial would also imply there was no Lucy-like skull. You would supply that due to "millions of years" before any H. sapientes or even Neanderathelenses, erecti or antecessores. As per K-Ar dating. As I reject that dating, I find this argument spurious and consider the Laetoli child could have been a human child, pre-Flood, perhaps decapitated in a cannibalistic rite ("all flesh had corrputed its way over earth", Genesis 6:12).

In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet. I wonder how many of them have clearly Australopithecus skulls attached.

Here are the sublinks I looked at, take a look if I overlooked anything:

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-afarensis/

http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-africanus/

Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one.

And now
over to the other video:

Clarifying the various Human Species
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU


1:23
Raquel Welch ... One Million B.C., right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Years_B.C.

Forgot the word "Years" in the newer title.

9:00
Leakey : "There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me."

Could this have given Leakey a motive to suppress the PBS documentary?

Leakey: "My list of publications is attached."

I suppose it did not include that documentary?

[Leakey cited as per typed letter in picture 2 below, confer the citation in picture 1, which AronRa set out to verify with him:]



9:40
You claim that A. Afarensis has been found 100's of individuals of ...

Here is a French site which seems to ignore that:

http://www.hominides.com/html/ancetres/ancetres_australo.php

And it's not creationist.

You also claim some of them have feet.

Well, news for you, perhaps, but "David Raichlen (Université de l'Arizona, département d'anthropologie)" based his study of A. Afarensis bipedalism on Laetoli footprints :

http://www.hominides.com/html/actualites/bipedie-comparaison-traces-laetoli-0290.php

On which a creationist would disagree with dating of, obviously, and say they are from the Flood. As I do here:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/12/human-ancestor-or-human-during-flood.html

If you know of one or more definite skeleta attributed to A. Afarensis and found with all or sufficient footbones, how about sharing a link, instead of just saying so, no offense!

Updates
Continuing the dialogue with Velo Ciraptor.

Velo Ciraptor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So first I want to thank you for this conversation. All to often these exchanges devolve into "You're an Asshole! No, you're an Asshole..." so it is pleasant to have a respectful back and forth. I am also pleased that you are not above correcting yourself (nor should anyone be) and I hope that I can help present information that may change your perspective. Either way I am enjoying this conversation so let us continue.

To begin I would say that you may want to spend a little more time researching information before you form a conclusion. It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites. As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible. Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted. This leads to honest people being exposed to information that they believe to be accurate and therefor making them unintentional liars (because repeating a lie is still lying).

Now I am not trying to suggest that you are being intentionally dishonest but your reply was a little confusing because it seems that you stopped midway and checked the citations that I provided. So just to clear things up real quick when you previously said "Homo florensis is ... sorry, floresiensis! ... is exactly one individual who could have a bone disease" you seem to understand that this is false. Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:

"Your second link actually only links to one fossil of H. floresiensis, and this may be responsible for some other sites being run by someone on impression we only have one."

Again, I do not care that "other sites being run by someone" may have misunderstood the science. You are the one making definitive claims based upon "other sites being run by someone" so maybe you should take more care in coming to a conclusion. But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease. But you might say How can I claim such a thing? Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children).

So you made a mistake with H. floresiensis and you admitted as much so I must say first "thank you" and that I respect you for admitting that you were misled. But your errors do not seem to be limited to H. floresiensis because you are making other claims about our hominid ancestors including:

"if we had Australipetheci afarenses with feet, why is "their" bipedalism being investigated by Laetoli footprints"
and
"In africanus, the bipedalism was only "proven" by bones other than feet"

Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?

Secondly why do you think that bipedalism need only be investigated using foot bones? Do you think that the only bones affected by walking upright? For instance why would not the leg, knee, or pelvis bones not also be useful in determining bipedalism? But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis. The famous Lucy skeleton did have two toe bones but other skeletons of Australopithecus have been found including nearly complete skeletons from both lineages. So not only is your argument not correct with regards to how we determine bipedalism but it is factually incorrect as well. It seems you may want to do a little more research on this...

(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-africanus)
(http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Second reply to address your actual comment.

