samedi 10 février 2018

Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)


Hugh Ross seems to think that a lack of Neanderthal Y chromosomes and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA proves that we are all unrelated to Neanderthals.

I am for instance "hearing" this speech, or rather seeing it subtitled:

What is a Neanderthal - Hugh Ross
Abrahamic Faith | 17.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z1RSofbLt4


Not so.

If a Neanderthal man has a daughter with a Homo Sapiens woman, that daughter will have NEITHER Neanderthal Y Chromosome, since females don't have that, NOR a Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, since she inherits the mitochondria from her Sapiens mother.

I think a woman of that or similar description would be a neat option for one of the wives of Noah's three sons.*

Note, there are other parts of Neanderthal genome which are shared by some men today and not others. Also, Neanderthals have a clearly human version of the FOXP2 gene which apes have not. This shows, on the common Christian view that all men descend from Adam, that Neanderthals were men, Adamites. They had the fundamental capacity for speech and they have descendendants among men.

Noah and his wife could not have been either Neanderthals or even hybrid Neanderthal / Sapiens. Had they been that, all men now would have Neanderthal heritage more or less equally. Red hair and white skin was a thing among Neanderthals, but not the earliest known Sapiens. And I include carbon dated ones, where the relative chronology is fairly well proven.

On the other hand, Noah's daughters in law could have involved one more Neanderthal like than the others, either through the process just outlined, or because of the pre-Flood race known as Antecessor or the pre-Flood race known as Homo Heidelbergensis, both of which seem to count - among Evolutionists - as common ancestors to "Neanderthal and man".

Now, in the same video, Hugh Ross is about to claim, as can be seen from the pictures, taken from the "Them and Us" site, that Neanderthals were monsters, preying on us. (In fact, now, I have "heard" the video, he did not, he only took the pictures from that site.) This is in fact possible. Cannibalism could be one of the unwise traits of giants.

Baruch 3:[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

This means, Neanderthals could be simply Nephelim. If so, I don't think Noah's daughters in law would very readily include a very Nephelim tainted person.

If so, it is more probable that the Neanderthal like genes come from pre-Flood either Heidelbergians or Antecessors, the race from which then the Neanderthals, if Nephelim, came.

On the other hand, there is some indication Neanderthals as such were not necessarily Nephelim. While Neanderthals in Belgium were living off Woolly Rhino and human meat, Neanderthals in Spain were, as men were supposed to be up to Genesis 9, vegetarians. This is known from their tooth enamel.

This, or the possibility that the daughter of a Nephelim was, herself, not too tainted, could speak for those parts of DNA actually being from Neanderthals, as such, not just from potentially similar genes on Antecessor labelled race or Heidelberg labelled race.

Now, Hugh Ross claims there were always few Neanderthals. I am checking the reasoning of a secular source:

Now, Briggs and his colleagues have used a new method that targets the genetic material of interest, analyzing so-called mitochondrial DNA from the fossils of six Neanderthals, who lived between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago. That genetic material comes from females and so can be used to trace maternal lineages.

To get a sense of the genetic diversity, and ultimately population size, the team compared the Neanderthal sequences with one another. Then, the researchers looked at such genetic information from 50 living humans from around the world, asking, "how different are their genes from one another?"

(Diversity of genes can provide indirect evidence for the number of breeding individuals, because with more people mating more genes are thrown into the mix, and vice versa.)

The Neanderthals had about three times less genetic diversity than the modern humans. Briggs suggests the entire population could be roughly estimated by doubling the number of females, which they set at no higher than 3,500.

From : Neanderthals Were Few and Poised for Extinction
By Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | July 16, 2009 10:02am ET
https://www.livescience.com/5570-neanderthals-poised-extinction.html


Note, for one, this result by Briggs from 2009 is contradicted by Pääbo** from later on, who did more sequencing on Neanderthals.

But "3 times less genetic diversity than modern humans" would be readily explainable if they were simply one race.

