Monday, February 12, 2018

Are Theistic Apologetics Trinitarian, if by a Trinitarian? Yes.


Q
When Catholics and Protestants debate the existence of God with atheists, are they arguing in support of the Trinitarian God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) or just the Father?
https://www.quora.com/When-Catholics-and-Protestants-debate-the-existence-of-God-with-atheists-are-they-arguing-in-support-of-the-Trinitarian-God-the-Father-the-Son-and-the-Holy-Spirit-or-just-the-Father/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.
Answered just now
I am a Catholic.

When I argue existence of God, on philosophical grounds, I argue the existence of a God whose precise personality remains to be found out by not so philosophical, historic means.

The God I argue is the Trinity. Each person is the God I argue. But at a stage when arguing that human language is a gift from God, mind is a gift from God, a Geocentric universe (unless you prefer explaining that away by Heliocentrism, which is unwarranted) looks suspiciously like sth God could have arranged for convenience, I am NOT yet arguing why I believe the God I believe in is the Trinity and not for instance the “Allah” of the Quran or the 22 Sephiroth of Kabbalah. Or the “one” of Plato.

Friday, February 9, 2018

Twelve Quodlibeticals on Young Earth Creationism (quora)


Q I
How did the biblical story of creation survive the flood?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-biblical-story-of-creation-survive-the-flood/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl#

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered 9m ago
Noah had tradition from Adam.

I used to have the Haydock comment to Genesis 3 available, where he consideres that the “minimal overlap” number of generations from Adam to Moses were 8.

With a LXX chronology, it might be more like 12.

Adam can have spoken with Mahalaleel 795 - 1690 AM, but not with Jared born 960 AM. (1, 2)

Mahalaleel can have spoken to Noah 1642 - 2592 AM (2, 3)

Noah 600 B.F. - 350 A.F. can have spoken to Shelah 265 - 725 A.F. (3, 4)

Shelah can have spoken to Reu 659 - 998 A.F. (4, 5)

Reu can have spoken to Nahor 921 - 1129 A.F. (5, 6)

Nahor could of course speak to Abraham 1070 – 1245 A. F. (6, 7)

And so on.

Furthermore, the early chapters of Genesis, up to and including 11 were all very short. This means, each was possible to learn by heart, nearly as easy as learning Nicene Creed by heart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2m ago
I thought I had mentioned this more than once:

“First Genesis chapters were written down or memorised (for chapters 1 - 7 each is as long as 2.5*Nicene Creed, which is a text even non-specialists know how to memorise if instructed), then they were collected by Moses into a single book.”

With Alan Whistler / Alan the Atheist on AronRa's Video (but at least once, here)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/01/with-alan-whistler-alan-atheist-on.html

Updated
14.II.2018 with new comments

Lee Wm. Gaudry
4d ago · 1 upvote
from Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you have ever played the parlour game"telephone" you'll know how unlikely it is that the entire legend remained true to the original through 5 generations never mind 8,12 or more. And just because someone could have spoken to another, it doesn't mean they did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Upvoted for visibility.

[A set phrase which between quorans means "I upvoted what I just answered to make it more visible" and often implying "and not because I really thought it was good"]

If you have heard anything about how catechism is done or how things like, in RC Church, Apostolic Creed, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be and Ten Commandments are memorised, or in Orthodox Church even Nicene Creed, which is longer than the Apostolic one, you would have known better than to compare it to a telephone game.

It is first of all not very likely any one learning these set pieces of short prose in simple syntax could memorise wrong, after a deliberate effort of memorisation, second not likely if someone remembered wrong he would stand uncorrected by others and third very unlikely someone NOT having learned things properly were the one chosen to carry the tradition on by teaching others these things.

I have compared the pre-Flood and up-to-Flood seven first chapters of Genesis to the Nicene Creed in text mass. Each of them is, in medium, 2.5 times the Nicene Creed.

So, memorisation effort is very unlikely to have failed due to overload even.

I have now not spoken of how many actual generations there were, but the minimal number of overlapping ones.

This means that before Adam had a chance to speak to Mahalaleel, he would have had a chance to speak to Seth, Enos, Cainan and their siblings and their wives. Supposing Mahalaleel somehow had memorised the texts of Genesis 2 and 3 wrong on hearing them from Adam, very unlikely, he could have been corrected by Seth for another 212 years, by Enos for another 410 years, by Cainan for another 605 years.

Before Mahalaleel had a chance to speak to Noah, he would have had a chance to speak to Jared, Henoch, Mathuselah and Lamech. He died when Noah was 48 years, but after that Noah could have been corrected by Jared for another 232 years, by Methuselah for another 566 years, by Lamech for another 517 years.

This is what I mean by “minimal overlap”. Someone having heard the person he’s corrected about before hearing the corrections.

When we get down to Abraham and later, there is no real problem with supposing they used writing. A whole tribe was certainly capable of transporting a few clay tablets or scrolls as well as utensils. And this takes care of anything after Genesis 11.

As for genealogies in Genesis 4, 5 and 11, these were obviously texts handled by incremental tradition : each generation added to the physical genealogy was also added to the textual one.

How you can compare such a situation to a telephone game is beyond me.

“And just because someone could have spoken to another, it doesn't mean they did.”

What exact grandfather or greatgrandfather will let anyone stop him even these days? It is not as if Adam suffered from CPS taking away his children from him so he could not pass tradition on!

Q II
What parts of the Bible are lies (said to be true but contradicts facts)? What parts are historical facts? What parts are just literature (like psalms, songs, poems, and hymns)?
https://www.quora.com/What-parts-of-the-Bible-are-lies-said-to-be-true-but-contradicts-facts-What-parts-are-historical-facts-What-parts-are-just-literature-like-psalms-songs-poems-and-hymns/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered 5h ago
“What parts of the Bible are lies (said to be true but contradicts facts)?”

None at all.

If “facts” are contradicted by it, they are false facts.

“What parts are historical facts?”

All that is historical, and in prophecy whatever is not metaphor (there is some of that too).

“What parts are just literature (like psalms, songs, poems, and hymns)?”

A very minor part, in quantity, unless you include instrictions on how to live. Then you would gain perhaps up to 50 % of the text, not sure.

Q III
Can a Christian be a Darwinist?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-Christian-be-a-Darwinist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


[The question has been shortened]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Thu
Can a Christian be a Darwinist?