I think it is clear that we have a fundamental disagreement about the efficacy of radiometric dating and more importantly the concept of Deep Time in geology. I want to address this and another point you raised but I do not want to seem insincere. For the first part of my reply I am going to simply cede the issue for the purpose of addressing a comment you made. I do not want you to think that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth because there will be a clear switch in the scope of my discussion. So just to be clear in my argumentation:

  • 1) You said in your comment "But we do not see an evolutionary lineage developing into Homo sapiens!" and I really do not understand how you can say such a thing. It seems that you are deeply ignorant of science or relying upon some very bad sources of information. Part of my questioning in this conversation has been to ask where you are getting this false information. We already established that you were under dome false pretenses regarding the number of certain hominid fossil specimens. I am not trying to suggest that you can't have an opinion without being a PhD anthropologist (my educational background is in Evolutionary Ecology) but it seems that you are making claims contrary to the facts of science.

    So as I mentioned in my prologue (lol) let's just throw out the radiometric dating for this part of the discussion. Let's take a box of old bones, shake them up and say we do not know from what time they came. You still would not have an argument. We still would have an array of fossils from organisms with different sets of characteristics. We would see obvious human specimens and those that were nearly humans of today (like archaic homo sapiens) but then we would have other apes that we could not call humans. We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage.

    As i mentioned from brain capacity alone we can draw a strait line from the supposedly more ancient hominids to humans. And when you say "Brain capacity is hardly an argument for evolution by itself..." that makes no sense because I did not offer only brain capacity. I specifically said:

    "...at the 10:24 mark he clearly explains what he is talking about with regards to Australopithecus afarensis having hands, teeth, feet and brain capacity (not to mention many other traits) halfway between chimpanzee and human."

    So when you say that this is tied to dating you are again simply wrong. All we need is to examine extant chimpanzees and extant humans and compare them to Australopithecus afarensis and see an intermediate in all those listed characteristics. All this is without any date or time assumed or asserted. We would still have more than enough evidence to confirm human evolutionary lineage from the simple existence of the fossils alone. But then we can add to that bio-geography. When you say "we do see both Neaderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem? Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted).

    In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere. You seem to be asserted without saying it that humans are just in hiding. We can find H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus together in the same geological layers. We can find Au. afarensis and Ar. ramidus in the same geological time frame again from only the chemical layering. But oddly enough we never find Neanderthals with Ar. ramidus or Homo sapiens anywhere besides where we would expect to find them in the geological column with regards to an evolutionary lineage. So are they just missing? Is there just an impossibly precise set of conditions that preserved all there hominids (many of whom were nearly human in their traits) but somehow magically failed to preserve any human remains at all? I mean 100% no evidence at all?

    And then to this we add the genetic evidence that clearly and without any doubt confirms what the fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, and bio-geography indicates. From multiple independent lines of evidence all without even going near radiometric dating we have overwhelming evidence that human beings, chimpanzees, and all other hominid species share an evolutionary lineage. So where exactly is the point where any of this becomes as you suggested "pseudo-science"?

  • 2) On this point I want to address the issue you have with dating and probably the concept of deep time. Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today. Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating? You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out? What about the myriad other methods of radiometric dating that independently confirm the timescales that science purposes?

    (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)

    More importantly I want to take this back to a question I have raised a few times and so far I do not think you have answered. Why do you think these things about scientific understandings of nature? What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes? Perhaps more to the point is this question (and please also address the second part):

    What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Starting :

"It is my perception from our conversation so far that you have been very ill informed on these subjects. I would guess that this may be the result from your relying upon the writings of creationist apologetics or creationist websites."

I was actually reading a book on anthropology ahead of my age before going creationist at ten, and try to keep up with new fossils and skeleta.

"As an actual scientist (I have a lab coat and everything, lol) who spent seven years studying biology in college including three studying evolution at the graduate level I can say that such sources of information are uniformly terrible."

As an avid reader of them, I can tell you some of your seven years of biology were misspent in your listening to your professor's resumé of some creationist argument or other and his irony and not looking into if your professor might be the misinformed one.

"Many such people actively lie to others and they do not seem to care how many times such lies are refuted."

When it comes to carbon dating, I think quite a lot on your side are lying too.

In 2015, on campus ground at Nanterre University after library closed, I had a conversation in which it was claimed the rise in carbon 14 levels needed to explain the carbon datings as resulting from real dates within a Biblical chronology would be a nuclear disaster blowing off vertebrate life off earth.