Take 50 Europoid or 50 Black or 50 Yellow persons, and they will also have about 3 times less genetic diversity than the human race as a whole, as it is post-Flood.

Again, Briggs is projecting the diversity onto a timescale of "between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago". It seems, "32,000 years ago", as they say, Sapiens was not very racially diversified.

Back to "where one could possibly consider Nephelim to have been" ... I just said, if Neanderthals were Nephelim, then perhaps the Neanderthal shared genes come from Antecessor, instead. On the other hand, I also said, in Spain the Neanderthals were vegetarian, as pre-Flood men were supposed to be, while, I just checked, the Homo Antecessor in Spain, those at Atapuerca, were in fact cannibals.

En el artículo, titulado 'Modeling Trophic resource availability for de first human settlers of Europe: The case of Atapuerca TD-6' ('Modelo trófico de disponibilidad de recursos para los primeros pobladores humanos de Europa: El caso del nivel TD-6 en Atapuerca') concluyen que el entorno era muy rico en recursos, por lo que el canibalismo no se debía a periodos de hambruna.

From : El canibalismo del 'Homo Antecessor' no se debía a épocas de hambruna
Efe | Burgos | Actualizado miércoles 03/04/2013 20:03 horas
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/04/03/castillayleon/1365012206.html


This would of course mean, "Antecessor" is even more suspect than Neanderthals of being Nephelim - or simply very fallen men.

On the other hand, this one could favour Hugh Ross' assessment:

El hombre de Atapuerca practicaba el mismo canibalismo que los chimpancés
Nuño Domínguez 04/09/2012
http://esmateria.com/2012/09/04/el-hombre-de-atapuerca-practicaba-el-mismo-canibalismo-que-los-chimpances/


Citing:

Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses
Palmira Saladié Rosa Huguet Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo Isabel Cáceres Montserrat Esteban-Nadal Juan Luis Arsuaga José María Bermúdez de Castro Eudald Carbonell
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 63, Issue 5, November 2012, Pages 682-695
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248412001406


Key words:

However, the age distribution of the cannibalized hominins in the TD6 assemblage is not consistent with that from other cases of exo-cannibalism by human/hominin groups. Instead, it is similar to the age profiles seen in cannibalism associated with intergroup aggression in chimpanzees. For this reason, we use an analogy with chimpanzees to propose that the TD6 hominins mounted low-risk attacks on members of other groups to defend access to resources within their own territories and to try and expand their territories at the expense of neighboring groups.


I am also reading here evidence on cannibalism having occurred also among Neanderthals in Spain. It seems then, I was arguing too much pre-Flood virtue from tooth enamel.

The thing is, on a quick skimming through, the cannibalism actually seems to go beyond what a parallel with chimpanzees can explain, even if similar in terms of victims. This means, it is very likely to relate to:

Genesis 6:[5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (a verse after one having mentioned giants).

It seems that the Heidelbergians of Terra Amata were not tied to cannibalism. The one link showing Terra Amata and cannibalism together was a google book, the title being Prehistoric Art in Europe, by Nancy K. Sandars*** - and she talks of the concepts in two different paragraphs on page 35. She notes, even Homo habilis was right handed as a tool maker. Chimps are ambidextrous. Why? Well, the right hand is tied to the left brain hemisphere, which in man (but not chimps, obviously) is related to speech.

Note, Homo Antecessor is only known from Atapuerca, while Homo Heidelbergensis is known from several places, and some place Antecessor here.

Note also that morphologically, Heidelbergians like the Steinheim skull were at least as close if not closer to Neanderthals as to post-Flood Sapiens.

This means, they are about equally suspect of being Nephelim. Actually, since the Steinheim skull was found after the National Socialists took over, God could have shown a pre-Flood Nephelim to the emerging State horror, so as to hold up a kind of mirror.

