With Dwight on Fundies, Again

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

I

Me to Dwight

08/12/15 à 10h27

This is Why I tend not to adress you as Father

Longenecker, here is what you wrote on on Fundamentalists and Progressives:

Above all both types believe themselves to be right. This is what we call pride. This is not just a sickness. It is sin. The devil never. Never. Never for all eternity will admit that he was wrong.

Though pride will make one unwilling to admit one was wrong (no one, presumably, ever fully admits he is wrong about sth he still is holding to : the moment you admit it is wrong, you have put it in the past and are admitting you WERE wrong), so will truth, clarity and being right.

I agree. Fundamentalism is a sickness, but that depends of your definition of fundamentalism. I’d say fundamentalism has several characteristics.

Are all of them sick? Does one occur without the other ones or without some other ones, and is it then not sick?

Let us take them, one by one:

• "First is an extreme literalism about religion and religious texts and teachings."
  
  This is indeed the very first thing people think of when they hear the word fundamentalism.
  
  Someone who is saying "fundamentalism is a sickness" will most often be taken as saying "it is sick to be extremely literal about religious texts and teachings.
  
  
• "This is also combined with legalism–in which adherence to the moral code and strict rules become the be all and end all of the religion."
  
  If by extreme legalism you mean a firm no to contraception and abortion and divorce and remarriage, well, Fundies and Catholics go together among Progressive Protestants as being stamped as having this sickness. If it were one.
  
  
• "Thirdly, fundamentalism is also marked by a tendency to paranoia, blaming others and eventually scapegoating others."
  
  If Fundamentalism is in today's society a minority, I don't see how this is totally avoidable. At least an unpopular minority. Not a cool minority.
  
  When Christians were a minority among Pagans, they were both unpopular and cool depending on before whom, but they were at leat sufficiently unpopular to be persecuted from time to time.
  
  Were they blaming Pagans? Yes. Were they right in blaming Pagans? Yes.
  
  
• "Fourthly, fundamentalism has a fortress mentality in which those on the inside are the true, right and righteous believers. Those on the outside are infidels, apostates, heretics, the damned and the lost."
  
  You have described very accurately:
  
  
  • Early Christians among Jews and Idolaters,
  • Medieval Catholics facing Mohammetans, Jews and the new batch of Heretics that arose after year thousand : Petrobrussians, Albigensians, Valdensians.
  • Counter Reform Catholics facing Reformers and the Tyrants helping them, and later also a new rise of Jewry plus of course the Secret Societies, and the Revolutions (from English 1640's to Russian 1917 and beyond).
  
  
  How marked the fortress mentality is, depends on how much one is required to confront oneself with those outside. But it was always there. If you call this is sickness, you are agreeing with Swinburne's curse on the pale Galileean.
  
  If you object that people like Chesterton were very genial, well, Chesterton was also very much a fortress mentality man. It does not always go with chronical anger or fear.
  
  
• "Fifthly, fundamentalism is, as a result of all this, an unhappy, frightened and often angry place to be."

The social situation of being stamped as sick is also an unhappy, frightened or angry place to be.

So, supposing fundamentalism were a sickness, stamping a fundamentalist as sick because of it is making the sickness worse. Or at least the occasion for it.

Thus, you are inciting people in general to treat Fundamentalists in such a way as to provoke, if possible, fear, loathing of your company, anger at not getting rid of it and so on.

The situation does not always have this effect on the victims of such a trial.

If I rejected Ratzinger twice over, because he bowed down to Psychiatric diagnoses and that sham expertise, namely 2006 in the fourteenth world day of health and 2010 after he had "forgiven" Susana Maiolo, but put her in mental hospital for a week, why should this self erection into super shrink on Bergoglio's side make him any more acceptable than Ratzinger was?

I had and have a soft spot for Ratzinger, even while rejecting him as Pope or Pope Emeritus. I had to the last moment hoped he would call some kind of counsil to find out who was Pope if there was one, instead of presuming without further investigation that Alejandro IX, Michael, what's the name of the current Palmarian - yes, another Gregory, Gregorio XVIII - were just to be ignored. Since he has left off papacy and no longer prolongs the guilt of posing as a Pope while not teaching Catholicism, I hope for his salvation. But the gestures about World Day of Health and Susana Maiolo told me he was not promoting accurate Catholicism.

Nor are you. The KIND of things you consider as sicknesses are actually the KIND of things that are either virtuous or sinful, that are actus humani and not actus hominis (a man sleeps or sneezes - an actus hominis - a man makes a valid confession, an actus humanus). Therefore you have lost the compass.

And I mean that in a moral sense, not in a "pathological" one. You are, like Bergoglio, inciting to consider Fundamentalists as "he has an impure spirit" - in the modern counterpart. Even if you are pretending to yourself that you can reserve sanity for a small middle strip, with equal pathologisation of the other side, of the progressives. Modern society is NOT buying that, it IS progressive and therefore will not treat them as mental cases, just because you say so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Immaculate Conception of the BVM
8-XII-2015

PS, you are in fact basically endorsing the criminal behaviour of Norway which just took away five children from a couple (Norwegian mother, Roumanian father) for them giving the children "a Christian indoctrination"./HGL

Dwight to me

No answer in mail.

Was based on post of his:

Standing on my head : Is Fundamentalism a Sickness?
December 4, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/is-fundamentalism-a-sickness.html

Page 2 : Is Fundamentalism a Sickness?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/is-fundamentalism-a-sickness

II

Me to Dwight

16/12/15 à 10h03

Are you trying to ruin me, or what?

"In fact none of these labels work because, of course there are plenty of conservative Catholics who aren’t rabid anti Semitic, flat earth fundamentalist crazies."

Give me one fundamentalist among Catholics today who is flat earth.

I personally corrected James Hannam who had suggested that Church Fathers were taking liberties with literal inerrantism when accepting roundness of Earth.

As for the rest, well, guess if I am NOT a happy man when so many want to isolate me from potential readers, while I am a writer.

I have study loan debts for five years or so of study loans (I have exams for five years and one week, spent more years, read more than I needed for exams, though not always on same subject) and stepping down to streetsweeper with such a debt to pay is not really offering any prospectives of a decent life.

Meanwhile people like you, demonising fundamentalism, are doing what they can to keep me not read by blog readers and ultimately also not by book readers who would pay for paper format and thereby help me give something back to dear old Sundsvall - a city which centralises study loans in Sweden.

And you suggest that if I am joyless it is all because I am a fundie?!

Give me a break!

"So think the best, give them the benefit of the doubt, don’t argue, wish them well and be at peace."

Well, let us put it like this, if there is one thing you learn from Academia, apart from subject, it is arguing. Except me, I learnt it earlier from C. S. Lewis, things like Fern-Seed and Elephants.

Telling people not to argue with me is like raising a plague flag.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Dwight to me

No answer in mail.

Was based on post of his:

Standing on my head : The Discontented Catholics
December 15, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/the-discontented-catholics.html

III

Me to Dwight

17/12/15 à 09h40

Just in case you imagined sth - I am NOT "deeply saddened"

I am not deceiving you, if you were here and were telling me those things about me, you would risk a whiplash or sth worse.

That enemies* of the faith give me as rough a time as they can, perhaps I am too patient, perhaps not. But when I see a priest (or supposed such, Pope Michael thinks even Father Hesse was not really a priest) who is giving water to their treadmill, I am not "saddened", I am not "deeply concerned", I am fuming.

And your line about discontented Catholics yesterday is precisely doing their work./HGL

* Open and declared such - Mahometans, Protestants especially Huguenot, thinking I am too rough on the Cévennols, thinking I ought to agree on their version of the Calas case, which I do not, Atheists and Pantheists and other Marxists, Jewry with a "declared scepsis" about the Faith ... you know what I mean.