I did tables about the rise, and concluded on my best table that if C14 production mainly results from cosmic and not background radiation, if cosmic radiation is now 0.34 or sth annual milliSieverts, even a twenty times higher cosmic radiation, (more than I'd need for my latest tables, which leave more room for the rise between Flood and Babel), would still not be as great a radiation as the highest total backgroud radiations now registered on earth. Check out total background at Princeton!

I did 10 essays on a blog involving these tables, I even did print outs to make self printed books of them, and up to now I am just being ignored.

So, lying and repeating a lie after being refuted is certainly done on your side too.

"Simply to be factual we have found the remains of 12 individuals but now you are hedging by saying in your last replies:"

It was not hedging in, simply explaining that the mistake about one individual was from earlier than myself in the line of information.

"But I deny your implication because you added the qualifier "who could have a bone disease". Why did you think that? Why did you think that it was a possibility? The truth is that some creationist apologist told you that and you repeated it without understanding the actual evidence available. Simply put it could not be that any individual "who could have a bone disease" is the result of our classification of H. floresiensis because that would mean 12 individuals had the same presentation of the same bone disease."

Indeed, bone disease is one explanation I found on creation.com when looking Flores Hobbit up there.

If hereditary, even 12 individuals, i e a population starting with it, leading to those 12 and more besides, is possible.

"Well, the truth is that particular argument was first presented against Homo neanderthalensis where some creationist apologists still claim that Neanderthal is just one old human with arthritis (despite the fact that we have found over 300 Neanderthal individuals including 3 year old children)."

It seems the original Neanderthal may have had arthritis, though.

Neanderthals are now depicted otherwise than before, less hunchbacked.

BBL

"Now to quickly answer the question about the "Laetoli footprints" Australopithecus afarensis fossils were found in the same sediment layer (no dating needed) so it is an inference that they made the footprints and more importantly there is a difference between looking at bones and seeing actual footprints. Data is always useful so I do not really understand why you would object to a conclusion merely because it is indirect or circumstantial evidence. That would be like saying "Yeah, the accused criminals fingerprints were on the murder weapon, but no one saw the murder happen so why are you bringing it up at trial"?"

In my view, both foot prints and Australopithecus fossils could have been from same period (Flood, 2957 BC or 3358 BC) without being from same creature.

Unless I see upcoming one fossil with human feet and australopithecus head, in which case I will modify and go back to my teen theory, these were original trolls or orcs, some nephelim brood.

"But merely again to factually correct you we do in fact have foot bones from both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis."

A link with one clearly Australopithecus head and one clearly whole human or near human foot would be great.

Will look up the two links later.

"We would have an array of organisms that as I mentioned before could be laid out on a table by eyesight along to match what we propose as an evolutionary lineage."

I am actually going through, one by one, the skulls on photo on Smithsonian site.

Not yet done.

An apparent series with no time involves no proof of a lineage going one way or the other.

"When you say "we do see both Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon carbon dated to c. 40 000 BP" why is that a problem?"

I am not saying this is a problem. It is an asset for my theory, and last carbon dated Neanderthals give a carbon date for the time of the Flood (40 000 BP, corresponding to historic 2957 BC or 3358 BC).

Cro-Magnon would be Sethite line, same lineage as between Adam and Noah, Neanderthals would be related to probably Japheth's wife.

I take it up because it is an asset to my own theory. Not a problem for your theory, but perhaps for your line of proof.

BBL

Back again:

"Not only did we humans live at the same time as Neanderthals but many of the hominid species lived together. We can actually find fossils of different hominid species in the same layers of rocks (compared by chemical tests alone, no time asserted)."

With chemical, I presume you mean radioactive dating.

K-Ar is fairly worthless on my view (the one thing I did understand of creationist argumentation very well is : you can't really exclude excess argon, as you claim yourself when confronted with Mt St Helen's).

Carbon 14 is another story. I'd love to have carbon dates for all H. erectus and heidelbergenses, which I am sure are (most samples) men, but they are routinely not carbon dated, like dinosaurs are routinely not carbon dated.

My main hunch is that heidelbergensis, erectus and antecessor were pre-Flood races and therefore last of them (with different K-Ar dates depending on different amounts on excess argon, depending presumably on peripeties of lava flows) coming from Flood of Noah.

But if you showed me an erectus or antecessor getting a c a r b o n date of 20 000 BP, to me that would prove he was post-Flood, and so I might have to reassess parts of my pre- vs post-Flood distinctions in physical or anatomical anthropology. Again, if they had genetics tested to see if mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes are like ours (post-Flood) or like those of Neanderthals (presumably pre-Flood) or third (presumably also pre-Flood), I'd like to know.