Even if, however, neither a Neanderthal nor a Heidelbergian is in our direct ancestry, someone sharing traits with the former or with some of them is. That being so, Adam was more probably either Sapiens or very close to pure such, since there were only 10 generations spanning both Adam and Noah (in a time during which other lineages could have had time to diverge considerably more) and since Noah was pure from the Nephelim taint. So, if we are "Sapiens" race, so was Noah, if Noah was, so was, or was close enough, Adam. Only, some of us are closer to Neanderthals than others.

Sorry if I made this too rambling, I woke up early this morning.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Scholastica°
10.II.2018

* I therefore differ from Sarfati who thinks Neanderthals - pure, not Sapiens mixed - were a post-Flood race. Or he thought so in 2006. ** My countryman, if you want to suspect bias, maybe there is. *** Yale University Press, 1968 and second edition 1985.

° Apud montem Cassinum sanctae Scholasticae Virginis, sororis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui ejus animam, instar columbae, migrantem e corpore in caelum ascendere vidit.

mardi 30 janvier 2018

Why N. Mesopotamia / E. Anatolia Might Fit Better then S. Mesopotamia, Genesis 11


First, forget about Shinear being Sumer. Sumerians may have called their land Sumer because they claimed to overlordship over all Shinear, or it may ba a homophone or there may be some other glitch. But Sumer indicating Southern Mesopotamia only while North Mesopotamia was divided between Akkadians and Elamites and perhaps some more, that is a non-clue.

Next, Shinear means Mesopotamia.

This being so, S. Mesopotamia (where Sumer is, and perhaps Babylon would be its limit to N. Mesopotamia) and N. Mesopotamia are equally feasible. Real S. Mesopotamia were the delta lands which since back then have continued in a united delta of Shatt el Arab. The confluence between Euphrates and Tigris is just N. of Basra, which did not exist even the ground for in very Ancient times.

Now, here is the interesting stuff. There are two indications differentiating Babel of Nimrod from Babylon.

The first one is, we suppose that Babel of Nimrod, mentioned in Genesis 10, is equal to Babel of Confusion, mentioned in Genesis 11. Note very well, we would here have another example of a figure already shown between Genesis 1 and 2. One verse in chapter 10 is expanded to a full narrative in part of chapter 11.

Genesis 10:[10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.

Actually it is only the first half of the verse which corresponds to first half of chapter 11.

Note, Babylon is in Akkadian Bab-Ilu, "gate of the gods" or "of God", and in Hebrew that would be Bab-El (in the sense "gate of God"). A perfect homophone for that other Babel which means "babble" or "confusion".

So, we can identify Nimrod's Babylon with the Babel, with some safety of guessing. Nimrod meant it as Bab-El - a gate up to God - and Moses (with his predecessors, perhaps Abraham on this point of narrative) comments "And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded" like "let's ignore Nimrod's confused point, here is another confusion which is more important" or was at least more important in practical terms back then.

Now, why can't the Babel of Confusion be "Babylon" as in 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E?

Because of previous verse : "And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city."

You can take it weakly and say "they ceased to build the city back then, but resumed building later". I take it strongly and say "they ceased to build the city and even made sure it would not be resumed by burying it in sand" - as you know my hobby horse the Babel of Confusion is Göbekli Tepe.

Would this mean the tying of Nimrod of Babylon - 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E - is wrong? No. Babylon is a concept more than a locality. Babylon as 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E was one of the ensuing materialisations of that concept, the one relevant for Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Even 41°54′08″N 12°27′12″E seems to have been materialising the concept, to St Peter, at least according to the Catholic reading of I Peter 5:13. So, like the Babylon power has moved since Daniel's time from Babylon to Susa, from Susa to ... Pella? ... Alexandria? ... and from whereever the Greek manifestation was to Rome, the same power can easily have moved from Göbekli Tepe to Babylon, from 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E to 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E. The move South is 313'12", the move East is 329'54", and since 300 minutes are 5 degrees, it is for both directions a bit more than 5 degrees, and clearly less than 6 degrees.

So, if original Babylon was Göbekli Tepe, it is no huge mystery why Babylon as historically known would have the same name, while the covering of Göbekli Tepe in sand fits the verse 8 very well.