Dwight to me

No answer in mail.

Was based on post of his:

Standing on my head : I’m Saddened. Deeply Saddened. Not.
October 22, 2013 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker 50 Comments
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/10/im-saddened-deeply-saddened-not.html

A post which I most providentially found when asking myself why there were no answers.

And if Dwight is a priest, or even (despite heresies) a pious man, his prayers may have sth to do with the decisions of God.

IV

Other post by Dwight

Standing on my head : Why I Converted to the Catholic Faith
December 29, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/why-i-converted-to-the-catholic-faith.html

Quote:

Yes, there were actually lots of different groups. The uncomfortable problem for the Protestants is that these different sects were identified by the apostolic church as heretics and schismatics.

Comment

Now, non-literal belief or literal non-belief in Genesis, where were they found?

Non-literal belief about six days, in favour of one-moment creation, was found in the Apostolic Church - along with literal belief.

But literal non-belief (and frankly, believing in millions of years is MUCH closer to literal non-belief than to non-literal belief) in Genesis was ONLY found in certain of the sects that St Irenee stamped as heretical.

Not sent

As a separate mail. You saw how he treated the other three mails. No answer. If he bases this on my calling him a heretic in an earlier mail (will be published in other post) ... well, he could have tried to defend himself? I mean, what I wrote is here as that other letter, an attack on what he represents as claiming to be a "Catholic" priest.

With Olduvai on Levels

HGL to Olduvai project

4-X-2014, c. 15:00

Info on Levels at Olduvai

On Laetoli, by wiki, I found two levels marked by biostratigraphy, two dated by potassium argon, five (including one separation between two levels of same name) without any direct dating at all.

So, if you have any corresponding info about levels in Olduvai, and would care to share it, I would appreciate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Olduvai project to HGL

No answer, even 14 months to 15 months later.

Lettres sans réponse, à Clichy et à l'Ambassade d'Ukraine

1) New blog on the kid : Intrigues contre lecture de mes blogs en France?, 2) Dominance d'Ukraine, Absence de France, ça Continue?, 3) Ukraine toujours la référence pour les lecteurs français?, 4) Mais pourquoi la Russie voudrait-elle lire justement mes blogs tellement? , 5) Et les autres blogs? En suédois, allemand, sur sujets autres, vieux?, 6) Correspondance de Hans Georg Lundahl : Lettres sans réponse, à Clichy et à l'Ambassade d'Ukraine, 7) New blog on the kid : Et Somme Tout, Aujourd'hui?, 8) Et maintenant?

I

Clichy à moi

02/12/15 à 17h13

Accusé de réception : Contactez-nous

Bonjour,

Vous avez laissé un message sur le formulaire contactez nous. Nous vous en remercions. Il sera transmis au service concerné. Nous vous ferons un retour dans les plus brefs délais. Cordialement

[Le texte de mon message n'est pas copié, il est un peu la même question que la lettre suivante, en plus d'un aveu où j'ai mis les URL par colle, et une question si les Clichois sont très ukrainiens, en moins la référence aux Juifs.]

[J'avais aussi émis l'attente que d'un sdf la mairie n'allait pas exiger une amende, vue l'impossibilité de la payer. Je n'avais pas prévu ce genre de bloccade, comme il semble d'être au lieu d'un procès.]

II

Moi à l'Ambassadeur d'Ukraine à Paris

02/12/15 à 17h23

Bonjour, votre excellence, vous connaissez les Ukrainiens mieux que moi, j'imagine

Or, il m'est un peu mystérieux pourquoi:

• 1) j'annonce les URL de mes blogs en France
• 2) j'ai davantage de lecteurs en Ukraine qu'en France (je ne me suis jamais, que je sache, déplacé en Ukraine)
• 3) et les lecteurs en Ukraine ne semblent pas très avides de transmettre la lecture à leurs potes français.

J'ai une petite théorie, elle n'est pas totalement belle.

La France est assez Marxiste, culturellement. Le Marxisme a des racines dans la juiverie, spécifiquement celle de l'empire des Czars (dont aussi la juiverie d'Ukraine), et eux ils veillent, avec leurs camarades ici en France, pour que mes blogs ne deviennent pas une menace à "l'orthodoxie marxiste", notemment en ce qui concerne son adhésion à l'évolutionnisme.

Mais peut-être vous vous demandez d'où je tire ceci du lectorat, que ce soit en France ou en Ukraine?

J'ai accès à des statistiques, fournies par le logiciel même de blogger, et parfois, quand je les trouves intéressantes, je les partage en format lisible avec mes lecteurs. Voici le dernier billet depuis mon constat de suprématie ukrainienne parmi les lecteurs:

New blog on the kid : Ukraine toujours la référence pour les lecteurs français?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/12/ukraine-toujours-la-reference-pour-les.html

Croyez-moi, d'ailleurs, ce que je souhaite, ce n'est pas d'avoir moins de lecteurs en Ukraine, plutôt davantage, mais en avoir davantage en France.

Bonne lecture, d'abord, et ensuite, une réponse bien explicative est souhaitée de ma part.

Respectueusement,
Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Pas de lettre de réponse, ni de l'un, ni de l'autre. Par contre, au lieu de domination d'Ukraine, c'est maintenant domination de la Russie. Et dépuis, aussi le mur de la part de Silveren777 - non ce message dans le lien ne vas pas tout au bout de nos débats, il reste un peu, mais le débat s'est séché./HGL

Philosophie de Maths et Datation de Carbone 14, avec André Floriot, Prof de Maths, Sans Oublier Jacques Ellul

On s'est rencontrés, et il y a eu une discussion sur nombres relatifs et sur géométrie non-euclidienne. Il s'est présenté comme professeur de maths, et donc j'ai plus tard osé me tourner à lui pour les problématiques de mes tables en taux de carbone 14 montant, pour carrer avec le chronologie biblique. Mais voici la correspondance:

I

Moi à André Floriot

12/10/15 à 10h37

Subtraction à « - 1 » ?

En nombres relatives, je les nommerais plutôt relation numérales, mais nombres relatifs passe, oui, on peut avoir -1 comme resultat.

Rappelons, toutefois, que nombres et nombres relatifs ne sont pas la même chose.

Nombres nous disent « combien de » mais nombres relatifs disent « combien plus ou moins que qq autre nombre ».

On peut avoir autant, ça c’est le nombre relatif 0. On peut avoir un moins que, c’est -1, et on peut avoir un davantage que, c’est +1.

Dans ce sens, oui, on peut faire une subtraction de nombres relatifs et aboutir à -1.

Mais puisque + et – marquent les polarités de ces nombres, utilisons a. pour « adde », s. pour « subtrahe », et r. pour « restat/restant », comme avant.

+3 a. -4 = -4 a. +3 = -4 s. -3
-4 s. -3 r. -1

Ou disons que la température chute.

On avait +3, la chute est de -10, on a combien ?

On sait bien que la réponse est -7.

Comment est-ce que je compte ?

Essentiellement, - 10 a. +3 = - 10 s. – 3 r. – 7 .

Si la chute est plus grande que la température, c’est la température du départ qui est le subtrahend.

En soi, la chute n’est jamais plus grande que la température du départ, si on compte en K. Mais avec un « zéro conventionnel », oui, alors on peut avoir des valeurs qui sont nombres relatifs plutôt que nombres tout court.

Et en plus, les valeurs ne sont ni nombres en soi, ni nombres relatifs en soi. Ce sont des valeurs qui sont grandeurs et qui sont numéralisées par rapport à une unité conventionnelle.

