vendredi 20 janvier 2017

Two Men From Cretaceous?


A little mystery which could be solved by carbon dating?

CMI : Where are all the human fossils?
by Andrew A. Snelling
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-human-fossils


Perhaps the fossilized human skeletons that come closest to having been pre-Flood humans buried in Flood strata are those skeletons found at Moab, Utah (USA). In a copper mine there, two definitely human skeletons were found in Cretaceous ‘age’ sandstone (supposedly more than 65 million years old), the bones still joined together naturally and stained green with copper carbonate. While many regard these bones as recently buried, there still remains the remote possibility that they are pre-Flood human ‘fossils’.

Footnote

Burdick, C.L., ‘Discovery of human skeletons in Cretaceous Formation’, Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):109-110, September 1973.


So, why exactly is Moab, Utah, classified as Cretaceous?

Possibly, because any fossil bearing strata in Utah are Cretaceous, Jurassic or Carboniferous. Cretaceous being most common.

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
By Location‎ > ‎United States‎ > ‎Utah
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location/united-states/utah


Let's see where the Cretaceous and other fossils are from in Utah, in case it has been noted on the site!

I
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah, U.S.A.
Items
  • Diabloceratops eatoni (Type locality)
  • Kosmoceratops richardsoni (locality for all four specimens?)
  • Utahceratops gettyi
  • Teratophoneus curriei (Kaiparowits Formation, and yes, th GSE NM is type locality)
  • Talos sampsoni(Kaiparowits Formation, and yes, th GSE NM is type locality)


II
Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, Emery County, Utah
Items
  • Stegosaurus stenops
  • Ceratosaurus nasicornis
  • Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus


III
Utah, unspecified location
Items
  • Stegosaurus armatus (Morrison Formation also has a Utah part?)
  • Stegosaurus longispinus ("Morrison Formation, ?Utah, Wyoming")
  • Torosaurus latus (North Horn Formation)
  • ? Torosaurus utahensis (North Horn Formation)
  • Nasutuceratops titusi (Kaiparowits Formation : Kane County?)


IV
San Juan County
Items
  • Tseajaia campi
  • Seitaad ruessi (Comb Ridge)


V
Emery County when not marked Cleveland LLoyd Dinosaur Quarry
Items
  • Othnielosaurus consors
  • Camarasaurus supremus
  • Falcarius utahensis (Crystal Geyser Quarry (CGQ) approximately 12 miles SE of Green River, Utah)
  • Alamosaurus sanjuanensis


VI
Uintah County
Items
  • Barosaurus lentus (Carnegie Quarry)
  • Apatosaurus louisae (Dinosaur National Monument)
  • Diplodocus longus
  • Camarasaurus lentus
  • Abydosaurus mcintoshi (Carnegie Quarry, Dinosaur National Monument)


VII
Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry (Cleveland LLoyd Dinosaur Quarry, Emery County, or other?)
Items
  • Allosaurus fragilis


VIII
Grand County
Items
  • Brontomerus mcintoshi (Hotel Mesa Quarry)
  • Geminiraptor suarezarum (Cedar Mountain Formation)
  • Utahraptor ostrommaysi (Cedar Mountain Formation)


IX
Kane County
Items
  • Nothronychus graffami (Southern margin of Kaiparowits Basin)
  • Wonder if this county includes Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, where some are said to belong to Kaiparowits Basin?


Meanwhile, Moab, Utah, is in Grand County.

So, this means that it is at least the same county as three fossils, see VIII, that the two skeletons were found.

Let's see what we can do with the original news story. Here:

The Moab Man (also called "Malachite man") is a find of several human skeletons found after bulldozing in a mine whose rock dated to the Early Cretaceous period, about 140 million years ago. The original discovery of two individuals was made in 1971 by Lin Ottinger in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah and has been used by creationists as an argument for humans coexisting with dinosaurs. John Marwitt, an archaeologist and the Field Director for the Utah Archaeological Survey, examined the fossils and concluded that the fossils were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab_Man

The footnote links to this:

"Moab Man" - "Malachite Man"
(C) 2002-2016, Glen J. Kuban
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

Part of Kuban's Paluxy Website at http://paleo.cc/paluxy/

Here we find that the reasons of Marwitt are as follows:

In 1971 a rockhound named Lin Ottinger was leading a field trip in the Big Indian Copper Mine (more recently called the Keystone Azurite Mine) near Moab, Utah, when he discovered major portions of two human skeletons bearing an interesting greenish color. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and inadvertently damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by archaeologist John Marwitt, who at the time was serving as Field Director for the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey.

Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, describing the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand, in contrast to the consolidated, hard sandstone further from the bones, comprising the host formation at the site, which is Cretaceous in age. He also indicated that all the bones were unfossilized, that is, not heavily altered or replaced with secondary minerals, and looked essentially modern, other than the greenish staining due to contact with the copper bearing sediments immediately surrounding the bones. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, probably only hundreds of years old, and thus unrelated to the age of the Cretaceous rocks around them.


Ah, they are NOT from the same quarry as "Brontomerus mcintoshi". The find place has been called Big Indian Copper Mine and more recently Keystone Azurite Mine, but not, as far as I can see, Hotel Mesa Quarry.

So, more important than any classification of cretaceous or not, neither this part of the text, nor the last part, indicated John Marwitt ever tried to carbon date the men.

If they are from Flood, their carbon date should be c. 35000 years old (varying between 50000 and 20000), corresponding to 3.9% of modern carbon being the carbon 14 proportion back then, in 2957 BC.

If they are from recent burials, they should be carbon dated accurately as 100 or 200 or whatever years old.

John Marwitt didn't think of carbon dating, since in his time dinosaurs hadn't yet been found unfossilised or partly unfossilised. Carl Baugh? He would not back then at least have found any interest in carbon dating, since the standard view was not just that carbon dating was giving too high ages, but that it was generally worthless - which I think is an exaggeration of the even back then (carbon 14 level still rising, and some have not given it up yet) standard Creationist view of why carbon dates are wrong.

I'll try to find out if anyone ever tried to carbon date it on either side.

Actually, I wrote all of above a couple of days back. I tried and got no anwer. So, I publish, and hope to get answers.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Fabian, Pope and Martyr
20.I.2017

mardi 17 janvier 2017

Science vs Pseudo-Science?


Perhaps you have at some time seen a schematic list of contrasts between real science and pseudo-science?


From https://i0.wp.com/thescientificatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pseudo.jpg


Well, here is my list of remarks on the list:

Real vs Pseudo

I
"Real Science"
Willingness to change with new evidence.

"Pseudo Science"
Fixed ideas.

My comment
For a religious dogma, there can be no change with new evidence while maintaining the dogma.

Either the dogma is kept and the evidence is explained according to it, or the dogma is abandoned - which is more of an individual than a mass level occurrence.

This does not mean there is a conflict between religious dogma and science, this means religious dogma is one perk higher in the level of any man's certitudes than science is.

The ones who don't really get this while repeating the distinction as one between true and pseudo science are those who make science their actual religion, not just a changeable human pursuit below their religion.

II
"Real Science"
Ruthless peer review.

"Pseudo Science"
No peer review.

My comment
So, is Evolutionism or Creationism science, is Evolutionism or Creationism pseudo?

I say that individual papers on both sides meet both descriptions, as the individual cases may be.

But overall, Creationists are more debate willing, therefore more willing to post-publishing review.

As to pre-publishing, it only serves to enforce the editorial line of a paper. Including the case that a paper were to have an editorial line of trusting the editorial line of pre-publishing reviewers hired by the paper.

When this pre-publishing peer review is taken as indication that Evolutionism fulfils the "ruthless peer review" criterium of real science, this is simply an alibi for being less debate friendly and for being less open to post-publishing review.

Of course, some people who have science as their religion rather than as a human pursuit below their religion will in fact also have actual pieces of science as human pursuits below their religion, and be able to ruthlessly criticise them. As obviously a creationist will equally ruthlessly criticise a piece of creation science he doesn't agree on.

III
"Real Science"
Takes account of all discoveries.

"Pseudo Science"
Selects only favourable discoveries.

My comment
Everyone has his impression as to what side is doing this. Selecting only favourable discoveries.

If you are honest, you will probably find Evolutionists are doing this.

I discovered a technical problem in the proposed karyotype evolution process called chromosome fission years ago.

It was sent in, three links full of text, giving the links in a much shorter letter to Nature Genetics, so that the discovery could get some post-publishing review, since Nature Genetics has more readers than my blog and could attract critical and therefore peer reviewing ones to it. My letter did not pass the pre-publishing review.

I discovered a technical solution for rise of carbon 14 level in atmosphere. I wrote the relevant essays in October / November, perhaps a last one in December 2015.

I will still find people repeating that Creationist takes on Radioactive dating involves amounts of radiation which would kill off all life on the planet.