Now, here is what could be a clincher.

Genesis 11:2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

It does not say "they found the plain land called Shinear", it says they found a plain in Shinear.

At 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E you won't find a plain, because everything everywhere around is a plain. You could just as well "find" a grain of sand in Sahara or a drop of water in the Ocean.

At 37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E, the land can still be considered as Shinear, since Shinear is Mesopotamia, the land between Euphrates and Tigris, but you can't consider the whole landscape as a plain. This means, the plain is sth which you can actually find, something which can actually surprise you.



Attribution of image : 37.223056,38.9225 on Google maps + turning 90° to the right.

I consulted the terms, it seems this is covered by fair use and even printed books under 5000 copies would be OK without specific permission.

Thank you very much, Google maps!

So, the area is hilly, but there is a plain somewhere here. It does not need to remain a complete plain to our times, especially if the city was covered in sand. Zooming out, in fact the plain as such could be the "Tek Tek Daghlari Milli Parki" (if I tie text to the right feature) - an area bounded by Sanliurfa in the North West corner, bounded in the West also by Sultantepe and Mutlukaya, and which has Harran in the middle (the people who consider Sanliurfa as Ur Chasdim also consider this as the Haran). Akçakale is in the middle of the South border. Gögeç is in the South East corner. Karaali and Mamuca are further North, Karaali on the East border and Mamuca a bit inside.

The surrounding country, including Göbekli Tepe itself, is hilly. The plain I just found on Google maps may very well be the same that they found back then - it is something which, unlike the plain at Babylon, which is definitely not standing out from any other plain, since all the area is plainly very plain. You can't find a plain inside a plain, you can only find a plain in hilly country. This is an indication I could be right.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Martina, Virgin and Martyr
30.I.2018

PS, it seems I lost the relevant part of the map while turning it to the right. Here it is:



PPS, I can as well add some big picture. I have underlined Göbekli Tepe, made a circle around the plain, and made pointers to high up points of Euphrates and Tigris:



As you can see, the plain is on the North border of Syria to Turkey./HGL

mardi 23 janvier 2018

Neat Argument - and Neat Answer, if I May Say So Myself


Anthony Zarrella is one of my favourite Catholic quorans.

We differ on who is Pope and we differ - respectfully - on Creation vs Evolution issue.

Anthony Zarrella
B R E A K
B R E A D
T R E A D
T R E N D

Is “trend” similar to “break”? Not really, no. But each step is similar to the step before it—and that’s only in four steps.

Me
Your example of “break” to “trend” is isolated to one word.

Try changing whole texts from like to unlike, like “twinkle, twinkle, little star” to “it’s a long way to Tipperary” one letter at a time and each making sense as a text.

That comes closer to evolution “between kinds”.


The whole debate my be upcoming on Assorted Retorts, later, but for now I give this argument./HGL

mardi 16 janvier 2018

"Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him


Let us quote:

Moses*, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day."


It means day. Like day it can in some contexts mean sth other than 12 hours that are light or 24 consecutive hours shared outside polar regions between light and dark. If Pius XII - whom "Introibo" you later bring on - thought anything else, he was misled. He can have chosen to be misled.

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE"


So far, fine.

Are you quoting the rest?

This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."


Yes, and as there are really and truly no such indications of Moses meaning sth else than giving history, the decision of 1905 clearly means that Genesis 1 to 11 is history, not fable, history, not allegorical fable (I am not saying there is no allegory in history!).

Key word PROVEN.

"In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies."


No, Sir.

You stated it as your OPINION that Moses meant to convey sth other than a strictly historical account of not only what God did but how God did it.

Your OPINION is not PROVEN fact.

Therefore you are violating the decision of 1905 by deviating from Genesis 1 to 11 as history.

Next question?

Oh, yes, Humani Generis by the maybe Pope Pius XII.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that ..."


Taste these words a little.

Catholics are allowed to remarry if they become widows or widowers, unless the widowers have first been ordained and unless widows or widowers have after loss of conjoint entered a monastery and made eternal vows.