185 cm égale 6 pieds et 1 pouce, donc la valeur en soi n’est ni 6, ni 6 et 1, ni 185. Par contre on prend la valeur 1 pied comme comparaison, avec la sousunité pouce comme 1/12 du pied, la valeur est par cette comparaison 6 pieds et 1 pouce. Comparée au cm, elle est plutôt 185. En soi, elle est une longueur, une seule valeur.

Hans Georg Lundahl
à lire:
If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

II

Moi à André Floriot

14/10/15 à 12h34

Un problème de maths, où est-ce que je me suis trompé dans le calcul?

Ici un lien:

New blog on the kid : Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/10/correction-de-la-table-taux-de-c14-et.html

Dans la table au milieu, j'avais compté monter d'un taux de C14 = 3/64 de celui de présent à celui-même entre 4972 av. prés. (2957 av. Jésus-Christ, le Déluge) et 2500 av. présent. Sur un plan d'approximation, ça donne 1/64 ajouté chaque 40 ans et 32/61 d'un an. 64/64 - 3/64 = 61, et les ans entre 4972 et 2500 sont donc divisés par 61 pour donner ce chiffre.

Mais sur le prochain plan d'approximation, on perd aussi. Le temps que ça prend normalement pour perdre 1/64 de n'importe quel niveau est à mon avis, environs 1/32 de la demi-vie. Donc 179 ans, ce qu'il y a 13,71 fois entre déluge et 2500 avant présent.

Alors, j'ai élargi chaque 1/64 avec une compensation moyenne pour ces pertes.

Et, chose très approximatif, mais ce qui correspond à mon mauvais niveau en graphes et tables, j'ai multiplié par 63/64 après chaque 179 ans, en ajoutant simplement le 1/64 du taux actuel + la compensation chaque 40 ans et demi.

Mais je ne suis pas arrivé au niveau 1 = taux actuel en 2500, je suis arrivé en 2703 avant le présent déjà, donc 688 av. Jésus-Christ, et en 2500 av. présent c'était déjà 8% de plus.

Le problème pourquoi c'était 8% de plus en quelque temps n'est pas le problème qui m'intéresse, c'est banal que la cadence à laquelle j'ajoutais les 1/64 du taux actuel était tel que le taux actuel ne soit pas le niveau d'équilibre. Mais pourquoi justement en 2703 av. présent plutôt qu'en 2500 av. présent, quand mes calculs avaient commencé à viser cette année là?

Je crois que ceci pourrait être un cas pour un bon prof de maths! Ce que je ne suis pas.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

André Floriot à moi

14/10/15 à 20h59

Re: Subtraction à « - 1 » ?

Bonjour Hans,

Mille merci de m'avoir écrit, j'en suis très heureux. Je prends enfin le temps de vous répondre. J'ai lu votre lien concernant la publication éventuelle de notre correspondance. L'argent ne m'intéresse guère, il m'effraie même! Aussi, à moins qu'il en soit question de vraiment beaucoup, je vous laisse utiliser mes écrits à votre guise pourvu bien sûr que mon nom apparaisse clairement.

J'ai lu en diagonale votre blog et je dois dire que je me sens bien petit dans mes réflexions et je suis loin de toujours vous suivre... Mais je tacherai de faire de mon mieux. Toutefois il y a eu une période de ma vie ou mon cerveau était en ébullition autour de la compréhension de l'univers. Je pourrais vous envoyer ce qu'il en reste dans mes archives si cela vous intéresse...

Pour en revenir aux nombres relatifs, vous pourriez d'abord lire le lien [...]

Quelques éléments d’histoire des nombres négatifs
Anne Boyé
http://www.apmep.fr/IMG/pdf/Nombres_negatifs_ABoye.pdf

[...] qui colle tout-à-fait à votre propos.

Disons d'abord que vos réflexions témoignent d'une très bonne disposition pour les mathématiques et rappelons que nous discutions en fait de la citation de H. Poincaré "…la mathématique est l’art de donner le même nom à des choses différentes.

Science et méthode (texte en ligne) (1908), Henri Poincaré, éd. Flammarion, 1947, p. 29
[http://jubilotheque.upmc.fr/fonds-physchim/PC_000305_001/document.pdf?name=PC_000305_001_pdf.pdf]

Ainsi, il est certain que les nombres naturels et les nombres relatifs sont différents, sans quoi nous ne pourrions les distinguer. Les appeler nombres est effectivement un pas qui ne s'est pas fait en un jour, loin s'en faut. Mais ils se manipulent comme des nombres, et c'est là que la phrase de Poincaré prend tout son sens. L'idée est somme toute : puisque ils se manipulent comme des nombres, cessons de tergiverser et appelons-les nombres relatifs (relativement à l'origine) et d'ailleurs s'ils ne sont pas des nombres, que sont-ils?

Pour aller encore plus loin et saisir l'intérêt de ce genre de construction:

l'ensemble des polynômes est presque un ensemble de nombres (à ceci près qu'on ne peut pas l'ordonner complètement ce qui l'exclue d'une tel dénomination) au sens où le calcul y est très semblable (on dit qu'il forme un anneau, tout comme les nombres entiers naturels) à tel point que l'on peut poser des divisions comme à l'école primaire ... mais avec des polynômes.

Par exemple:

3x² + 7x + 10	|	x + 2		3x² + 7x + 10	|	x + 2
- (3x² + 6x)	|	_____	------>	- (3x² + 6x)	|	____	------>
	|	3x		0 + x + 10	|	3x + 1
	|				|
3x² + 7x + 10	|	x + 2
- (3x² + 6x)	|	________
0 + x + 10	|	3x + 1
- ( x + 2)	|
0 + 8

ce qui donne finalement 3x² + 7x + 10 = (x + 2)(3x+1) + 8

D'ailleurs dans cette affaire, certes 8 est un nombre mais c'est pour le mathématicien un polynôme constant (de degré 0) : P(X) = 8, c'est à dire que quel que soit la valeur de x le résultat est toujours 8.

2ème exemple (abrégé): x² - 5x + 6 divisé par x-2 donne x-3 et un reste de 0 ce qui signifie que x² -5x + 6 = (x-2)(x-3)

Alors encore ici certes les polynomes ne forme pas un ensemble de nombre mais ile aurait suffit qu'on puisse les ordonner pour leur donner le nom de nombre. (il en est de même pour les matrices carrées)

Je crois en avoir assez dit à présent à ce sujet. N'hésitez pas à me demander de reformuler si je n'ai pas été clair dans mes propos.

Par ailleurs j'ai essayé de comprendre vos tableaux sur le C14 mais je ne les ai pas compris. Pourriez-vous me l'expliquer à nouveau s'il vous plaît?

Bien à Vous,

André Floriot

IV

André Floriot à moi

14/10/15 à 23h50

Re: Subtraction à « - 1 » ?

Rebonsoir,

J'ai oublié de vous recommander un tout petit livre de poche "Les nombres et leur mystères" d'André Warusfel qui est une mine presque inépuisable au sujet des nombres entiers, relatifs, rationnels, irrationnels, transcendants, réels et infinis. (il y a d'autres types de nombres bien plus farfelus).C'est un livre qui est aussi intéressant pour le profane que pour l'expert, bref à recommander d'après moi.