Ultimately no, both as to common descent of all kinds, and as to descent of men from apes and as to mechanism involving fitness quasi automatically advancing reproduction.

In cases of inconsistency, however, yes.

Or read a book about it at the least?

Yes, most books on Darwinism are not on the Index.

I do recomment reading some of the Creationist books about why Darwinism is wrong.

Here is one:

The Greatest Hoax On Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution
https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php


Q IV
Why do Creationists think that evolution requires the extinction of ancestor or cousin species?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Creationists-think-that-evolution-requires-the-extinction-of-ancestor-or-cousin-species/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Michael Bailey

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Thu
Creationists in general do not think this.

Some seem to take this as a consequence of “natural selection”.

If natural selection favoured man and disfavoured staying a monkey, why are there still monkeys would be a rough translation of what these people are trying to say.

Or perhaps as a consequence of beneficent mutation potential.

If monkeys had the potential to mutate to man, why didn’t they all?

Obviously, this second version reveals a misunderstanding of what Evolutionists are actually saying about the potential for beneficent mutations.

However, if Creationists individually misunderstanding Evolution were to invalidate Creationism, for the same reason Evolutionists individually misunderstanding Creationism would invalidate Evolutionism. There is a misunderstanding of Creationism as if it were stating the complete fixity of Linnean species, perhaps entertained as a voluntary strawman.

Charles Jack
20h ago
There is no “Evolutionism”. The theory f evolution is an essential, evidence supported, and true part of biology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
There are astronomers who consider Heliocentrism the same way - but they will still call it Heliocentrism.

Q V
Are Creationist also Flat Earthers?
https://www.quora.com/Are-Creationist-also-Flat-Earthers/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Wed
Some are, most are not.

Q VI
If All of humanity really did come from Adam and Eve, wouldn't we all be retarded due to generations of in-breeding?
https://www.quora.com/If-All-of-humanity-really-did-come-from-Adam-and-Eve-wouldnt-we-all-be-retarded-due-to-generations-of-in-breeding/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Wed
Retarded is not from inbreeding, but from trisomy, usually.

Inbreeding causes double exemplars of bad locus mutations. If the gene is recessive, that is how it surfaces. Colour blind, haemophiliac, sure, that is inbreeding, or for some, in males having a carrier mother.

The generation after Adam and Eve had no such mutations.

Trisomies have been observed in same populations of US as inbreeding, like Ozark rural areas, but the cause is other. Trisomy is usually for a mother being too old when begetting a child. Underlying cause of both, poverty: delays marriage for some and restricts travel for finding marriage partners for others.

Q VII
If Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth, does it mean we are all products of incest?
https://www.quora.com/If-Adam-and-Eve-were-the-first-human-beings-on-earth-does-it-mean-we-are-all-products-of-incest/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered Tue
[Originally Answered:]
[If Adam and Eve were the first humans, aren’t we all byproducts of incest?]
[Remove Banner]
Since Adam and Eve were the first humans and the only first humans, we are all products of inbreeding.

That is NOT the same thing as the sin of incest (the generation just after them had a dispensation for sibling marriage and the two after for uncle and niece marriage).

Inbreeding is not bad, unless both people involved have a bad mutation in common.

Inbreeding does NOT cause mental troubles or deficiencies like Downs or Cri de chat, these are more causes by mother being too old.

Q VIII
Do you think Adam and Eve were born as Tamil-speaking creatures?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-Adam-and-Eve-were-born-as-Tamil-speaking-creatures/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years
Answered Tue
“Do you think Adam and Eve were born as Tamil-speaking creatures?”

No, for two reasons:

  • 1) they were not born, but created adults;
  • 2) their language was very much more probably Hebrew than Tamil.


Q IX
How do creationists reconcile flood mythology with Chinese history that was to have happened at the same time?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-creationists-reconcile-flood-mythology-with-Chinese-history-that-was-to-have-happened-at-the-same-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Tue
While I would perhaps not call the word “mythology” very appropriate about the Flood account, in the sense of not cavilling at formulation but actually answering the question as such, here is an answer I wrote:

Recorded History of China Too Old For Us?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/10/record-history-of-china-too-old-for-us.html


Q X
Do you think there are consent issues with the story of Adam and Eve?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-there-are-consent-issues-with-the-story-of-Adam-and-Eve/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Leah Sloane Petersen

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years
Answered Tue
No.

  • 1) Adam and Eve certainly married on day one of their existence, but they were created as fully competent and sinless adults. This means they were better suited to know what they were doing than any adults marrying today.
  • 2) As they were not yet sinners, they trusted God and obviously gave their consent to His arranged marriage. It is not as if He forced them.


Does that answer the question?

Q XI
If creation has been proven false, why don't we bury it and put the matter to rest once and for all?
https://www.quora.com/If-creation-has-been-proven-false-why-dont-we-bury-it-and-put-the-matter-to-rest-once-and-for-all/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Jan 31
"If creation has been proven false,"

It hasn't. But answering the rest, I'll suppose for a moment the truth were false and had been proven so.

"why don't we bury, put the matter to rest once and for all?"

Because there are those guys who actually will not believe those proofs to be definite. This means that there is no human social unanimity on how to treat the matter.

Also, among Evolutionists, who "know the truth", there is no unanimity on how to treat Creationists.

Some debate, some want to treat Creationists like people one could "section", a word I just learned and which I suppose means to put them in mental hospital.

So, the answer to the matter is, disunion among men.

Back to what I really believe : this disunion is predictable by Creationism, since it includes Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

Q XII
What continent were Adam and Eve on first?
https://www.quora.com/What-continent-were-Adam-and-Eve-on-first/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered Mon
While the original pre-Flood world may have been one continent, the question can still make sense, insofar as one can ask where that ground is today and what continent it is on.

The four rivers divided from the river from Paradise are not literally seen after the Flood as branching out from a single river, but two of them are very firmly identified as Euphrates and Tigris (Phrat and Hiddekel) two others have more tentative and diverging interpretations, of which one would typically be the Nile, and one could be either Ganges or Danube.

One river has also been identified by Muslims with Syr-Daria or Amu-Daria.

Note, it is not necessary for such identification that a riverbed sloped same direction pre- and post-Flood.

If one of the rivers was Danube, it was arguably a reverse Danube, going from where Black Sea is now (and having gone through the Black Sea) to a mouth at Sea Shore in or near Vienna. The direction I would have from the fact that all of Danube is further West than any other river, and so would have to float East-West rather than reverse, the mouth in Vienna I have from palaeontology.