No, not quite so with Carbon dating at least. My discovery has been ignored.

If you are honest, even as a Creationist, you will find your own side occasionally selecting only favourable discoveries.

My discovery on carbon dating contradicts some long standing themes in diverse factions of creationist community, like "carbon 14 level is still rising", "carbon 14 dating isn't science at all," "you need to know when the fossil is from in order to date it in order to find out where it is from" and probably also "King James Version has a better Chronology than the LXX".

For a chronology of 6000 rather than 7000 years, of a Flood 4400 as opposed to 4974 years ago, either reaching stable level of carbon 14 would take longer time, and so some more recent history, well dated by narratives as well as by carbon dated relics would need a more drastic redating, or, the initial rise would have had to be even faster, and therefore the radiation levels higher, and therefore these radiation levels coming closer to levels which would indeed be mortal.

IV
"Real Science"
Invites criticism.

"Pseudo Science"
Sees criticism as conspiracy.

My comment
Most people tend to "invite criticism" pro forma.

Fewer are willing to take the criticism, detail per detail. When dismissing it, a certain culture tends to dismiss it as "this remark comes from a conspiracy" and that dismissal is not typical of the public words from evolution community.

More often the evolution community has another stock dismissal, namely "you don't understand science" or even "you don't understand logic".

In nastier conflicts, they even go as far as to play the insanity card "you only say that because you are insane".

V
"Real Science"
Verifiable results.

"Pseudo Science"
Non-repeatable results.

My comment
That is more like a contrast between operational science and its real contrasts.

These real contrasts involve historic questions, but also "science from a distance" (a k a astronomy of outer space) or "science of the ultra-small". It also concerns questions about ultimate understanding of reality.

The one, rather rare and quaint context, in which the contrast actually is one between real and pseudo science is when one scientist has made results and one other scientist claims to repeat the experiment but not get same results at all.

Has cold fusion been observed? I don't know. Someone has claimed that he has observed it, others have claimed they could not repeat the experiment. I don't know if they did same things as the one claiming it or not.

VI
"Real Science"
Limits claims of usefulness.

"Pseudo Science"
Claims of widespread usefulness.

My comment
This meme is usually about medicine.

A panacaea is often considered to be the mark of a charlatan.

However, there are plants (and I am not growing and selling any) which have less specialised and more general good properties.

An antibiotic has no effect on pluricellular parasites. Most antiparasitics can't be used against bacteria. Tea tree oil can be used on both.

Blue cheese can be used simply as food, or for the fact that it literally contains the classic antibiotic penecilline.

Of course, it would be inefficient on bacteria which are resistent to penecilline. But if the bacteria in your throat or your teeth are not resistent to penecilline, try blue cheese, if you can't or won't go to a doctor for a prescription. Penecilline = excretion of bread mold. Blue mold of blue cheese = bread mold. Therefore, blue cheese contains penecilline. Only, not synthetically extracted from the rest of what the bread mold involves.

On a more general level, when it comes to religions, all claim to be panacaeas. If you analyse Buddhism carefully, even Buddhism does - only in that case it is not about Buddhism as a confession of religious adherence, but about its content, which it acknowledges can in some cases be accessed by non-Buddhists.

For goodness on a general social level, not salvific, or, according to some, even salvific truth, Catholic Christianity can make similar allowances.

Now, the fun thing is that evolution is also in the religious competition of panacaeas. When evolutionists use this meme to bash creationism (=Christianity) as a pseudoscientific panacaea, next time, you remind them on how they often claim "scientific method" is the one panacaea for logic, decent society, peace in the world, "progress" and so on.


Now I think I shall have to notify Alan Whistler I reused his meme ... before perhaps commenting on his text. I was actually looking for him in another context too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Anthony the Great*
17.I.2017

* In Thebaide sancti Antonii Abbatis, qui, multorum Monachorum Pater, vita et miraculis praeclarissimus vixit; cujus gesta sanctus Athanasius insigni volumine prosecutus est. Ejus autem sacrum corpus, sub Justiniano Imperatore, divina revelatione repertum et Alexandriam delatum, in Ecclesia sancti Joannis Baptistae humatum fuit.

lundi 16 janvier 2017

Two Clarifications on Good and Bad Liturgy


First on good liturgy, it was some time since I practised and even longer since I followed a Latin missal while doing so.