No Pope could ever formulate this as "the pastoral authority of the church does not at present forbid widows and widowers to remarry, pending future modifications from research by psychiologists" or anything like that.

And the words corresponding to "at present" and "pending future" etc. while not in the line I just quoted are paralleled definitely all along the rest of the quote from Humani Generis. In other words, Humani Generis does not mean we can believe Evolution if we feel like it (the wording does not discuss what we are at liberty to believe in our hearts even) like definitions immemorable mean we are free to eat meat (unless it is a day when the Church forbids that).

You are also missing that you may not be an expert of both Biblical exegesis and natural sciences, I am probably more so than you on both accounts.

You proceed to complain of any Catholic disagreeing with you on holding Old Earth to be licit like a widower remarrying is definitely licit in a way totally disagreeing with the conditions posed by Pius XII, your darling:

"However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."


Note, you are socially treating those differing from your way to a traditional way like heretics disputing the freedoms of Catholics. That is definitely incompatible with the condition here given.

Note also, Pacelli was a lawyer before he maybe became a Pope. He does not specify the decision of the Church has to be a future one. He is hiding, but not daring to deny it could well be that the decision is already given.

Church Fathers. Trent. 1905. 1909.

Here is a theologian from 1955, Sagues:

"It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps"


I am in the anti-Evolution camp and after 15 years of debate, sorry, 16, an amateur expert (note, the Latin expertes does not involve the connotation of University accredited expertise that the translation has!) of both Biblical and Scientifical evidence relevant to the matter. I can therefore on these terms discuss it. Even assuming Pius XII was a true Pope, even assuming he was giving a charitable rather than an iniquitous judgement (being careful not to taint his infallibility by any direct favouring of the theory he seems by then to have favoured, to the detriment of his faith), even assuming I am schismatic for not recognising his authority, even assuming all this, I am not violating in fact his conditions.**

You are. Repeating his words to shut down the debate by those who have more definite reasons against Evolution than you have and even by those who would like to favour Evolution by argument more direct than merely "canonic", that is the very opposite of even his ruling. You are violating it.

Learn to read before you start to write.

Learn justice before you start judging.

The exact age of the earth in terms of how many centuries more or less, is not and probably cannot be infallibly defined.

We have Vulgate which can be read as 6000 years (which is why Haydock commentary on its translation Douay Rheims gives Ussher years for OT events).

We have LXX, the standard text of which can easily be read as the 7500 years of Syncellus or its near equivalent Byzantine martyrology (September 1 in their case, perhaps?).

We have the calculation of St Jerome, based on what seems to be a non-standard LXX version, perhaps a LXX tradition without the Second Cainan. In this sense, we were 7199 in 2000 AD. It is used in the Roman Martyrology for December 25.

There is an excellent reason why the Church is not deciding between these and defining one of these at the cost of the other ones. No one of these can claim exclusive rights to defending Biblical literal inerrantism on Genesis early history.

All of them do.

None of the at least first and last can be seen as violating Trent, or both do.

You define 6000 years, you ditch Roman Martyrology and therefore violate Trentine defense of Traditional Mass Liturgy.

You define 7200 years, you ditch the Vulgate reading and thereofore violate a rigorist at least reading of the "as contained in the Vulgate" clause of canonic books. Also a requirement of Trent.

But not deciding between 6000 and 7200 years is very far from not deciding between 6000 and 4.5 billion years. You are off by orders of magnitude between the latitude Catholicism actually allows.

Perhaps the days before creation of the Sun were not 24 hours long, but only 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds? The first light God created could have been rotating (see book I of De Genesis ad Litteram, read it through in a Loeb edition, not just the quote you love quotemining) at same speed as the aether which is presumably rotating around earth at full circle that time. Creation of Sun slowed the day down a bit.