A Conservative Stamping Me as a Cultist


I mean, here was have a youtube channel considering itself as answering to a description like "Conservative News":

Why Young Earth Creationism Is A Cult - Dr Jason Lisle, Ken Ham
Conservative News | 23.III.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkgAUOXL6mU


As you know I am YEC, you can bet I took issue with that:

I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Over the beginning again.

You mentioned an attitude of "you can be saved even if you believe an old universe but ..."

Here is the attitude of St Thomas Aquinas on this issue: if you are a normal regular faithful in the pew and have nothing in cathedra or pulpit to do, well, you need not read and you need not explicitly believe what you have not read. If on the other hand you have read, you do need to believe what you have read, and if you are a bishop, you need to have read too.

So, if you never heard of the issue at all, you haven't lost your faith because of being an old earther, but exactly how many people are in that position right now?

Fewer, I would say, than those who know the Biblical proofs of Catholicism and can without culpability presume they are Christians while outside it. Without culpability so far, that is.

II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
4:14 You somehow seem to imagine time can be directly measured after it has already past in objects having passed through that time.

No, a thing like 13 billion years, 4.5 billion years, 1 million years, 40,000 years, all of these are output data in calculations, where the input is NOT measured time, but other circumstances.

Time is not "measured", but recorded. Genealogies are fine as a record of time. Distant starlight for 13 billion years is not fine as a measurement of time, you have to argue that over x being 13 billion light years away, which you argue over other things, starting in Heliocentrism and Stellar Parallax (at least that is where it starts to get dubious, I do accept the distance from Earth to Sun, it is just not in a temporal triangle between a fixed Earth and a star in two positions).

Conservative News
In other words, you just came up with a fancy way to say, you have no scientific "record" for the age of the earth being 6,000 years. Yea, I've herd all of it and you can't answer the question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am sorry, but you missed a vital point.

There is no scientific record for any age.

The distance to the Sun is a few light minutes. The distance to Pluto a few light hours. We already knew yesterday existed and that Earth and Universe were not created today.

The carbon 14 from Göbekli Tepe is c. 25 % of that of a recent sample. Even granting totally the halflife, that doesn't add up to it being two half lives old, since it could have had about 50 % modern carbon 14 in the atmosphere about one half life ago instead.

You are the one behind. You have no historic record for 13 billion years, no historic record for 4 point five billion years, no historic record for 40,000 years or even of 10,000 or 11,000 years.

Records of time are historic, not scientific. Grasp it. It is one basic fact of philosophy.

6:37 by the way you confirmed that you pretend to "observe" 13 point 8 billion years of time by "measuring" the distance to the "furthest" objects in the universe.

And since you are taking Hugh Ross' word for it, I take it you are not even enough of an astronomer to question Heliocentrism (or, if facing such questions) attempt to prove it - or would I be wrong there?

I am "still waiting" (to put it ironically) for solid scientific evidence for Heliocentrism.

I was also waiting for some mail to get answered which I adressed to Hugh Ross .... not even sure if it was the older or newer mail account ... some would be the newer one.

Conservative News
Are you a young earth creationist?

And are you also a flat earther?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A young earth creationist. Yes.

A flat earther. No.

How come you jump to "flat earther"?

Flat Earth and Heliocentrism are not the opposites that divide the game between them. There is also such a thing as considering the Earth round and fixed. Will also make a "parallactic measure" for 4 light years to alpha Centauri moot (and obviously also that Distant Star Light argument you used).

Conservative News
Hans-Georg Lundahl YECism is cult thinking, waiting for scientific evidence of heleocentrism is cult thinking, flat earthism belief just follows.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"YECism is cult thinking,"

Except it is Biblical and Patristic.

"waiting for scientific evidence of heleocentrism is cult thinking,"

Except that is what St Robert Bellarmine did.

"flat earthism belief just follows."

Or not. Because it logically doesn't.

One good piece of "cult thinking" if any is "guilt by association" and you just did that.

By the way, DO you have any scientific evidence for Heliocentrism? Oh, I don't mean for Earth being round, I don't contest that and also has no bearing on Distant Starlight problem you mentioned in the misleading terms (borrowed from Hugh Ross) "we can observe 13 point 8 billion years". Scientific evidence for Heliocentrism or lack of such has a bearing on it.

III
Hans-Georg Lundahl
5:00 The Sun issue and the salt in oceans issue could not by any chance have 6 or 7 millennia since Creation or 4 and a half to 5 millennia since the Flood as precisely the solution?

Did that possibility cross your mind?

I have noticed how you operate (5:44 into your video): if a certain empiric or from empiric evidence concluded (in itself of within Old Earth paradigm, in itself or within Heliocentric paradigm) fact points to a Young Universe or a Young Earth, that doesn't mean anything in favour of this, it only means it has to be studied further. But every time something points against the Biblical chronology, that is somehow evidence to you, no need to study that - distant starlight or long carbon ages - any further. There you are very comfortable with taking things at face value.

6:15 Oh, you are promoting the Hugh Ross cult.

One to which Neanderthal cannibals were not Adamites and depraved because of the Fall, just before the Flood, but instead pre-Adamites and part of what God created man from. For one problem with their stance and one which has nothing to do with ages.

Update
15.II.2018

Other video
by the same maker:

The Truth About Young Earth Creationism
Conservative News | 4.IV.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nggPFzeuWKc


I
Bill Ludlow
I went round and round with Ian Juby on this. I asked for a single scientific dating method that dates the earth 6000 years old and got lots of excuses but never a real answer.

Conservative News
They do have plenty of excuses, but no measurement, of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Would alternative carbon calibration count as a method?

II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
0:22 My case : Genesis seems to have a complete (sketchy, but not holed) history from creation to Abraham.

This means the generations in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 give us the time between Creation and Abraham.

Also, Abraham if you look at Genesis 13 and 14, seems to have lived at early dynastic period of Egypt and at a time when En Geddi was in Chalcolithic.

This means, he was alive at times where the remains are dated at c. 3000 or more BC. But from Biblical history, we know he lived rather 2000 BC. Joseph in Egypt lived less than 2000 years BC, and if he was Imhotep, he - or his Pharao Djoser - is dated to 2600 BC.