"In fact we can see a branching development from simply the fossil finds and the key problem with your proposed solution is that there are no humans anywhere."

I take it a Homo habilis, whether human or not, argon dated to 1.8 million BP could very easily be contemporary to a Cro-Magnon carbon dated to 50 000 BP, since these are different methods leading to different types of error. A carbon date of 50 000 BP to me means either pre-Flood or survived to Flood, at latest. But an argon date of 1.8 million years would tell me more (once the experiments are done, next eruption) of lava flow than of time lapsed since eruptions. So it does not per se even tell me if it is a pre- or a post-Flood man.

You on your hand would take these as both being reliable methods, and as giving clearly diverse times and of the fossils as thereby being marked as non-contemporary. I don't buy that. To me the Laetoli footprints could easily have been made by a man looking Cro-Magnonish even if found close to an ape looking Austrolopithecish. Or, if Australopitheci could be proven to have had human feet, an orc looking Australopithecish.

"Again and again you simply throw in a reference to the "flood" or the adam and eve mythology. I do not understand why you think any of these concepts are even remotely possible with regards to the scientific evidence we have today."

I take history as a superior way of knowing the past over reconstruction.

"Why are you so quick to throw out all different methods of radiometric dating?"

I am not, with carbon 14 I am not throwing out, I am recalibrating.

"You dismiss K-Ar dating but you do not say why it should be thrown out?"

  • 1) excess argon ("only an issue with recent eruptions", but first prove the eruptions you are "measuring" age of at Laetoli were not recent)
  • 2) difficulty of assessing so slow a half life by lab tests.


For carbon 14 we can predict from a halflife of 5730 years that an object 2000 years old should have 78.511 % remaining carbon as compared to present proportion of C14 to C12 in atmosphere. But you have objects that are historically reliably dated to 2000 years ago, and they do show carbon content around 78.511 pmc. This confirms BOTH halflife AND the carbon content being comparable to present one as early as 2000 years ago, so, a YEC would have to set most of carbon rise between Flood and a few centuries before Christ.

But how "long ago" is an eruption if 78.511 % of the potassium is left and 21.5 % (c.) has turned to argon? Presumably on your (=mainstream scientific) view "pre-historic" = not confirmable by history. Even if excess argon were no issue.

"What do you think is the age of the earth and how did you arrive at this answer?"

  • 1) Creation 5199 BC or 5500 BC or 5508 BC (St Jerome/Liturgy of Rome, Syncellus, Liturgy of Constantinople), Flood 2242 years later.
  • 2) They arrived at it Ussher method, but using LXX text (St Jerome would have also had some other clue).
  • 3) I think history is more reliable than reconstruction.


"What has led you to reject what over 99% of all geologists accept about the earth"

Back in the day of Steno, 100 % of geologists were YECs.

99% today, if even an accurate estimate, is due to fashions in methodology, like accepting reconstruction more than history, esp. if it involves miracles.

" and over 99% of physicists accept about the fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes?"

I am NOT rejecting what they accept about fundamental nature of radioactive isotopes!

If there is truly no lying on your side, if your professor did not lie to you about YECs, why are you the umpteenth or umpteen hundredth person bringing up this strawman?

I accept what they say about c14 isotope, but only add that c14 content has risen. I accept basics of what they say on potassium 40 (not sure about their halflife, as said), but there is the issue of excess argon.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

... to Quorans Challenging Catholicism, Creationism and Spain


Q I
Can a creationist explain the second and fourth days of the biblical creation story (Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 1:14-19, KJV)?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-creationist-explain-the-second-and-fourth-days-of-the-biblical-creation-story-Genesis-1-6-8-and-Genesis-1-14-19-KJV/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
Explain what the “firmament” is and, especially, what the waters above it might be.

…and please deliver the explanation in a lucid, logical, vivid description -- in effect, a “word picture” -- so that anyone can form a clear mental image as to precisely what’s going on in those two passages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Thu
On my view, the firmament is the rotating part of the ether (ether in “heaven” above the stars is not rotating, but still), which can be viewed as a fluid in which atomic nuclei are comparable to solid grains.