Or, the Church has not condemned the Augustinian position which Palmar de Troya dared to dogmatise : "in one moment" (taken from a discussion from same work, but books 5 and 6*** - a discussion St Augustine ends by noting a one moment creation is not a compulsory feat of mental gymnastics, it is fine for beginners at least to stick with the actual six days).

In other words, the question has its shades - and evades certain nuances like directly asking on long ages - and the answer is as rough and ready as I was asked to yesterday by a believer in OSAS.°

This does not directly make the answer applicable as an affirmative to a specific version of the "not 24 hours".

The question was not posed as involving long ages as one such alternative to strictly 24 hours. There may have been an attempt to do so, and it may have been sent back unpublished with comments (not from Pope St Pius X, certainly) "on these terms I can give no wiggle room : you want wiggle room, be less specific". Presumably more direct wiggle room could have been given with Rampolla as Pope - and Pacelli was, I seem to recall, close to Rampolla at this or some close time.

In sum, you have done a nice work of quotemining and discussing glibly documents of Church Authority which you seem incapable of totally grasping the implications of, you have shown yourself as an ass (donkey) in the process of being the other kind of ass towards the kind of Traditional Catholics you don't happen to like. Because they take social risks you don't feel prepared to take and you feel implied even in their taking this.

Meanwhile, since the actual terms of Pius XII involved a weighing of evidence, it is noteworthy that the evidence which has come up since then on the Creationist side is being ignored and also purposefully ignored, but it is there.

And it is momentous, since a Creationist timeline of Göbekli Tepe would probably make it Babel, and that means wheat is post-Flood, and that means Cain when sacrificing "fruits of the earth" was not sacrificing wheat.

And non-Catholics - both Protestant and Jews - are contributing to showing it. Are we seeing the children of the kingdom (that is, of the Catholic Church) about to be thrown out and strangers about to be invited?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Marcellus I°°
16.I.2018

PS The addition in the title refers to the possibility that the laymen called "Introibo" on the web, since anonymously or pseudonymously writing the blog "Introibo ad altare Dei" could be handing on what he had from a priest who, in this fashion, is not attacked himself by those responding to it./HGL

PPS, here are references to fuller text of Bible commission 1909 and 1905: 1905 & 1909 - when I accuse someone of quotemining, I had better not ask everyone else to just take my word for it, let alone himself.

PPPS, spotted a "psychiologists" which should obviously be shorter by an i.

* "Introibo" : Monkey Business About Creation
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.fr/2017/02/monkey-business-about-creation.html


** Note : when I started, or a little after that, I was Palmarian. I was therefore believing the Church had already given a definition subsequent to Humani Generis, since that is what Gregorio XVII did (he went for 6000 years, not 7200, see below for details). But more importantly, I already knew that the Church had really defined the question by its being there in all Church Fathers treating on it as per Trent.

*** I think St Augustine may also have discussed his one moment creation briefly in Confessiones, since the six days had prevented his conversion from Gnostic or Manichaean as in "why would God need so much time".

° Catholic magisterium has some in common with Evangelical street preachers (though this one was over internet) and I am not writing magisterially. The commission of St Pius X was.

°° Romae, via Salaria, natalis sancti Marcelli Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, ob catholicae fidei confessionem, jubente Maxentio tyranno, primo caesus est fustibus, deinde ad servitium animalium cum custodia publica deputatus, et ibidem, serviendo indutus amictu cilicino, defunctus est.

dimanche 14 janvier 2018

Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Origin of Wheat? · Creation vs. Evolution : Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat

There is a simple reason for this.

Domesticated, that is cultivable, wheat is from a post-Flood mutation, from near Göbekli Tepe.

Wild wheat is structured so that each grain, as it ripens, falls off the plant and could possibly even fly some distance by itself. The grain is attached by a layer of cells which is detroyed when the grain ripens.

In normal wheat, by a mutation, the layer of cells does not autodestruct, but the grains stay together on the plant - bad for self sowing or sowing by birds, but ideal for harvesting by man and sowing after harvest by man.

The wild wheat is still there about 30 km from Göbekli Tepe.