This means carbon dating is flawed in a manner best and easiest motivated by carbon 14 content back then having been lower - which ties in with a carbon 14 rising from Flood. Which in turn ties in with carbon dates 50 000 - 28 000 BP for dinos mainly suspected to be from the Flood.

yeoberry
Hans-Georg Lundahl :
  • 1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation.

  • 2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one.

  • 3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say.

  • 4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative.

  • 5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4.

  • 6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified.

  • 7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is.


Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • "1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation."

    It does.

  • "2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one."

    It is later specified as less than 24 hours before day one's light. Exodus 20. It is also specified as insignificant compared to starting from day 6. Marc 10:6.

  • "3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say."

    Other passages do. If it started on "Saturday evening" 18:00 and ended on Sunday morning 6:00 or 9:00, this is perfectly consistent with Exodus 20. If it took any time extanding further back than Saturday evening 18:00 [one week before the one] after Man was made the day before and had enjoyed God's rest, it is in conflict with Exodus 20.

  • "4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative."

    Agreed.

  • "5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4."

    Correct as far as it goes. [I am taking his word on the Hebrew, I am no Hebraist.]

  • "6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified."

    At this point, but not from Exodus 20 or Marc 10:6 (same week, insignificantly compared to dating from day 6).

  • "7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is."

    Indeed there is. Exodus 20:[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

    Marc 10:[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

    On a more pragmatic point. Suppose Göbekli Tepe, dated as extending from 9600 BC to 8600 BC is that old : is this part of when God's spirit was hoverin over the waters? Or do you pretend there are holes in the genealogies, as in more holes than closed series (making them comparable to Evolution)?

    Or do you find that perhaps Göbekli Tepe after all has to be after Adam and if so ill dated? That is my solution. And it clearly does away with any need to even put in doubt that the Universe is datable accoridng to Biblical genealogies.


yeoberry
Hans-Georg Lundahl :
Exodus 20:11 is about God “making” (not “creating”, different word) during the six days. The six days don’t start until Genesis 1:3. The universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one and then God hovered over the waters for an unspecified time prior to day one. So there is no way to date the earth from the Bible.

The genealogies only date man, not the earth.

  • 1. The Bible does not say there was no animal death prior to the fall. It makes no statement of that whatsoever any where. Romans 5:12 speaks of death coming on man as a consequence of the Fall, not on the entire creation. Claiming the Bible teaches there is no death prior to the fall is eisegesis.

  • 2. If there were no animal death, animals would reproduce, over-populate and eventually not have enough plants to eat. Infinitely reproducing animals -- following the mandate to "reproduce after their kinds" -- with no death, is simply impossible.

  • 3. Plant life is life and plant death is death. Because of the mandate to eat vegetation, the meaning of "life" has to be reinterpreted protect the doctrine that there is no death prior to the Fall. Plants must be excluded from being alive, even though we know, with modern biology, that plants and animals are both similarly alive, with cells and DNA. At the chemical level the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape and are made from the same four chemical building blocks, called nucleotides. The claim that the Bible excludes plant life from being life makes the Bible to teach an absurdity. It's a claim that brings disrepute onto the Word of God.

  • 4. The Bible does not exclude plants from being considered living things:

    • a. Genesis 1 has the plants reproducing “according to their kinds”, on day three, in exactly the same way as the sea creatures and birds do in 1:21 and as the livestock, creeping things and beasts do in 1:24-25. That both plants and animals are said to reproduce “after their kinds” (three times on both days three and six), suggests that plants were understood to be living.
    • b. the Hebrew word for “alive, living” (chay, חי) is used of vegetation (thorns) in Psalm 58:9 (translated as “green” in ESV), being the same word as used of cattle in Gen. 1:24 and of Adam in Gen. 2:8.


  • 5. The Genesis narrative itself suggests there was death before the fall:

    • a. Adam and Eve are warned that “in the day that you eat of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you shall surely die” (2:17). Does not the warning imply some knowledge of what they were being threatened with?
    • b. The Tree of Life suggests there was death prior to the fall. If there was no death prior to the fall, then why is there is a “tree of life” in the garden? The purpose of the “tree of life”, in 3:22, is so that they would “live forever”. If they were already inherently immortal, then what is the purpose of a tree of life that grants immortality?


Answered twice
A and B

A
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your point on Exodus 20 answered on the other thread.

[Further down.]

Here you have answered a claim I have not actually made here.

"The Tree of Life suggests there was death prior to the fall. If there was no death prior to the fall, then why is there is a “tree of life” in the garden? The purpose of the “tree of life”, in 3:22, is so that they would “live forever”. If they were already inherently immortal, then what is the purpose of a tree of life that grants immortality?"

In fact, Catholics do not claim Adam and Eve were immortal by nature before the fall. We claim they were so by a special grace, which would have involved no doubt eating from the tree of life to become fully operative.

"Adam and Eve are warned that “in the day that you eat of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you shall surely die” (2:17). Does not the warning imply some knowledge of what they were being threatened with?"

Confer what you said earlier:

"Plant life is life and plant death is death. Because of the mandate to eat vegetation, the meaning of "life" has to be reinterpreted protect the doctrine that there is no death prior to the Fall. Plants must be excluded from being alive, even though we know, with modern biology, that plants and animals are both similarly alive, with cells and DNA. At the chemical level the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape and are made from the same four chemical building blocks, called nucleotides. The claim that the Bible excludes plant life from being life makes the Bible to teach an absurdity. It's a claim that brings disrepute onto the Word of God."

So, we can assume Adam and Eve could have seen a plant die.

Or God could have revealed the meaning of death to them.

Your equality between plants and animals as both being life won't hold. Tomatoes don't fear getting picked.

Even if one could show some tremor about a plant being uprooted, it is not quite the same as an animal fleeing from a hunter in terror.

Now, was there animal death before the Fall?

Church Fathers are divided.

The very least one can say is, there was no wasteful animal death. If a rabbit would have been eaten by a wolf, it would have been Adam making sure the wolf got what it needed, as he ordered over both.

"If there were no animal death, animals would reproduce, over-populate and eventually not have enough plants to eat. Infinitely reproducing animals -- following the mandate to "reproduce after their kinds" -- with no death, is simply impossible."

While animals do reproduce after their kinds, there are two scenarii possible here:

  • 1) Adam could have ordered it and his descendants could have ordered it, up to when it was supposed to be enough, ordering animals about procreation as he was perhaps doing so on carnivorousness;

  • 2) the maximum of animal reproduction could have been fulfilled exactly in time to coincide with men being reproduced and remaining just had arrived at the number required for all being raptured.