When I said that the end of the canon implies Creation together with God the Son, I was referring to cum ipso et in ipso et per ipsum ... however, it is about sit tibi honor et gloria, creation as such is not directly mentioned. But in ipso echoes a Bible verses like Romans 11:36 Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula. Amen. Or like Colossians 1:16 Quoniam in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis, et in terra, visibilia, et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates: omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt: - where creation is featured.

On the subject of bad liturgy, I must warn that the proposed changed words Holy Spirit, we praise you, who ... spoke to us through the prophets' voices though not of necessity have an ambiguous bytone I feel I identify.

The classic words in the creed are "who has spoken through the prophets". Implied, normally, through the words recorded in Bible and tradition which the prophets spoke or wrote. The words are now the speech of the Holy Spirit to us.

The change here (though not proposed for the creed, at least not yet) would tend to alter that.

They would tend to suggest that the Holy Spirit back then spoke to the people of God back then through the as yet back then living voices of the prophets - and through their voices, what they wanted to convey in context, rather than through the objective words.

In other words, even back then the Holy Spirit would, on this view, not have actually chosen the words, but the word choice was a human affair of the prophets, and is less important in remaining text than the echo of their living voices as resounding through so called living tradition, that is adaptive and changing tradition to the ones who hear their successors, no doubt the most modernist of Jesuits if in sufficient position.

Hence, the choice of words in that bad liturgy are such that modernist Church men are encouraged to feel what the voice of the prophets wanted to convey back then, by emotional empathy or such like, and to convey something "equivalent" (as they would consider it) in terms of what "we can understand nowadays". The actual words of Moses of of Daniel of of Baruch or of St John on Patmos become less important.

This is hideous rot, and it is also a precondition for the state of mind which the beginning of Reese's article stated. Without that, we would be - as in reality we are, it is just that they don't think so - obliged to take from the prophets for instance that the universe has a relatively short span of existence, compared to the newly imagined 13.8 billion years, and that man was created perfect in paradise, and fell through the own guilty choice of sin. They don't want that. Hence this spoke to us through the prophets' voices instead of "I believe in the Holy Spirit ... who has spoken through the prophets" - that is, through their actual words, which are preserved for us.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Marcel I, Pope and Martyr
16.I.2017

samedi 14 janvier 2017

Catholicism is Creationist - even if Hekatolykism isn't


Apostasy is howling like a hundred wolves:

NCR : Eucharistic prayer in the 21st century
by Thomas Reese | Jan. 12, 2017
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/eucharistic-prayer-21st-century


Let us quote and comment in a somewhat calmer tone:

Traditional liturgical prayer, based on biblical imagery, presumes a pre-scientific worldview where Earth is the center of the universe and the world was created quickly and perfectly. Everything was wonderful until Adam sinned.

In fact, the universe is some 13.8 billion years old, with organic life appearing about 3 billion years ago, and humans evolving relatively recently. Rather than appearing in an idyllic paradise, humans crawled out of the mud fighting, scratching out an existence in a brutal and highly competitive environment.

Current liturgical worship requires that we park our scientific minds at the church door and enter into the pre-scientific world of our ancestors when we pray. This schizophrenic existence is not viable in the long run.


Thomas Reese, thank you for notifying us you are an apostate. Or, if you were just reporting empathetically, that "Jesuit Fr." Robert Daly is.

Thank you for notifying us, that to you or at least to "Jesuit Fr." Robert Daly, using a liturgy with references to the Paradise and Original Sin is "schizophrenic".

To me it is not. To me the kind of liturgy you hanker for would not be schizophrenic either, I hope, since for me it would be a very unproblematic signal I should leave the service illico.*

Daly finds inspiration for his work in theologians like Elizabeth Johnson (Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love), Dawn Nothwehr (Ecological Footprints: An Essential Franciscan Guide for Faith and Sustainable Living), and Dennis Edwards (Partaking of God: Trinity, Evolution, and Ecology). ... These theologians are imitating the great theologians of the past — Augustine and Thomas Aquinas — who used the intellectual thought of their times to explain Christianity to their contemporaries. Augustine used Neoplatonism and Aquinas used Aristotelianism because these represented the intellectual worldviews of their times.


This is historically false.

A thing which was as challenging against traditional Orthodoxy (reflected in liturgy sensibly similar if not quite identic in all detail to ours), a thing which was as challenging against it back in their times as 13.8 billion year old universe in ours, was, for St Augustine not Neoplatonism, but rather the Manichaean sect which he left with horror. And to St Thomas Aquinas, it was not Aristotle expurgated via Plato and above all Orthodoxy (including literal Biblicism), but the "Aristotle" of Averroism, as it was represented by Siger of Brabant, or by Boëthius de Dacia.