Par ailleurs, au vu rapide de votre blog ainsi que votre mail au sujet du C14 qui concerne la Bible, je ne saurais trop vous recommander de lire Jacques Ellul (que vous connaissez peut-être déjà mais qui est trop souvent ignoré, d'où cette proposition). C'est un penseur issue d'un milieu modeste mais lettrés (émigrés en France) de la trempe de Marx qui fut professeur à sciences po mais aussi un théologien (encore un normalien mais en lettres, cad lauréat du plus prestigieux des concours français) qui non seulement avait une profondeur et une clairvoyance exceptionnelle de la société, mais qui s'est aussi engagé en politique locale, a été résistant pendant la 2ème guerre mondiale et sans chercher à en tirer profit, c'est aussi un chrétien qui s'est aussi engagé dans le milieu protestant. Sa pensée a engendré un bouleversement majeur dans ma réflexion. Je n'ai lu que de ses écrits à caractère social (sur les médias, la bourgeoisie, la révolution, les nouvelles idées reçues, mais surtout la technique, sujet sur lequel il s'est particulièrement arrêté et qui diffuse dans la plupart de ses écrits) à bientôt,

André Floriot

V

Moi à André Floriot

15/10/15 à 12h44

Re: Subtraction à « - 1 » ?

Bon jour!

Par où commencer? D'abord, je suis Catholique, donc pas très grand fan de Jacques Ellul.

Je cite la wikipédie:

"S'étant converti au protestantisme à l'âge de 18 ans, il s'est livré à une critique sévère du catholicisme, dont il considérait qu'à partir du IVe siècle, celui-ci avait totalement subverti le message évangélique en raison de sa collusion avec l'État."

Jacques Ellul est donc le n-ième faux prophète dont le message présuppose de contourner ou d'ignorer Matth. 28:18-20.

On a un peu le choix entre Catholiques, Orthodoxes, Monophysites Jacobites (Coptes), Monophysites Arméniens, Nestoriens.

Il y a eu une collusion avec l'état en tout et chacun de ces cas. Et elle a été prévu et voulu par Jésus-Christ. Encore une fois, comme les Témoins de Jéhova il[s] s'oppose[nt] au sens obvie d'un bout de Matth. 28:18-20. Car "faites disciples de toutes les nations" n'est pas la même chose que "faites disciples de gens de toutes les nations". Le texte est bien en vue d'une conversion collective par nation. La conversion de Rome, de Clovis, de St Volodymyr de Kiev avec des baptêmes collectifs de tout notable attaché à son chef et enfin tout le peuple présent sur une ville ou en un endroit, ça n'a rien de paradoxale.

Qu'il voudra réinterpréter la Genèse comme non étant intégralement vrai dans le sens litéral le fait un hérétique de la moule arienne.

Rome a condamné des gens comme Loisy.

Et parlons collusions avec les états un peu. Rome a été persécuté par Italie comme par Allemagne, après l'avoir été par Grand-Bretagne, pour la cause précise de ne pas avoir été en collusion avec leurs apostasies collectives. Qu'elles soient d'ailleurs protestantes ou maçonniques.

Non, Ellul n'a pas grand'chose à me dire.

Je vais fermer cette lettre et revenir après avoir consulté ce que j'ai déjà écrit sur C14. Ah, je reviens avec un peu:

Dans la table au milieu, j'avais compté monter d'un taux de C14 = 3/64 de celui de présent à celui-même entre 4972 av. prés. (2957 av. Jésus-Christ, le Déluge) et 2500 av. présent.

Donc, en 4972 av. présent / 2957 av. Jésus-Christ le taux est à 3/64 à peu près de celui qu'on a aujourd'hui.

Pourquoi? Parce que, comme expliqué dans le texte, les objets organiques noyés dans le déluge (animaux ou plantes, charbon ou pétrol) sont datés par C14 à entre 20.000 et 50.000 années (une fois qu'on les date vraiment par C14, ce qui n'est normalement pas le cas, la présomption de "millions d'années" bloque la démarche de vérification. Or, si 20.000 ans avant le présent correspond à un taux originel d'un 1/16 de celui-d'ajourd'hui (avec nos méthodes ils auraient été datés à un âge de 22900 ans quand ils venaient d'être noyés), tandis que d'autres avaient un taux bien inférieur, j'avais estimé 1/512, soit datables immédaiatement à ... bon une datation de 50.000 ans immédiatement correspond à un taux légèrement plus haut, 0,223 % au lieu de 0,19 %. Si donc ces datations sont les extrêmes, j'avais visé un milieu, un taux moyenne, de 3/64 de ce qu'on a aujourd'hui de C14 dans l'atmosphère. Ce qui admet une datation à 28 257 ans avant Jésus-Christ par la présomption que le taux était 64/64 quand la matière était vivante.

Or, tôt ou tard on doit arriver à un point quand le taux est effectivement de 64/64 de ce que nous avons de C14 dans l'atmosphère, et mon problème et comment faire une courbe qui permet que ça soit en 2500 av. le présent ou 485 av. Jésus-Christ. NB, j'ai une préférence pour un aplatissement de cette courbe. Plus on s'approche du présent, mieux l'histoire est documenté, moins on a d'espace de manœuvre pour téléscoper les datations par rapport à la chronologie biblique.

D'où mon intérêt pour une formule mathématique qui permet de connecter ce genre de courbes à des points connus en avance.

Par exemple, à partir de 2500 av. présent, les datations sont sûrs, il me semble. Pour l'année 1184 av. Jésus-Christ il pourrait bien s'agir de l'année datée à 1275, par rapport à la guerre de Troie. L'exode eut lieu 1510 avant Jésus-Christ, ça veut dire que Moïse disparaît du publique égyptien en 1550 av. Jésus-Christ. Or, Amenemhet IV peut être Moïse:

"Amenemhet III had two daughters, but no sons have been positively identified. Amenemhet IV has been proposed as the son of Amenemhet III, but he could just as easily have been the son of Sobekneferu, one of the daughters of Amenemhet III. Amenemhet IV is a very mysterious figure in Egyptian history and may have been a co-regent of Amenemhet or Sobekneferu."

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
By Daniel Anderson, Published: 23 January 2007
http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

Donc, une date conventionellement donnée pour la disparaison de cet Amenemhet IV devrait coller avec une date réelle en 1550 av. Jésus-Christ, quand MOïse à l'âge de 40 quitte Égypte après avoir frappé l'Égyptien à mort. Il me semble qu'on est alors en ... "Amenemhat IV est le dernier roi de la XIIe dynastie de -1797 à -1790".

Compter combien l'atmosphère avait en 1550 av. J. Chr. pour que ça soit datable comme 1790 av. J. Chr. n'est pas le problème. Le problème est de faire une table qui connecte ça à la fois à un taux présent ayant commencé env. 2500 ans avant nous, à un taux de la Guerre de Troie qui explique une maldatation de 1184 en 1275, soit 91 ans, et encore avec un taux à l'époque du déluge, en 2957 av. Jésus-Christ ou 4972 avant le présent, de plus ou moins 1/64.

Et, je commende vraiment la prudence des mathématiciens d'avoir retenu que 8 peut, en outre d'un nombre, aussi être un polynome.

Or, pour les "nombres relatifs", je propose qu'ils ne sont pas non plus des nombres, mais des relations entre nombres.

Comme proportion diffère de taille en géométrie.

Vous venez de me citer le bon Poincaré à un autre propos aussi, les "triangles non euclidiens".

Or, il me semble que:

• 1° Euclide a défini triangle comme "trilatère rectiligne", ce qui présuppose quelque part qu'il y a aussi des "trilatères curvilignes";
• 2° Les "triangles" sur un globe sont effectivement curvilignes, donc des trilatères curvilignes;
• 3° non-obstant le fait que Riemann se soit penché sur ce qui peut être tracé avec des lignes tirés des grand-cercles d'un sphère comme "droites".