So, there is in fact no real necessity of animals even dying before the fall.

It is certain there was no evil and cruel death even among animals before the fall.

I have argued about Neanderthal cannibals that they cannot be pre-Adamite animals, partly because Neanderthal genome has the human version of the FOXP2 gene, they had the genetic prerequisite to talk, and partly because cannibalism in organisms higher than plants is cruel and impossible in a not yet fallen creation.

yeoberry
Hans-Georg Lundahl :
That’s just stupid. Whether or not something fears being eaten does not determine whether it is life. If you’re really denying that plants are alive, you’re totally unreasonable and it’s a waste of time trying to talk to you.

You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"That’s just stupid. Whether or not something fears being eaten does not determine whether it is life. If you’re really denying that plants are alive, you’re totally unreasonable and it’s a waste of time trying to talk to you."

It did not occur to you that "absolutely no death of any kind at all" is not anything more than a strawman on the YEC case about "through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death"?

It did also not occur to you to read through my answer and see that I have a somewhat more nuanced reading of it, since bound by Patristics, than certain YECs, not saying they are wrong about fact of no animals dying before Adam, but they could still very well be wrong about the Bible unequivocally and dogmatically saying so.

"You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions."

I recall my teens. There were among the Lutheran youth group people arguing against my Creationism and there were such arguing against my Catholic sympathies.

I have remained a Creationist and a Catholic convert.

What you mean by me not knowing the Gospel is beyond me ...

yeoberry
+Hans:
You’re real problem is that you don’t know the gospel, that you belong to a self-serving, idolatrous religion that makes void the Word of God for the sake of its traditions.

Stop trying to deal with any part of the Bible until you get the gospel right. See: The Roman Catholic Church and the Gospel (Dr. James White): [link omitted, HGL]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look here, James White may be a Doctor in some university, but he is not a Doctor Ecclesiae and he is definitely not sent as a preacher by the successors of the apostles, very unlike what Romans 10:14-15 requires.

That passage being the reason why the confirmation godfather of my confirmation godfather converted.

[I omitted the link for now, but going there for some refutation work. Look at yeoberry and me, who's the cultist? Actually, can't see it here, since it lacks subtitles.]

yeoberry
+Hans-Georg Lundahl: You belong to an idolatrous, self-serving organization that lies about being the true church and tries to make void the Word of God for the sake of its man-made traditions. You don't know the gospel and if you really believed the Word of God you wouldn't be part of an organization that denies it.

Romans 10:14-15 says nothing about the so-called "successors of the apostles":

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[a] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”"

You need to repent and believe the Word of God.

Andwered twice
C and D

C
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Romans 10 certainly does say sth about successors of apostles.

How could Peter preach or Andrew or James and John and so on?

They were sent by Jesus.

How could Paul preach?

He was sent by Jesus too.

B U T ... how could Titus and Timothy preach? They were sent by Paul - they were not apostles themselves, but successors to one. THEN they were to send others after them.

And so on, which means that up to Doomsday either someone is sent by Jesus, His Apostles, their immediate successors and their successors in turn and so on, or Jesus keeps coming in apparitions like to Paul with new starts. Except Paul himself was not a new start, he was confirmed by apostles and received imposition of hands either from them or from successors of them.

The latter option has two problems apart from Paul not really being a model : Mormons and Charles Taze Russell were as sent by documented successors of apostles as your own "Church" namely not at all, and the other problem is, a new start means somehow the series Jesus-Paul-Titus-successor of Titus-successor of successor of Titus would end before there was any need for a new start.

But such an ending contradicts Matthew 28:20 and specifically the words "all days".

yeoberry
+Hans-Georg Lundahl:
You belong to a false "church" that denies the Word of God for the sake of it's tradition. You don't understand the gospel. If you did, you wouldn't be in an organization that denies it.

You show again that you are incapable of even the simplest Bible interpretation. Romans 10:14-15 says NOTHING about the a so-called apostolic succession. You have to read that tradition into the text in order to make void the gospel that is taught in Romans. It says that a preacher of the gospel needs to be sent. It doesn't say that we know someone is preaching the gospel simply by who sent them. You've totally twisted the passage by inserting a false doctrine into it. We know a preacher has the true gospel by whether it matches what the scriptures teach:

"even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

You believe a false gospel because you've not bothered to check the Word of God for what the gospel is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Romans 10:14-15 says NOTHING about the a so-called apostolic succession. You have to read that tradition into the text"

I didn't.

A preacher needs sending. Father sent Jesus. Jesus sent apostles. Apostles (like Paul) sent others (like Timohty and Titus) who then (as Paul instructed Timothy and Titus) sent even others after due preparation.

Who, exactly who is the first preacher who does NOT need a visible sending by someone else after receiving due preparation?

Nowhere, if you notice what verse 15 says. There isn't any. There wasn't any then and cannot be to this day, see Matthew 28:20.

"to make void the gospel that is taught in Romans."

We are not making void any Gospel that is taught in Romans. You are.

You are reading into this or that or other verse on a "Romans' road" a presumed refutation of the Catholic way of getting saved (see for instance John 3:3-5).

You are even doing so by reading your Protestant traditions into certain ones of these verses.

"It says that a preacher of the gospel needs to be sent. It doesn't say that we know someone is preaching the gospel simply by who sent them."

No, we knew that Luther was sent by Jerome Schultz on April 3 1507 and that bishop Jerome Schultz had apostolic succession.

We also know that Luther did not remain a preacher of the Gospel, but he invented his own one.

"We know a preacher has the true gospel by whether it matches what the scriptures teach:"

The Scriptures, or the succession of teachers?

"even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

Oh, saint Paul did not say "wrote" but "preached". Guess it is the successor of teachers, unless a divergence from Scriptures is very blatant as in not believing a Young Earth.

"You believe a false gospel because you've not bothered to check the Word of God for what the gospel is."

I spent years of my teens checking, so you lie.

The one who has not bothered checking is you.

D
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Furthermore, you considered Catholicism "self serving".

What is aomin.org then? Here is the contact form:

"By submitting this contact form, you, the sender, acknowledge that any or all of this correspondence becomes the property of Alpha and Omega Ministries and may be used in public. Further, if you, the sender, have any notice of claim of copyright, such claim is nullified by your submission of this form."