Now, this means, cultivation of wheat, like cultivation of wine - both of them elements of the Holy Eucharist - is a post-Flood thing.

This of course means, Cain was offering something else. I checked the Bible does not say wheat in Genesis 4.

Look at this text, by Leanne Guenther:

Cain thought his little brother was a bit silly for giving up his best lamb. "Good grief," he thought. "We need that lamb, God doesn't. I'm sure He'd be just as happy if we sacrificed the runt of the litter. In fact, why does it need to be a lamb at all? I'm a farmer and it's been a great year for my wheat crop -- I can't use everything I've grown. Why don't I just burn some of the extra straw I have. That way, I won't be wasting any."


I think rather, he sacrificed from a plant other than wheat.

The displeasure of God foreshadows the displeasure of God in the last times, when some Catholic or perhaps more properly ex-Catholic priests have, after Vatican II and Liturgic reform, tried to consecrate maize bread or rice bread instead of unleavened wheat bread. Burning straw would not have been likely to occur even to Cain, he was hardly that stupid. But whether it did or not, God did not show displeasure at a sacrifice in wheat. It cannot have been in wheat, since wheat could not yet be cultivated.

Perhaps it was maize, and he tried offering God some pop-corn - and God was not feeling like going to a cinema. To use some understatement. I am very much reminded of how Reverend Bryan Houghton had to tell a junior priest at a point between Vatican II and the final liturgic reform "no, you cannot consecrate coke and potato crisps" (or whatever it was).

Now, this involves a bit of a quandary about the New Offertory.

As those who studied the Liturgic Reform know, the new offertory is from the Seder meal which for the blessing of bread and wine is identic to the Sabbath meal on Friday evening.

I was wondering whether the Sabbath meal involved some kind of attempt at a slur against the Holy Mass by implying sacrifice of wheat bread is somehow Cainite, we should just bless and not sacrifice it. No, not quite:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth. (Amen)


But here is the corresponding passage in New Offertory (quite different from the old one!):

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread (and wine) we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of hymn [human] hands, it will become for us the bread of life.


Similar for the offering of wine. Hence my striking out of (and wine).

(Forma Ordinaria - a word used on that forum question - means New Liturgy, since in 2007 or earlier "Benedict XVI" made the Traditional Liturgy licit as "Forma Extraordinaria" - sth to use on special conditions).

This means, New Offertory is fairly alone in using specifically for wheat bread (at the moment of the offertory it is still bread, though from then on it belongs to God, it will a few minutes later become the Body of Christ) the words used about Cain's sacrifice - a sacrifice which from now on we know cannot have been made in wheat. Because wheat is post-Flood.

For my part, I am the kind of Catholic who won't call the Traditional Rite "forma Extraordinaria" and who no longer goes to New Rite on Sundays.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
II Sunday after Epiphany
14.I.2018

jeudi 4 janvier 2018

Question for Madagascar ...


I am looking up Madagascar on the google site Palaeocritti.

Brief review of what periods mean. Upper is more recent than lower of each. And middle comes in between.

The named labels are from less to more recent : Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous.

This means that a creature from "Upper Jurassic" should be older than any creature from Cretaceous, upper or lower, and more recent than any from Lower Jurassic, any Triassic or any Permian.

Now, I am looking - or was a moment ago and will again - at a specific creature from Upper Jurassic.

Brachypterygius

As it is an ichthyosaur, it lived in water.

This any creationist as much as any evolutionist will admit.

Brachypterygius extremus (which is one of them) has an age and distribution of :

Horizon:
Kimmeridge Clay (Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic)

Locality:
Smallmouth Sands, Dorset, UK; Wiltshire and Cambridgeshire, UK; Volga and Saratov regions, Russia; Madagascar.


And sure enough, the page for Madagascar is - no, wait, it is simply listing genus. I'll look at the page to see if some other species is also from Madagascar.

Brachypterygius mordax - no.

Brachypterygius cantabrigiensis - no.

So, it is actually just Brachypterygius extremus which is from Madagascar too.