Riemann s'y retrouve avec un autre mystère superflu en disant que l'axiome des parallèles ne tient pas, car sur une sphère, par un point à côté d'une "ligne droite", on ne peut pas faire une quelleconque parallèle avec "une ligne droite".

Effectivement, un autre extrait de grandcercle serait convex avec l'extrait du grand-cercle déjà tracé, par contre, les grand-cercles ont quand même des cercles plus petits à côté, ce que les géographes appellent "cercles parallèles" en sousentendant "parallèles à l'équateur".

Donc, sur un globe on n'a pas des lignes droites du tout, et ce qu'Euclide dit à propos d'elles se partage entre deux catégories de lignes tracées sur une sphère.

• 1) "elle est le chemin le plus court entre deux points" - vrai pour les grandcercles et leurs extraits
• 2) "elles admettent des parallèles, un par point" - vrai pour les cercles parallèles.

On en voit par exemple sur les boules de pétanque.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Moi à André Floriot

30/10/15 à 13h32

Est-ce que ceci clarifiera ce que je suis en train d'essayer, et pouvez-vous m'éclairer dessus?

Lien:

New blog on the kid : Un essai, décision de demander l'aide à un professeur de maths
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/10/un-essai-decision-de-demander-laide-un.html

VII

André Floriot à moi

31/10/15 à 01h47

Re: Est-ce que ceci clarifiera ce que je suis en train d'essayer, et pouvez-vous m'éclairer dessus?

Bonsoir Hans,

Je découvre votre mail et j'ai lu en diagonale votre lien. Les choses m'ont l'air plus clair même si je n'ai pas tout lu en détail. Toutefois, j'ai peur de ne pouvoir vous aider grandement car il s'agit surtout de physique (datation au C14) et je n'ai jamais été à l'aise avec cette discipline. Cela ne signifie pas que je n'essaierai pas de me renseigner sur tout cela (par plaisir d'apprendre) et de vous répondre au mieux (par plaisir de l'altruisme). Notez cependant que je ne pourrai pas m'en occuper avant mardi (peut-être lundi) mais soyez sans crainte je vous répondrai cette semaine.

Bien à Vous,

André

PS j'espère que nous pourrons reparler de J. Ellul (de son oeuvre sociologique voire de lui-même mais pas de son travail autour de la religion chrétienne) Je ne connais rien de la théologie et encore moins de l'oeuvre théologique d'Ellul. Nous pourrions par exemple discuter d'un de ses livres :"Exegèse des nouvelles idées reçues" et voir où le bêt blesse dans son argumentation pour mieux reconnaître la résusite

VIII

Moi à André Floriot

31/10/15 à 13h01

Re: Est-ce que ceci clarifiera ce que je suis en train d'essayer, et pouvez-vous m'éclairer dessus?

Ah, merci, par contre, ce en quoi je demandais l'aide n'était pas la physique, là j'étais d'accord avec moi-même qu'il fallait:

• 1) réduire chaque fois par une même multiplication réductrice
• 2) ajouter chaque fois par des ajouts plus importants que celui qui se fait aujourd'hui et qui contrebalance la réduction aujourd'hui assez exactement.

Entretemps, j'ai fat abstraction de ceci des réductions, j'ai pris une concentration sur les ajouts NETS (donc les pertes et les parties des ajouts qui les contrebalancent ne se voient pas) et enfin utilisé une série Fibonacci pour calibrer les différents ajouts.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

Si vous voulez continuer quand même de m'aider, c'est gentil, j'en ferais peut-être usage pour une table plus adaptée à une datation de l'Exode (1510 avant Jésus-Christ) juste avant les Hyksos (=Amalékites, capables de prendre Égypte sans battaille parce que l'armée du Pharaon était dans la Mer Rouge, autant cruels dans le papyre d'Ipouère comme Hyksos qu'ils paraissant sous le nom Amalékites dans la Bible). Et les 50 ans à ajouter en 1167 ne suffisent pas pour qu'une chute de Troie ayant eu lieu en 1184 soit datable à 1275 (à supposer que Troie VI était le niveau pertinent).

Merci beaucoup!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Arguments with AronRa : Flood and Moses, Carbon 14 Rise in Atmosphere, Jesus, Hercules

I

Me to AronRa

03/11/15 à 11h57,
resent 17/11/15 à 09h40

Like to find faults in my creationist carbon curve (correspondence to be published on blog)?

I have a special blog for correspondence. J'ai un blog spécialement dédié à mes correspondances. Ik heef een blog speciaal voor mijn penvrienden en mijn penvijanden ....

Link here:
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

OK, next, my tables.

I was working and reworking tables on Carbon buildup as explaining how dinos from Flood came to be datable as 20 000 - 50 000 years old by carbon dating and what happened in between. Note, how they come to be dated as "Jurassic, that being x to y million years old" or Cretacean (65 to x million years old) or whatever is another story. Feel free to bring it up if you think it relevant for the critique.

Here are the three tables I find most interesting. Two of them, denoting a NORMAL buildup are not what I think happened. After Flood, Normal buildup would have been too slow, before Flood, normal buildup would have been too quick.

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

AND:

New blog on the kid : Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/11/une-table-peut-etre-evitable-ou.html

And here is the table I think nearly correct:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

Nearly. I had liked Exodus (1510 BC) to be datable to just before Hyksos, as I identify these with Amalekites. In the table I got by my chosen mathematical model, (and you will probably tell me Fibonacci is useless for modelling the convergence of two flattening exponential curves into each other), I get Exodus in the 1600's, that is during Hyksos era.

I would also have liked to have 90 extra years close enough to 1184 BC, so as to have Troy destroyed in that year identic to Troy VI dated as 1275. I only got 50. Not enough.

Now, why I turn to you is:

• you are on the top list of my opponents
• Dawkins and Krauss are not likely to reply
• PZM is not likely to want to keep record on blogs of our debate
• ditto for Why Evolution is True blogger.

If anyone can poke a hole in my scenario, you might be it, and you are likely to want it.

And if you don't speak French, feel totally free to hand this over to some single one in your excellent long list of atheist friends who does - provided he or she be similarily qualified in Earth Sciences of coruse.

Or simply look at tables and names, that works too.

In case you wonder about timeline, I am not into Ussher per se, as I am a Catholic and into St Jerome's timeline, similar method as he, but based on LXX text.

Enjoy if you think this is worth your time!

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to AronRa

10/11/15 à 10h07,
resent 17/11/15 à 09h38

Your History Sucks as much as Kent Hovind's, by Now, and NO, this is not an insult, it is meant to get you to read and consider!

"I saw an article in Inquisitor today,wherein someone read through 126 historic documents from 1st century Israel, written by people who should have known about Jesus, yet had never heard of him. This includes Josephus, whose only mention of Jesus is now known to have been a forgery or redaction inserted later by someone else."

[In light of AronRa's later misunderstanding, these words are the only time in the letter that I am quoting him. But see also next one by me, a PS to this one.]

Your words are from here:

RA : Jesus never existed
November 3, 2015 by Aron Ra
[not recommended for to go there, but some need documentation]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/11/03/jesus-never-existed/

The article [the one AronRa referred to, not his own] is here:

Jesus Never Existed Says New Report That Finds No Mention Of Christ In 126 Historical Texts
by Jonathan Vankin, Sept 28 2014
http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/

• First of all it is lame to say "Josephus would have mentioned Jesus, if he had existed, and oh, byu the way, the passage where Josephus mentions Jesus is one we have now concluded is a forgery, at best an involuntary one, but we are sure Josephus never wrote it."
  