So, if I also want to use any or all of this correspondence in public, I can't, since it is AOMin's property?

That is self serving. I suspect they would be less interested than I in publishing all of the correspondence, namely.

B
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I also see you still have no answer on Göbekli Tepe.

You admitted - verbally - that genealogies date man.

Now, the carbon dates for GT are older than any genealogy derived date for man.

Man could be 4000 BC according to Masoretic text or 5199 or 5500 BC according to Septuagint. GT is dated as one tousand years, between 9600 BC and 8600 BC.

You choose:

  • 1) do you take GT as built by pre-Adamites? Were they just animals?

  • 2) do you take GT as ill dated, and if that dating method is off, why do you need a creation older than man anyway?

  • 3) or do you not even admit genealogies correctly date man?


III
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:32 You know, you seem to think that oldness of things is more like a scientifically measurable quality than a historic fact ...

IV
Hans-Georg Lundahl
3:08 I happen to be a Young Earth Creationist myself.

I also happen to have been around a page with Kent Hovind affiliations some. just recently, I get some opposition over being a Catholic.

I happen to think, if you show you have been abused verbally (or someone else has), context is a bit better than just a snapshot usually.

I made an exception lately in French Quora over being called jokingly by implication drug addict, but I also published the apology I got.

Back to this FB group, and my debates on Catholicism, here they are:

HGL's F.B. writings : With Ivan Shiek on Continuity of Church and Accusations against the Catholic one (Ten Commandments and Accusation ag. Papacy)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/12/with-ivan-shiek-on-continuity-of-church.html


HGL's F.B. writings : With Ivan Shiek and Glenda Badger on Continuity of the Church
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/12/with-ivan-shiek-and-glenda-badger-on.html


Doesn't work so good on a video, but you could use such a thing as script for a theatre about the debate, at least with some brushing up like this:

What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting [This blog.]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2008/11/what-kind-of-editing-i-did-and-what.html


I have used it for some debates, but not exactly (yet) those two.

yeoberry
Hans-Georg Lundahl :
  • 1. In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation.

  • 2. Genesis 1:1 reports the creation of the universe and earth at an unspecified time before day one.

  • 3. Genesis 1:2, in three statements, describes first the condition of the earth created in 1:1 and then God's acting on it. Genesis 1:2c describes an action, “was hovering” (מְרַחֶ֖פֶת). This word evokes the image of a hen brooding over her chicks. It suggests nurturing, care, supervision (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:11, Jeremiah 23:9). It suggests movement. It also suggests a process over a period of time. How long a period of time? The passage doesn’t say.

  • 4. The planet is described in 1:2 and thus was created in 1:1. Hence, 1:1 is not simply a summary statement or title. Besides, there is no other statement about the creation of the earth in the rest of the narrative.

  • 5. All this occurs before the days begin with "And God said . . ." (וַיֹּאמֶר) (Genesis 1:3) and the verbs change from the "stage setting" perfect verbs of 1:1-2 to the wayyiqtol verbs of the main narrative in 1:3-2:4.

  • 6. The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified.

  • 7. So there is no way to specify from scripture how old the earth and universe is.


[I substituted above occurrence, since he copy pasted from one same source. The real answer differs by not beginning with an adress to my name.

yeoberry also completely ignored that I was in a friendly way telling Conservative News about a way to really document a debate, rather than just snapshot a highlight from one particular line of the adversary. As he had done on the video.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have forgotten that the time of brooding can be very clearly pinpointed to how many hours maximally, from Exodus 20.

If Light was created corresponding to 6 o'clock Sunday morning, or perhaps even later, 9 o'clock am, nevertheless, the initial creation must have taken place at the earliest on Saturday evening at 6 pm.

Since, the Sabbath Adam and Eve held lasted Friday to Saturday on each evening 6 pm, and since God Himself in Exodus says He created Heaven and Earth and all that is in them in six days, and rested on the seventh.

"The text doesn't say how long before. It is unspecified."

The text does say so in Exodus. It is not left unspecified for the rest of the Bible.

"In order for one to make a claim for the age of the earth from the Bible, the Bible must be shown to have an unbroken, dateable chain of events back to the original creation."

But we do have this.

Also, @yeoberry - the comment you answered happened to be about simple manners on internet. Not on the issue.

Here is a video, where I actually debate some:

Why Young Earth Creationism Is A Cult - Dr Jason Lisle, Ken Ham
Conservative News | 23.III.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkgAUOXL6mU


The comment which I debated the video owner under seems to have been displaced behind a few others, on the "top of comments" rating. But it is very well visible, so far, if you use "latest on top". Here is how its beginning looks, there are nine responses to it:

4:14 You somehow seem to imagine time can be directly measured after it has already past in objects having passed through that time.

yeoberry
Hans-Georg Lundahl :
You’ve completely ignored the first two verses of the Bible. There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. Exodus 20:11 is not about the original creation (“bara’”). The text uses a different word, “made” (‘asah), showing it is about making out of preexisting material. Exodus 20:11 is only about the days but the days do not go back to the original creation.

In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God hovers over the waters for an undisclosed amount of time. Day one doesn’t begin until Genesis 1:3, at an unspecified time after the original creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. Exodus 20:11 is not about the original creation (“bara’”). The text uses a different word, “made” (‘asah), showing it is about making out of preexisting material."

Would figure if there were no precision about "heaven and earth AND all that is in them", and 'asah or make would be a more general term and therefore include if context appropriate bara or create.

"There we’re told the universe and earth was created at an undisclosed time before day one. ... In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God hovers over the waters for an undisclosed amount of time. Day one doesn’t begin until Genesis 1:3, at an unspecified time after the original creation."

We are not specifically told that the time is and remains undisclosed, it is just that the time is not disclosed then and there.

There is no "only the Father" type of "remains undisclosed" about it.

We are told Heaven and Earth is created and that the Spirit hovers over the waters. I have not ignored that information if I have specified that God later disclosed for how long we can imagine up to Genesis 1:3 as being a matter of hours, see Exodus 20.

We can also find it disclosed that the time from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:27 is negligible compared to the time from Genesis 1:1 to Jesus speaking in Mark 10:6.

And if you want to bring up "creation" as perhaps only meaning human such by parallelling "the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation" confer the fact that [Colossians 1:23] continues "that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister."