This means, some place on Madagascar is labelled as Kimmeridgian, Upper Jurassic and you found Brachypterygius extremus there.

All the other creatures listed for Madagascar are - it would seem - land animals.

Rahonavis ostromi
- Horizon:
Upper Cretaceous (?Campanian) Maevarano Formation

Type Locality:
Mahajanga Basin, northwestern Madagascar


Question part 1 : was the Brachopterygius found below any Rahonavis ostromi or was the Rahonavis ostromi found above any Brachopterygius?

Any Cretaceous is supposed to be more recent than Upper Jurassic.

Majungasaurus crenatissimus:

Horizon:
Anembalemba Member, the uppermost white sandstone stratum of the Maevarano Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian)

Locality:
Mahajanga, Madagascar


OK, found along the Rahonavis. Not sure how close or how far.

Question part 2 : was the Brachopterygius found under any Majungasaurus? Or was the Majungasaurus found above any Brachopterygius?

Question part 3 : if you plot the space between Rahonavis and Majungasaurus on a map, or between more than one of each (Majungasaurus has more than one cranium, so more than one specimen) (Rahonavis was just one skeleton), was there any Brachopterygius found in between these, either physically lower in the ground, or in such a place as to indicate present surface was physically lower?

The questions 2 and 3 multiply if you add the several specimens of Masiakasaurus knopfleri (UA 8680, FMNH PR 2108–2182, UA 8681–8696) (Locality: Mahajanga Basin, near the village of Berivotra, northwestern Madagascar), and of the somewhat fewer Behemoths of Rapetosaurus krausei label. (We deal with : UA 8698 as holotype and then the referred specimina FMNH PR 2184-2192, 2194, 2196, 2197, 2209, 2210, UCB 92829). (Mahajanga basin, northwestern Madagascar.)

They multiply just a bit more, if you add Simosuchus clarki (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia Chimaerasuchidae) and Araripesuchus tsangatsangana (Crocodylomorpha Notosuchia), who, poor crocs, have no separate pages (let's suppose they could shed crocodile tears for that!).

But all so far, except the Brachypterygius, are from Maevarano Formation, Mahajanga, Madagascar, Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian).

We also have four types of Eosuchia - sounds like crocs, early or dawning crocs - from Madagascar, Upper Permian (Wuchiapingian), outside and inside Lower Sakamena Formation. As well as from Middle Sakamena Formation, Madagascar, Lower Triassic (Induan). At least three places or "layers" with crocs.

Now, recall, these are supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic.

Question part 4 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these or is any of these found below a Brachopterygius? Is there a place between either where it is physically closer to present ground level or as close to present ground level in which there is a clear physical indication of this having been closer to surfaces since then eroded?

Middle Jurassic is also supposed to be earlier than Upper Jurassic. So where does Isalo III Formation, Madagascar, Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) get us?

We have an Archosaur and two Sauropoda (Behemoths, on Kent Hovind's view). Razanandrongobe sakalavae (Archosauria), Archaeodontosaurus descouensi (Sauropoda), Lapparentosaurus madagascariensis (Sauropoda Macronaria Brachiosauridae).

Question part 5 : is Brachopterygius found above any of these at least three specimina?

Because, if all parts of the question can be summed up as "no", I think where Brachopterygius was found was pre-Flood sea, where the other creatures were found was pre-Flood land.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Holy Innocents
4.I.2018

samedi 30 décembre 2017

More Evidence Linking Rest of World to Göbekli Tepe Area - or Babel (brief link)


Urfa Man: The 11,000 year old Balikligöl Statue Found Near Göbekli Tepe
MegalithomaniaUK | Ajoutée le 11 avr. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmNhUh2JGo


"Shanliurfa" - mentions of Abraham's birthplace - in some traditions, Urfa = Ur of Chaldees. Not saying I either agree or disagree./HGL

PS - if you didn't get that you were supposed to watch the video, there is a man sized statue in it which looks a very similar style to one in South America./HGL