  
• Second of all, the article was NOT where someone read through 126 documents, it references such a reading through by someone else. But that may be what you meant.
  
  
• More importantly, third, you were not in any position to check if the claim was exact. Also, the texts are not all "from 1st century Israel".

"Otherwise, says the author, despite the remarkable feats Jesus is alleged to have performed and the great deal of political unrest caused by his arrival in Jerusalem, not a single writer from the time and place of Jesus’s life finds that Jesus so much as rates a footnote.

“'Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems none of these writers from first to third century ever heard of Jesus, global miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned,' Paulkovich said in a recent interview."

Note:

1st to 3rd century.

Note:

Not all from Israel.

Note:

False pretenses about what would have caused them to write.

"the great deal of political unrest caused by his arrival in Jerusalem"

Not by the standards Romans were used to!

Global miracles? Only two, star of Bethlehem and Darkness when Christ was Crucified. With Earthquake, unsure if it is implied to be all Israel or all the Globe. Since subsequent reigns, like that of Nero, abounded in omens (check Tacitus, he showed no doubts even about a woman giving birth to a snake) people not Christian may have forgotten a few of the omens they could not explain.

Now, to get into this list:

Titus - Emperor, yes. Writer of surviving texts - no, unless he is quoted in Josephus or corresponded with Pliny. The argument amounts to "Titus was not a writer, but I'll pretend he was a writer anyway, and by the way, why did this writer, who wasn't a writer, never mention Jesus?"

Cassius Dio - indeed a historian. An official Roman Histiorian, from the time when Emperor Alexander Severus was persecuting Christians, AND much of what he wrote is even lost, quoting wiki:

"In the 21st century, fragments remain of the first 36 books, including considerable portions of both Book 35 (on the war of Lucullus against Mithridates VI of Pontus) and 36 (on the war with the pirates and the expedition of Pompey against the king of Pontus). The books that follow, Books 37 through 54, are nearly all complete; they cover the period from 65 BC to 12 BC, or from the eastern campaign of Pompey and the death of Mithridates to the death of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. Book 55 contains a considerable gap, while Books 56 through 60 (which cover the period from AD 9 through 54) are complete and contain events from the defeat of Varus in Germany to the death of Claudius. Of the 20 subsequent books in the series, there remain only fragments and the meager abridgement of John Xiphilinus, a monk from the 11th century. The abridgment of Xiphilinus, as now extant, commences with Book 35 and continues to the end of Book 80: it is a very indifferent performance and was made by order of the emperor Michael VII Parapinaces. The last book covers the period from 222 to 229 (the reign of Alexander Severus)."

So the argument with Dio is "here is a Roman Historian who approved of persecution of Christians, or at least lived under an Emperor who did (there is a Pope of Rome who was martyred by him or mistreated by him), and why is he NOT showing how right the persecuted Christians were by mentioning Jesus? Especially as the time when Jesus lived was in the parts of his work that have not survived, so we cannot check!"

Maximus, I will assume it is Maximus of Tyre. Quoting wiki:

"Maximus of Tyre (Greek: Μάξιμος Τύριος; fl. late 2nd century AD), also known as Cassius Maximus Tyrius, was a Greek rhetorician and philosopher who lived in the time of the Antonines and Commodus. His writings contain many allusions to the history of Greece, while there is little reference to Rome; hence it is inferred that he lived longer in Greece, perhaps as a professor at Athens."

The argument from Maximus amounts to: "here is a Greek patriot, who was not writing history, but often alluded to glorious past of Greece, and NEVER said a word about Romans, why did he not mentions Jesus praising the faith of the Roman Centurion, while he was at it?!"

But perhaps you meant Valerius Maximus. I already made an answer on that one by quoting wiki:

Valerius Maximus
...
The author's chief sources are Cicero, Livy, Sallust and Pompeius Trogus, especially the first two. Valerius's treatment of his material is careless and unintelligent in the extreme; but in spite of his contusions, contradictions and anachronisms, the excerpts are apt illustrations, from the rhetorician's point of view, of the circumstance or quality they were intended to illustrate. And even on the historical side we owe something to Valerius. He often used sources now lost, and where he touches on his own time he affords us some glimpses of the much debated and very imperfectly recorded reign of Tiberius.

Moeragenes. No own article on wiki. BUT, I found him on the search:

Life of Apollonius of Tyana
"Memorabilia of Apollonius of Tyana, magician and philosopher", written by a Moeragenes, although Philostratus considers that account rather unreliable. Local ...

So, the argument from Moeragenes is like: "here is this real or fictitious rival of Jesus, a certain Apollonius, and his life was written down by Moeragenes ... can you PLEASE explain why Moeragenes failed to mention Jesus?"

I have a tentative one. Apollonius of Tyana may never have existed. The Moeragenes we are dealing with invented him so as to give Roman gossipers someone else to gossip about while mentioning Jesus. If so, why he enver mentions Jesus is PRETTY clear. Doing so would be shooting himself in the foot.

Lucian, I already answered that asking why Lucian never mentioned Jesus is like asking why you don't find Billy Graham or Kent Hovind in a novel by Stephen King or a Mickey Mouse Comic by Walt Disney.

Lucian was a satirist who is famous for writing the first Science Fiction, "A True Story" ... he also wrote "How to Write History" but he wrote no History himself:

Wiki : List of Works by Lucian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Lucian

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-contemporary-historians-not.html

Soterichus Oasitis ... I did a google search:

• 1) Jesus Never Existed Says New Report That Finds No Mention
  www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/Traduire cette page
  28 sept. 2014 - “Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems ...
  
  
• 2) Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid ...
  https://books.google.fr/books?isbn=311021041X - Traduire cette page
  Laura Miguélez-Cavero - 2008 - ‎Literary Criticism
  Author: 1 and 2 are the works of the same author (Reitzenstein 1904, Crçnert 1902–3); Soterichus Oasites (Bidez 1903: Encomium + Patria Oaseos); ...
  
  
• 3) An Open Letter To Michael Paulkovich And Free Inquiry
  thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/.../an-open-letter-to-...Traduire cette page
  29 sept. 2014 - "Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems ...

Quote:

Soterichus Oasites. A Soterichus who lived around AD 300 wrote poems about Alexander the Great and Dionysus. Hm, yeah, very strange that he didn't toss any mention of Jesus into those.

Other, RELEVANT quote, a PS put on top:

PS, 31. December 2014: I'm a mythicist: I'm not at all sure whether or not Jesus existed. I mentioned that at the end of this post. I'm saying it again here because people don't always read other people's blog posts all the way to the end, and because it's the reason I wrote this: I wrote it because I'd like to see quality research being done on the question of Jesus' existence. It's not being done, because the experts, the academics, aren't doing it.

The Wrong Monkey : An Open Letter To Michael Paulkovich And Free Inquiry
http://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2014/09/an-open-letter-to-michael-paulkovich.html

So, when mythicists who know SOMETHING about ancient writers or are able to use wiki are dissing Paulkovich, perhaps you should diss him too.

Next item, Wrong Monkey was wrong. There is a writer who is named after the river:

Euphrates (Greek: Εὐφράτης), was an eminent Stoic philosopher, who lived c. 35–118 AD.

Even right period.

BUT, he seems to have left no writings. We know him from Pliny, from Apollonius of Tyana, but NOT from his own writings.