While Gospel is preached in all mankind, and this is initially specified as "all creation", this "all the creation" is actually a specified subset, namely specified as under heaven (no doubt angels are preaching the Gospel up in the Heavens above too, but not as a hope, since those arriving there have all their hope fulfilled) and of which St Paul is the minister, which he certainly is not so far of crying Holy Holy Holy in God's throne room when speaking or writing those words to Colossians.

In Mark 10:6 we do not find any similar limit on "the creation".

V
Hans-Georg Lundahl
4:29 If you want sth more polite, except if you are Geocentric and on that one - not generally, there is for instance Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com

Their feedback articles are way more polite than what you showed.

[Here yeoberry did get, I was adressing the complaint by Conservative News on being met with less than perfect courtesy by Creationists, rather than posing some particular creationist claim.]

... on Carbon 14 Halflife, quora


Q
How do scientists know the half-life of carbon-14 is exactly 5730 years when no one has lived that long?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-know-the-half-life-of-carbon-14-is-exactly-5730-years-when-no-one-has-lived-that-long/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
First of all, we assume it is a half life. This means, it is not a decrease by arithmetically even decrease, but by a geometrically even decrease.

Second, this means we can count on roots of 1/2 to figure out how much would be left after so and so many fewer years.

For instance, for 1/3 of a half life, you would have the third root of 1/2.

1910 years ago left organic material which now has 79.37 % of original carbon content.

So, we find artefacts which were left behind 1910 years ago, in 108 AD. That could be a papyrus from Egypt or a piece of wood from Egypt, or a mummy portrait from Fayyum:



Description
English:
The Mummy-portrait is wax-tempera-made on wood. A young man in roman clothing. Hair and beard are made in the modern way this time. He belongs to the greco-roman upper-class. Early 3d Century, 37,5 cm high, Inv.-Nr. 15013.
Deutsch:
Mumienportrait eines jungen Mannes in römischer Kleidung. Frühes 3.Jhdt. 37,5 cm hoch, Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Inventarnummer 15013 .
Date
15 November 2008
Source
Own work
Author
MatthiasKabel
Licensing
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less.


This one is actually a bit more recent, so we would have a bit more than 79.37 % of present carbon 14. It is in medium 1880 years old**, meaning a sample of it should have 79.66 % of modern carbon.

Or we take an object from 1/4 of the half life and it should have fourth root of 1/2 as carbon content, or square root of square root. 1432.5 years ago, 585.5 AD. Let’s make that 585.

King Childebert II, age 15, takes up his sole rule of Austrasia. A Frankish army under King Guntram marches to Comminges (Pyrenees), and besieges the citadel of Saint-Bertrand.

July – Gundoald, Merovingian usurper king, and his followers are defeated during the siege of Saint-Bertrand. He is executed and Guntram stages a triumphal entry in Orléans.

585 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/585


So, Gundoald died in 585. A bone of his or wood from his coffin would have sth like 84.09 % of modern carbon.

This means, for carbon 14, we can check the physicists’ assumptions on how long the half life would be against objects which can be dated historically too. This is the reason why the original half life by Libby has been corrected since he published it, from his estimate 5568 years to 5730 years.

Note well, this type of checkup cannot be done for halflives like Uranium or Potassium 40.

* 0.7937005259840997 ** Wiki article said AD 125–150, that leaves a medium of 137.5 which deducted from 2018 leave a medium of 1880.5 years.

... on Carbon 14 Dating, Quora


Q
If the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years and a wooden artifact from an ancient tomb contains 50% of the carbon-14 that is present in living trees, how long ago (in years) was the artifact made?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-half-life-of-carbon-14-is-5730-years-and-a-wooden-artifact-from-an-ancient-tomb-contains-50-of-the-carbon-14-that-is-present-in-living-trees-how-long-ago-in-years-was-the-artifact-made/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thorough, but not fast or even always bright in maths.
Answered just now
“If the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years and a wooden artifact from an ancient tomb contains 50% of the carbon-14 that is present in living trees, how long ago (in years) was the artifact made?”

As others have noted : the artifact may be made after the tree was felled and we don’t know how long, and the tree may have lived long and have carbon 14 levels reflecting a medium, not just the younger parts.

However, people normally, unless Young Earth Creationists, count on it being made one half life, that is 5730 years, ago, since they count on its coming from an atmosphere having roughly same amount of C14 as today.

I am a Young Earth Creationist. If at a point the atmosphere contained only half the present amount of carbon 14 and an object of organic material then “took one half life to arrive to” our time, that object would not have 50 % but only 25 % of the carbon 14 that is present in recent organic material.

This is how I see Göbekli Tepe, except it was really more recent than one half life ago, and its lowest levels contain less than 25 % the carbon recent material does. Or organic material from its lowest levels contain that.

Now, if a little less than one half life ago the carbon 14 level was such that organic material from then carbon dates to roughly two half lives, this means, if it carbon-dates to one half life, it is more recent than one half life and if it is more recent than one half life, the carbon level was higher than 50 % and lower than 100 %.

One could in pure theory imagine, it could have half a half life ago been 70.7 % - but half a half life ago is 2865 “BP” - 2018 AD = 847 BC.

In 847 BC, carbon levels were if not 100 % like modern carbon at least not too far off, so, while we have 70.7 % of something which ceased to breathe in 847 BC, the original carbon level was so close to 100 % that the remaining carbon is if not 70.7 % at least not very far below.

So, things carbon dated to 1 half life old, or to 5730 years ago or to 3712 BC are less recent than 847 BC and more recent than 2511 BC (the Babel date for Göbekli Tepe’s end, if I get St Jerome’s chronology correct).

When it comes to Abraham being 75 to 80 years old, between Genesis 12 and Genesis 14, we seem to deal with sth like early dynastic Egypt, carbon dated to 3200 BC or sth. So, 1935 or even 1940 BC is carbon dated 3200 BC.

This means a carbon date of 3712 BC could be from either Abraham’s childhood or a little earlier (2015 BC or a little back toward 2511 BC).

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Tony Reed on Dating Assumptions, Answered


How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 65 Dating Assumptions
Tony Reed | 24.XI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ze1jO4jYE4


An excuse
Ice cores are not my thing, so far.

No answer on that one.

Dendro
The bristlecone pine dated at 5067 years ...

We are 4975 after the Flood ...