It is the rotation of the ether which makes the Sun, Moon and Stars rotate around us each roughly 24 hours (less for stars, more for moon).

Since firmament was created on day 2 and light started rotating around earth already on day 1, in that interval, it was light alone, a quality of the ether, not the generalised whole ether medium below the upper heaven, which rotated.

Note, rotation of Sun and Moon around earth are NOT year or month, these being changing positions between Sun and Zodiak or between Moon and Sun along Zodiak.

This would mean there is no unclarity about day 4, suffice it to say that with geocentrism the parallax measures are moot and stars are not billions of light years away.

Remain water above firmament.

I take this as mainly waters in upper (supra-atmospheric) part of firmament, namely the water molecules and hydrogen molecules observed by spectroscopy.

The implication for Genesis 6:11 would be that hydrogen layer went low on a back then higher oxygen layer of atmosphere, and the resulting Brown’s gas was lighted by lightnings into a rain water not depending on previous water cycle and afterwards resumed into greater ocean depths, as with waters of the deep.

Q II
I believe in evolution. Can you prove me wrong?
https://www.quora.com/I-believe-in-evolution-Can-you-prove-me-wrong/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Thu
Explain the changing number of chromosomes, especially changes upward in number, if all mammals have a common ancestor.

Explain why so far land vertebrates have not been found in two layers strictly speaking above each other, except by talking of “one upper layer” on one place of a country or state, and “one other lower layer” on quite another one.

Maggie Eriksson
Thu
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have been in Christian ministry for close to 50 years, but my university training and professional experience was as a research scientist in biological sciences prior to becoming Christian. On the geological time chart, land vertebrates have such a recent history, that you can’t expect them to have a major place in Earth’s history. The Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. It took 4 billion before ANY life formed. It took 2 billion just for Earth to cool down enough to accumulate its first drop of water and first molecule of atmosphere. The first multicellular organisms did not develop until half a billion years ago, and the first land organisms until just 200 million years ago. 200 million seems like a long time in terms of building up sediment layers, but it is only 5/one-thousands’ of the time Earth has existed.

Adding chromosomes, or even creation of chromosomes was merely an advance in the stages of evolution through mutation. Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3m ago
  • Maggie, you forget that layers like Hadean and even Palaeozoic ones are not all layers geologists believe there are : there is plenty of late Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers where such a above and below of two beings (a dinosaur above a biarmosuchian, for instance, or a pterosaur or Tertiary big extinct mammal above a moschops) could have occurred. Specifically in Karoo, where you find Permian, Triassic, Jurassic all three side by side, but somehow you never dug through a Jurassic layer to see if there was any Triassic or Permian fossil under the Jurassic one.
  • “Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.”

    Oh, you did look into it. How about explaining that mammalian chromosomes all have two telomeres and a centromere, except individual variations?


Tyler Vornberg
Thu
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
“Explain the changing number of chromosomes”. It’s due to evolution. Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance. They survive and have kids with the rare variant, who have more kids with the rare variant and before you know it that rare variance becomes very common.

Regarding your second point, can you elaborate? I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
  • “ Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance”

    An extra chromosome is not an advantage. An extra chromosome 1 or 3, you die usually before you get born. An extra chromosome 21, you have Down’s syndrome. An extra sex chromosome (female with three X, male with YXX OR with YYX) will make you less fertile.

  • In Karoo, there are places where they find Jurassic fossils (Drakkenberg, I think). They have so far not found any Triassic or Permian fossils straight under those.


John Ruland
Fri
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
because of the ice age the earth went through

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
What does that even have to do with either?

Q III
Why doesn't Catholicism educate the laity on the scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures and artwork?
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Catholicism-educate-the-laity-on-the-scientific-nature-of-the-symbolism-that-they-codified-into-the-sacred-scriptures-and-artwork/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
I am not even sure of what you mean by "scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures" and would like to know what you mean by implying they are educating clergy on it.

First, Biblical history is history, before there is any symbolism in it.

Second, Catholic Church as extant today is not codifying anything into sacred scriptures but just inheriting what was codified in them prior to death of the last Apostle.

Third, the symbolism in Genesis is not symbolically accounting a history which in scientific terms would sound otherwise, it is symbolism inherent in a literal historic account and it is symbolism about later history, namely about Jesus Christ.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church is truly heir of the Jewish Church in which Moses codified Genesis, She received the Old Testament from the predecessor, from the Jewish Church, as extant up to when Kaiaphas broke the Covenant with God by plotting Crucifixion of Christ by iniquitous judgement. The Catholic Church did not codify Genesis Herself, after Pentecost, and has no liberty to recodify it.