Marcus Aurelius. Emperor. Even writer, I seem to recall. Yes, here is the relevant passage:

While on campaign between 170 and 180, Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement. The title of this work was added posthumously—originally he titled his work simply: "To Myself". He had a logical mind and his notes were representative of Stoic philosophy and spirituality. Meditations is still revered as a literary monument to a government of service and duty. The book has been a favourite of Frederick the Great, John Stuart Mill, Matthew Arnold, Goethe, Wen Jiabao, and Bill Clinton.[269]

It is not known how far Marcus' writings were circulated after his death. There are stray references in the ancient literature to the popularity of his precepts, and Julian the Apostate was well aware of Marcus' reputation as a philosopher, though he does not specifically mention the Meditations.[270] The book itself, though mentioned in correspondence by Arethas of Caesarea in the 10th century and in the Byzantine Suda, was first published in 1558 in Zurich by Wilhelm Holzmann, from a manuscript copy that is now lost.[271] The only other surviving complete copy of the manuscript is in the Vatican library.

And, what is more, he was persecuting Christians. Roman Martyrology mentions some martyrs from his time. Perhaps that was not what he was most proud of. And therefore the Meditations focus on the kind of achievements or plans for the future (I have not read them) which he could take pride in.

Wrong Monkey does me two more favours:

• 1) he says what needs to be said about Damis and Apollonius:
  
  Damis of Hierapolis. A Damis was a pupil of Apollonius of Tyana. None of this Damis' work has survived, and none of this Apollonius' either, but Apollonius has sometimes been compared to Jesus so I can see how you got confused.
  
  
• 2) He links to a page giving the full list of Paulkovich.
  
  No Meek Messiah: Michael Paulkovich
  [list of authors down at/near end of the page]
  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paulkovich.html

Third from end is Velleius Paterculus. His Roman history ends 16 years into the reign of Tiberius AND all chapters about reign of Tiberius are VERY unspecific.

ANYONE who can include Velleius Paterculus in such a list is simply a fraud, or at best a nincompoop relying in frauds.

So, do yourself a favour. If you haven't already done so in the video, which I have not seen. Say sorry for relying on Paulkovich.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Me to AronRa

10/11/15 à 10h07,
resent 17/11/15 à 09h39

I will not here go into your propositions of a blasphemous nature of Christ, but only point out ...

... that the end of that paragraph is not a masterpiece of historical thinking either.

...." or he’s a completely imaginary legendary figure like Hercules."

Hercules was certainly legendary, but where or how does that make him completely imaginary?/HGL

IV

AronRa to me

17/11/15 à 18h41

Re: Like to find faults in my creationist carbon curve (correspondence to be published on blog)?

You sent me three emails. The first was so unnecessarily rude that I didn’t bother reading the rest –until you sent them again.

[The first might be the first of the resend, on Jesus' and "126 silent authors"? When conferring his "second" and "third", yes.]

So regarding your criticism of my blog comments on the lack of historicity of Jesus, I don't know how you got the impressions that you did, and you don't seem to be quoting me. Perhaps that's the fault of your translator program. I'm tempted to send you a portion of Dr Robert Price's book on the matter, but I don't know that it would do any good after seeing what you did with the article I wrote.

In your second email, you asked me how Hercules should be considered an entirely imaginary character. The obvious answer is that none of either his attributes or his adventures are based on history; They're all exclusively based in mythology.

In your third email, you pondered how dinosaurs could be Carbon-dated from 20,000 to 50,000 years old. The reason is that that’s as far as radio-carbon can go, and dinosaur fossils are always more than three orders of magnitude older than that. That’s why they don’t date dinosaur fossils with Carbon14. It doesn’t have enough half-life. There are many other ways of reliably dating geologic stratigraphy. Uranium-Lead, Uranium-Thorium, Potassium-Argon, Argon40-Argon39, Rhenium-Osmium, Lutetium-Harnium, Samarium-Neogymium, Rubidium-Strontium, Fission track, Chlorine-36, Luminescence, Dendrochronology, Varves, Ice Cores, and Radiohalos. Some of these methods have the necessary range to date Mesozoic and older strata, and they are typically overlapped so that multiple dating methods will be applied to any one area. If there is any uncertainty at all, three or more methods will be combined. But they don’t use carbon dating on Mesozoic strata. Please stop posting that they do, because you’ll just embarrass yourself.Because it doesn't build up like you said, it breaks down, such that under normal circumstances dinosaur fossils wouldn't have any Carbon in them at all.

You also mentioned Noah’s flood as if it was a real thing. It isn’t, and that is a matter of absolute certainty. To give you the shortest possible explanation, the Biblical version is an exaggerated adaptation of elder myths. The epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis, as well as the Sumerian King List are all apparently talking about the same event, a localized inundation of the Iraqi flood plain centered on the city of Shurripak around 2900 BCE. This has been confirmed by archaeologists and geologists. By all accounts, the flood depth was 15 cubits or 22 feet, and that’s one of the details that stayed in the Bible, but the Genesis version still tried to escalate that to a global scale, which just isn’t remotely possible.

What happened is that Mesopotamians had invented the first syllabic text, and they built their empire on literacy, teaching children how to read and write in schools just like today. But when their empire fell, they lost that, and these old stories were kept alive by oral tradition until the Phoenicians re-introduced writing. In the interim was a thousand years in which these stories evolved due to personal and political embellishments and cultural appropriation. The newer versions that we find in the Bible were transported from Babylon probably by Ezra in roughly 450 BCE from a source now known as the priestly writers. That’s where most of Genesis comes from, and that’s why every element of its early chapters can be found in the superficial details of elder mythos of polytheism. None of that really happened nor could have.

I think I should do a video series showing how archeology disproves the flood, how geology disproves the flood, how meteorology disproves the flood, and how anthropology, zoology, and even mythology disprove the flood. I read a several page article showing how physics disproves the flood. I wish I could find that again. It was passed out in my geology class, and made a rock solid case. Both of the teachers there were Christian, but they said on the first day that if you believe in the flood now, you won't by next week. There's just too much proof against it.

But really that story has so many absurdities just within itself that we don’t need outside sources to call it into question. It cannot happen and we know for certain that it did not happen, but it still wouldn’t have happened even if it could. There’s just too much wrong with every aspect of that story.Give it some thought.

Suffice it to say there never was a global flood. It’s not just that there is no evidence of it, where it should be all over the world; it’s that all over the world there is evidence against it, and for something else.

You also mentioned Moses, and he evidently never existed either. Traditionally believers placed him around 1250 BCE, but even if he really existed, and he lived as early as you say, that would still put him centuries behind Hammurabi’s stele of law where the story of the ten commandments comes from. Some of the commandments attributed to Moses were lifted directly from Hammurabi's law code.

Again I refer to Robert Price. Texas history books now depict Moses as if he was a real person, born in the 1200s BCE. Price commented that the authors of our textbooks were out of touch with the scholarship. He said; "Most critical scholars, that is people who were not trying to prove the Bible as accurate, most critical scholars have long since given up on the idea of a historical Moses”.

Moses was evidently based on a combination of Sargon, Hammurabi, and the Pharaoh Snefru’s mage, Djadjamankh –among others. Even rabbinical scholars now admit an archaeological consensus that “the Exodus did not happen the way the Bible described, if it happened at all”. We know there weren’t two million slaves all living in one town at a time when the entire country only had three and a half million people.

I mean think about it. If we excuse all the men, women, and children from the Hebrew ranks and just consider the 600,000 Hebrew “men on foot” that were supposedly at Ramses. If they set out for Canaan walking single-file, each man one meter ahead of the other, and they followed the coastline, the first men would get there before the last ones left. It’s only about 450 kilometers or 280 miles. If they walked 20 miles a day it would take them two weeks to get there, and it’s pretty hard to get lost when you’re following a coastline. Yet the story says that with God’s help they wandered lost in the desert for forty years! How’s that for divine guidance?