5067
4975
0092/4975 = 0.0184924623115578 = 1.85 %

Acceptable error for dendro, I would say ...

Bristlecone pines cross dated 14,000 years back, source appreciated?

Other little detail on dendro.

For dating of sth from 1400 AD, dendro is VERY reliable. For dating of sth from 1400 BC, clearly less so.

Like that other lignine related dating : paper or written documents.

Older times = scarcer lignine sources.

Scarcer lignine sources = less reliable.

Meanwhile
This is a graph on a bottleneck of dendro dating:



Seems a bit - noncoinciding, as to the diverse subgraphs.

The source for this is:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1560/1564

I found this while looking for a source for 14,000 BP dendro dates on google.

Carbon
Carbon, now.

  • 1) Cross check with dendro : some of the agreements in cross dated tree material is so sketchy, that some of the dendro used to check the carbon is itself dependent on carbon.
  • 2) Cross check with thermoluminiscence : in my scenarii for a carbon build up, we anyway need to have a faster carbon 14 production. For the time of Göbekli Tepe, if identic to Biblical Babel (Genesis 11), this means eleven times faster. This means, the warping of carbon dates and the warping of thermoluminiscence dates would be fairly parallel. Also, I think thermo is even calibrated by carbon.
  • 3) older than 50,000 years - well, the carbon 14 found in dinosaurs are for ages like 49,000 to 22,000 years, unless it was even 39,000 to 22,000 years (note, saw this in subtitles, and a subtitling can confuse "thirty" and "forty").


Longer than carbon
Uranium half lives ... the amount of heat released under diverse circumstances of speed of decay are in fact not observed.

Neither can a significant portion of half life be checked against historically known material.

For C14 a quarter of the halflife is 1432 years, or so. But 1430 years ago, we are talking Emperor Maurice, just after Tiberius II had died. A child's play to check. Historically.

Object x = early years of Emperor Maurice.
Object x = C14 = (1/2)^1/4 = 84.1 % modern carbon.

Must have been verified several times over.

12:07 Potassium argon. Same observation as with Uranium as to halflife, plus "excess argon".

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

... on Protestant Crusaders (quora)


Q
What was [the] Protestant Christians' view of [the] Crusades?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-protestant-Christians-view-of-crusades/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl#


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered 22m ago
If we take older mainstream Protestant, it varied.

Erasmus and Luther had at a time been pacifist, Luther taking over pacifism from Erasmus who himself remained a Catholic.

However, when Turks invaded Holy Roman Empire, Luther actually supported the Crusading effort to push off the Turks, and his famous “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott” (probably not good to sing if you come from Catholicism, it is calling God a fortress, confer Daniel) is from this period.

The Danish and Swedish Lutherans thought of themselves as Crusaders against Catholic tyranny in the Thirty Years’ War.

The Calvinist Covenanters in England thought of themselves basically as Crusaders in an even darker sense, as “cleaning up” Pagan dirt, they shared the Crusaders’ sense of “literal reenactment” of Joshua.

Since Calvin, from Bucer, is a crossover between Luther and Zwingli (basically predestination by exaggerating Luther and view of sacraments from Zwingli somewhat modified by Luther), one can mention that Zwingli, while a man of the cloth, actually died as a “Crusader” against Catholicism.

“1531 kam es zu einem Religionskrieg in der Eidgenossenschaft, dem Zweiten Kappelerkrieg zwischen Zürich und den katholischen Kantonen Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden und Zug. Bereits vorher waren Altgläubige wie beispielsweise die Mönche vor allem der Bettelorden aus den Klöstern vertrieben worden. Zwingli war es auch, der den Rat von Zürich zum Zweiten Kappelerkrieg gegen die Waldstätte drängte, um die Reformation, wenn nicht mit Überzeugung möglich, dann mit Feuer und Schwert auch in der Innerschweiz zu verbreiten. Am 11. Oktober 1531 unterlagen die Zürcher, und Zwingli selbst geriet während der Schlacht bei Kappel, an der er als Soldat teilgenommen hatte, [12] am Albis in die Hände der katholischen Innerschweizer. Er wurde verhöhnt, indem man ihm anbot, noch einmal die Beichte abzulegen, und anschliessend getötet. Sein Leichnam wurde gevierteilt, anschliessend verbrannt und die Asche in den Wind gestreut. Erst 1838 wurde ihm in Kappel und 1885 in Zürich ein Denkmal errichtet. Heinrich Bullinger wurde Zwinglis Nachfolger in Zürich. Er konsolidierte den reformierten Glauben und gilt als eigentlicher Begründer der reformierten Kirche.”

Huldrych Zwingli – Wikipedia
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli#Tod_im_Zweiten_Kappelerkrieg


1531, a new religious war in the Swiss Confederation, the second Kappel war, between Zurich and the Catholic Cantons Lucern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Zug. Even earlier those adhering to older faith, like monks and especially friars, had been chased from monasteries. It was Zwingli who promoted the second war of Kappel against the Forest Cantons, in order to promote the Reformation, if no longer possible by persuasion, at least with fire and sword into Inner Switzerland. On October 11th 1531, the Zurichers were defeated, and Zwingli who had partaken in battle as a soldier was in the battle of Kappel on the Albis range taken captive by the Catholic Inner Swiss. “He was lampooned by the fact he was offered opportunity to once again go to confession” - I don’t think it was lampooning, but a generous offer to save his soul, despite all the evil he had done - “and then killed”. His corpse was quartered (a common punishment for traitors, sometimes applied even before killing, but not in his case) and burnt on the stake (the punishment for heresy, in his case also applied after death) and his ashes were thrown into the wind. He had no monument in Kappel until 1838 and none in Zurich until 1885. In Zurich, he was followed by Henry Bullinger who counts as the real founder of the Reformed Church.

So, the Reformers were fairly pro-Crusades, on the whole. More so than Catholics, even.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
I checked, in the Bible God is not called “fortress” and the psalm Luther Bibles mark as having inspired Luther’s Song - 46 in Protestant and 45 in Catholic Bibles - uses the word “refuge”, in German “Zuflucht”, in his German “Zuversicht”, but not “Burg” which would be “fortress” or “castle.”

First mentions of “castle” in the Bible, King David besieges one and then dwells in it, but he had not built it, it had been built by Gentile, perhaps even Pagan Jebusites, it is the castle of Zion. Last mention, Roman cavalry come to a castle, holding St Paul as prisoner.