Today’s theologians who use science and contemporary thought are very traditional; they are simply following in the footsteps of Augustine and Aquinas.


They are not. The two saints you mentioned have so to speak world record among Fathers and Doctors for acceptance of "science and contemporary thought", for one, so it is (rather than 2) 5 against 31**, if that were the issue.

But not only that, the point is the precise two you mentioned were also far more critical against "science" and "contemporary thought" than you pretend.

You see, in the day of St Augustine, Astrology was being touted as science. Not just any Astrology, but one which was deterministic about human characters and fates, as, on that view, determined by horoscopes.

In his day it was to some (and he had been among them) as shocking to believe the story of Jacob and Esau who ought to have been as same (and at best as harmonic) as Castor and Pollux who were born twins, under same horoscope, or as same and (at worst) as disharmonic as Romulus and Remus, also born under same horoscope.

Instead one of them has smooth arms, one has woolly arms. One is heavily irascible, one seeks out peaceful means in all situations. They also acquire very different kinds of wealth, Jacob living in a fertile land ruled by strangers to him, while Esau probably was his own lord, but in a stony land.

That is as impossible to a 4th C. Manichaean as God creating the first stars, biological life and men, all of them 7215 (going on 7216 for March 25th) years ago.

So, no, the parallel simply does not hold. It is injurious to Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, precisely as it would have been injurious to them to say of the one that he defended Averroism and of the other that he was a stout Manichaean all of his life. It is as injurious as saying of St Robert Bellarmine that he was a Heliocentric.

I'll quote part of the proposed liturgy I will want to avoid:

Father, we praise you, with all your creatures
great and small,
from measureless galaxy
to tiniest particle.

... Holy Spirit, we praise you,
who breathed over the primal chaos,
spoke to us through the prophets' voices,


Primal chaos is also a signal that we are no longer dealing with Catholic liturgy.

Wasn't Chaos the translation of Hebrew Tohu wa-Bohu, then? No. Here is the LXX for that verse:

ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος

What is mentioned is "ἀόρατος" - unlimited - and "ἀκατασκεύαστος"*** - and unconstructed/unstructured. While "primal chaos" is one thing which could be described that way, it is less ideal to describe Earth, darkness or water as "primal chaos". These too are mentioned in the Greek. And the word chaos is not.

Just because some noted a smiliarity between the Pagan concept of chaos and the Genesis concept of tohu wa-bohu, and hence we cannot even use the idea of "chaos" as a general concept being common to Genesis and to the modern "scientific" idea of "primal chaos".

True, of the translations of Tohu wa-bohu, one is "chaos and desolation" - but there are other ones. And wikipedians continue : "Precise translation of the phrase is difficult, since it is a Hebrew wordplay, like ve-ha-oniyyah hishevah le-hishaver in Jonah 1:4."

So, no the Hebrew text as such does not either warrant any "primal chaos".

And when we come to the next line about the Holy Spirit, Daly is committing blasphemy: "spoke to us through the prophets' voices" is parodic if you think that a Bible-based history is ridiculous compared to the Bible-conflicting one which you started out this essay on.

I'll confess that my first line was a pun on the Orthodox slur on Catholics. (He)kato(n) lykoi means "hundred wolves". It was used by schismatics to denigrate Western Catholics who were (most of them, unlike the English) not getting the theta of katholikoi correct.

Chesterton once said that the Catholics will one day be those who repeat what reformers said, when it really needs saying.

Against a man like Daly, repeating what Greek schismatics called us needs to be done, at least if he gets one hundred or more supporters.

We cannot simply in a preface praise God "with all your creatures".

  • One problem is that the creatures so to speak belong to the Son and are therefore mentioned at the end of the Canon.

  • One other problem is that the Latin has Quam laudant Angeli atque Archángeli, Chérubim quoque ac Séraphim: qui non cessant clamáre quotídie, una voce dicéntes: / Et ídeo cum Angelis et Archángelis, cum Thronis et Dominatiónibus, cumque omni milítia cæléstis exércitus, hymnum glóriæ tuæ cánimus, sine fine dicéntes: (in either case continued by the Sanctus).

    One class of creatures is specifically mentioned, and mentioned in the way which excludes the same type but damned ones. In other words, some creatures are implicitly excluded from praising God with us, namely the damned.