Fifth : it sounds like you had been listening to some theory about Catholic Church being some kind of freemasonry, She is not. Laymen are not forbidden to learn Latin, laymen are not forbidden to learn Scholasticism and no learning as learning is reserved to priests, though application of some in practise is so reserved : a layman can know everything there is to know, everything the priest is taught, about Holy Mass, it is just that he cannot say Holy Mass; he can be an expert in moral theology, in canon law and on the Sacrament of Penance, but he can neither give absolution to himself (no one can, not even a priest), nor to someone else (only a priest can do that). That, and not degrees of learning, is the basic difference between clergy and laity.

EDIT : "I have written four books and two academic works and another 39-independent academic papers showing scientific with DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE this inexplicable esoteric (hidden) science I speak of. Go to my face book page WILLIAM JOHN MEEGAN and you can read a lot of those independent papers freely."

If there is truly scientific knowledge encoded* in the Bible, this is the work of God, in order to validate the Bible as His word.

It does not in any way detract from the normal reading of the Bible, not any more than the Bible code does.

It is not per se the work of the Church, but it is for the Church to validate, to reject or to wait and see about any such claims, whether Meegan's claim or the claims about the Bible code.

* Note : encoded, not directly visible to a normal reader not looking specifically to break such a code.

Q IV
Why is the Bible so hard for me to understand?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Bible-so-hard-for-me-to-understand/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Mon
I think I’d be more useful if you told me exactly what you found difficult.

Two things, though.



Q V
Has Spain ever issued a formal apology to its former colonial empire?
https://www.quora.com/Has-Spain-ever-issued-a-formal-apology-to-its-former-colonial-empire/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 3m ago
Why should they?

They were, with the French, the best one.

They did not conquer any land really guilty of nothing prior to their arrival, Yaquis were especially not conquered, since they said they were already basically Christian, just needed some more instruction.

Catholic priests were sent, but not Spanish military.

In the taking of Tenochtitlán (now Mexico City) which was bloody, the conquering troops were more Meso-Americans fed up with Aztecs than Spaniards.

As to the misdemanours of Pizarro, which there were, he was punished for them by Spain, I think he even died as an outlaw, killed by Spanish troops, despite his undoubted bravery.

Q VI
Is there historical documentation of pagan extremism/revanchism against the Christianization of Europe?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-historical-documentation-of-pagan-extremism-revanchism-against-the-Christianization-of-Europe/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Mon
St Erik of Sweden was going to Holy Mass before a battle against the followers of Erik Blood Axe.

He went out and was killed by an axe in his head, but this did not stop the Christianisation of Sweden.

Earlier example, Penda of Mercia.

And some have said that the Viking age was a revenge for the felling of Irminsul in Saxony after Charlemagne conquered the Saxons.

Q VII
Why do you think your sacred scriptures are right? And why aren't others right?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-think-your-sacred-scriptures-are-right-And-why-arent-others-right/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
First, in so far as sacred scriptures are historical, I think the sacred scriptures of some other religions are right in many details as history : they are only wrong as theology.

Second, if we take Mahabharata, Iliad and Odyssey, Genesis, Exodus, Gospels and Acts as all historically true or close to, it is actually the Christian history which best backs up the own theological claims.

Krishna and Homeric gods are not ultrafamous for raising the dead.

As to historic connection, Iliad and Odyssey are not very good at backing up the gods believed by their author, and Mahabharata has lots less than Iliad and Odyssey, meaning Gospels have a record close relation to other history in the same time span. On the other hand, they include very direct backing up of the theological claims. Theogony and Book of Mormon and Quran were revealed with a direct backing up, but in a similar and insufficient manner, cancelling each other out in theological claims.

Q VIII
As a Christian, why do you believe it is possible for god to have come from nothing, but not the universe?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Christian-why-do-you-believe-it-is-possible-for-god-to-have-come-from-nothing-but-not-the-universe/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
I am curios as to how you find it more realistic that a god has created himself/ came from nothing/ always existed. Then the possibility of the universe “coming from nothing”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
No Christian believes God can have come from nothing.

We believe God always existed, which is sth else.