  • A third problem is that of the tiniest presumed particles we don't know if they exist, for most galaxies we don't know that "spiral nebula" (situated in the sphere of fix stars) isn't a better word, and for "our galaxy" only one part is traditionally called Milky Way or Galaxy.


So, Daly is proposing we praise God together with all creatures, to not mention angels or archangels, as if we weren't sure they existed or were very common in the universe, but of mentioning what risks to be fictional products of a contemporary scientific imagination, about as bad as the horscopes of the Manichees, which St Augustine didn't use to illustrate the faith, but rejected when illustrating the faith.

I am pretty sure Daly is not a Catholic with Th. But perhaps a "katolyk" or hekatolykos - a hundred-wolf.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Saturday after Epiphany
14.I.2017

____________________________________________________

* Don't take the etymology of illico or its German counterpart "auf stehendem Fuss" too literally, I don't mean I should leave the service while locally staying where it was held.

** Among the 5, add Sts Peter Canisius, Robert Bellarmine and Albert the Great. Or, instead of "against 31", if we stay with Doctors so named before 1950, before the date on which a private revelation said Pius XII ceased to be Pope, before death of Pius XII, against 24.

*** The ending -os does not mean that "ge" is masculine, but that negative adjectives in Greek typically vary between -os for M/F and -on for N in nominative singular. "He ge" is of course feminine. I gave my own impression what ἀόρατος & ἀκατασκεύαστος mean, wikipedia has translation info: The Septuagint renders it as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατα-σκεύαστος, "shapeless and formless".

lundi 2 janvier 2017

A Creationis Article on my Main Blog (Link)


New blog on the kid : Prompted by a Quoran Question Linking to Rational Wiki
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/01/prompted-by-quoran-question-linking-to.html


Why I usually do them here instead?

See the footnote about an article in French:

In French, on this blog.

Otherwise, when I do creationism in English, I usually do it on my other blog here:

Creation vs. Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com


But since French speakers are "underdeveloped countries" as far as Young Earth Creationism is concerned, I often do that on my main blog or the philological one.


Why I did it there today? To give readers of that blog a taste and to direct them to this one, for this issue./HGL

dimanche 1 janvier 2017

Spirit Lake Upright Log Mat (Link)


Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Part 1
Mihai Ursu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2tkOSZVvg4&t=317s


Note, not endorsing all of his* theology, but this video is about his science./HGL

PS, my own title refers to things he said before 9:00. After that, it is all about radioisotope dating, on which I did parallel work of my own./HGL

PPS, another link, to work of the speaker, Steven A. Austin:

ICR : RATE : Chapter 4 : Mineral Isochron Method Applied as a Test of the Assumptions of Radioisotope Dating
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D
https://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf#page=109


Isochron is one I had problems clearing myself, I refer to Austin here./HGL

* Actually video owner Mihai Ursu is not the speaker, so his unqualified endorsement of Israel is not a problem with the content of Austin.

jeudi 15 décembre 2016

Human Ancestor or Human during Flood?


Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors? · Human Ancestor or Human during Flood?

Ancient human ancestor was one tall dude, his footprints say
on mail dot com
https://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/4831810-ancient-human-ancestor-was-tall-dude-footprints.html


I'll only quote the bold text:

NEW YORK (AP) — He stood a majestic 5-foot-5, weighed around 100 pounds and maybe had a harem. That's what scientists figure from the footprints he left behind some 3.7 million year ago. He's evidently the tallest known member of the prehuman species best known for the fossil skeleton nicknamed "Lucy," reaching a stature no other member of our family tree matched for another 1.5 million years, the researchers say.


I checked the rest of the article and so no reference to any Australopithecus Afarensis bones.

Especially none with human type feet (Lucy is footless! See here:)



Par 120 — own picture worked with photoshop, CC BY 2.5, Lien


So, the clearly human footprints (not sure I can afford to show picture yet, will be added if possible, see link) could have not been from a relative of Lucy?

Yes, if and only if:

  • men existed back when this is from, and not meaning Australopithecines;
  • this was so recent that one cannot reasonably say "Australopithecines wre the only men back then".


This means, it is feasible if both Lucy and these footprints are from diverse kinds back at the time of Noah's Flood.

If from the same kind - then you reconstruct the Lucy skeleton as having human feet. If from diverse kinds 3.7 million years ago, you ask the question why no human skeleta are found for another 1.5 million years.

So, if you want to say, as I do, Lucy was an ape, the footprints are from a man, you have to skip the millions of years. I do so too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of Immaculate
Conception of the BVM
15.XII.2016