I’m going to decline your invitation to correspond with you, given the way you addressed me in that first email. Clearly you do not know what you think you do, and I am not going any more time to teach you. But when my book comes out in September, I would encourage you to get it and read it, because it will help.

[Not signed]

V

Me to AronRa

17/11/15 à 19h43

Re: Like to find faults in my creationist carbon curve (correspondence to be published on blog)?

Responding to your points in quasi dialogue form:

AronRa:

So regarding your criticism of my blog comments on the lack of historicity of Jesus, I don't know how you got the impressions that you did, and you don't seem to be quoting me. Perhaps that's the fault of your translator program. I'm tempted to send you a portion of Dr Robert Price's book on the matter, but I don't know that it would do any good after seeing what you did with the article I wrote.

HGL answers:

I quoted ONE sentence or couple of such, the rest of my letter is in answer to it.

AronRa earlier [quoted by me from his article]:

I saw an article in Inquisitor today,wherein someone read through 126 historic documents from 1st century Israel, written by people who should have known about Jesus, yet had never heard of him. This includes Josephus, whose only mention of Jesus is now known to have been a forgery or redaction inserted later by someone else.

Back to my answer:

This is exactly ALL I quoted from YOUR article.

Since it is about someone ELSE'S article, the rest is how naive it was of you to trust it.

Since you mentioned Robert Price, I already have an answer to him:

somewhere else : When Robert Price and Acharya S. try to reduce the Sun of Justice to a sungod ...
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/04/when-robert-price-and-acharya-s-try-to.html

AronRa:

In your second email, you asked me how Hercules should be considered an entirely imaginary character. The obvious answer is that none of either his attributes or his adventures are based on history; They're all exclusively based in mythology.

My answer:

My actual words were:

Hercules was certainly legendary, but where or how does that make him completely imaginary?/HGL

Now, all YOUR answer has done is shift the wording from "legend" to "mythology".

Which is less exact, unless you mean things like Gaia giving birth to Ouranos, which the Hercules legend is not.

It seems you think there are some kind of watertight sluices between Greek heroic legend and Greek history.

Er, no.

Hercules had a grandson named Telephus who founded - sorry, a son named Telephus who founded Pergamon in Mysia.

Now, the founding of a city was a very ritual thing in ancient times. And so it was very well recorded who had done it. Telephus founded Pergamon, Romulus founded Rome.

Conversely, records tend to be kept, and it is hardly very easy to falsify their beginnings once there is an established tradition.

Could you fool Americans US had been founded by Christopher Columbus and that George Washington was just a Gringo immigrant who helped his successors wrest the thirteen colonies from SPAIN?

Hardly.

So, why should the tradition of Pergamon have lied about its being founded by Telephus? Or the tradition of Sparta about the sons or grandsons of Telephus taking over Sparta? Or either tradition about Telephus being the son of Hercules?

As for Hercules being "son of Zeus", that was not a mistake of tradition in transmission, but a theological mistake made by Pagans about him in his lifetime.

AronRa:

In your third email, you pondered how dinosaurs could be Carbon-dated from 20,000 to 50,000 years old. The reason is that that’s as far as radio-carbon can go, and dinosaur fossils are always more than three orders of magnitude older than that. That’s why they don’t date dinosaur fossils with Carbon14. It doesn’t have enough half-life. ...

My answer:

No, I was not "pondering" how dinosaurs could be C14-dated, I was offering an answer about the buildup of C14 this presupposes from the level which after 4972 years reduces to a level reading 20 - 50,000 years old.

If dinos had really been millions of years old, already back when I suppose the Flood was, and even more so now, the reading would rather be "more than 100,000 years old" = beyond dating by this method.

The point is, it is not.

AronRa:

But they don’t use carbon dating on Mesozoic strata. Please stop posting that they do, because you’ll just embarrass yourself.

My answer:

I was not claiming they routinely do.

I am claiming that exceptions from that routine have been made and have given those datings.

Btw, since I am not a science student, I could hardly care less if I embarass myself.

I am a "kind of" science journalist cum science critic.

AronRa:

Because it doesn't build up like you said, it breaks down, such that under normal circumstances dinosaur fossils wouldn't have any Carbon in them at all.

My answer:

In each sample we totally agree that once it has stopped breathing, C14 breaks down.

We also agree that if it has been breaking down for millions of years, there should be no C14 left at all.

That is why it is a stumbling block for evolutionists if any IS left, which is what Creationists have claimed, and Trey Smith even had an interview with Jack Horner which embarassed the latter (over phone, available on his youtube).

Now, all of this is NOT what the purpose was of my letter, all of this I take as fact independently of your opinion.

My letter was about the BUILDUP - namely in atmosphere, not in ex-organic samples - of C14. My point takes into account that the last 2500 years at least (checkable with historically datable artefacts) the breakdown and the buildup processes of C14 in atmosphere are in balance. It is only when a sample is cut off from atmosphere that it starts an unilateral breakdown of C14 content.

AronRa:

You also mentioned Noah’s flood as if it was a real thing. It isn’t, and that is a matter of absolute certainty. To give you the shortest possible explanation, the Biblical version is an exaggerated adaptation of elder myths. The epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis, as well as the Sumerian King List are all apparently talking about the same event, a localized inundation of the Iraqi flood plain centered on the city of Shurripak around 2900 BCE. This has been confirmed by archaeologists and geologists. By all accounts, the flood depth was 15 cubits or 22 feet, and that’s one of the details that stayed in the Bible, but the Genesis version still tried to escalate that to a global scale, which just isn’t remotely possible.

My answer:

Also a thing I was not asking you about.

My question was about my scenario for the buildup of C14. If you knew any obstacles to that.

As for date of Flood, thank you, you are in fact confirming St Jerome's date for it : 2957 BC.

However, I am very far from sure the archaeological records of such and such a layer including moisture be really from that Flood.

On my scenario, if an organic remains is DATED as 2900 BC by C14, it is lots younger.

AronRa:

What happened is that Mesopotamians had invented the first syllabic text, and they built their empire on literacy, teaching children how to read and write in schools just like today. But when their empire fell, they lost that, and these old stories were kept alive by oral tradition until the Phoenicians re-introduced writing. In the interim was a thousand years in which these stories evolved due to personal and political embellishments and cultural appropriation

My answer:

This twist on how Flood legend came to be is even anti-historical.

For one thing, the syllabic writing was very complex. Yes, "children" were sent to schools, but not "like today" (when near totality of population is either sent to schools or homeschooled), more like very selected children in Vienna are sent to Wiener Sängerknaben or Spanische Reitschule. The children taught to read and write belonged to a select caste.

But even more. The syllabic writing of Sumerians was NEVER for a moment lost after its invention. The interim without writing you speak of never existed.

And my most general subject is NOT science, it is things like this one, though my studies were into Latin, not into Assyriology.

So, even secular, even atheist Assyriologists could not support the exact version you give of the Bibel-Babel-Theorie.

My most general refutation of it is otherwise that Hebrews and Babylonians gave different versions, and one was clearly wrong, one could be right (unless yet another was etc) and this logical fact in itself gives us no right to give precedence for the Babylonian version over the Hebrew one.

AronRa:

I read a several page article showing how physics disproves the flood. I wish I could find that again. It was passed out in my geology class, and made a rock solid case. Both of the teachers there were Christian, but they said on the first day that if you believe in the flood now, you won't by next week. There's just too much proof against it.

My answer:

I have taken this debate otherwise and elsewhere.

AronRa:

You also mentioned Moses, and he evidently never existed either. Traditionally believers placed him around 1250 BCE, but even if he really existed, and he lived as early as you say, that would still put him centuries behind Hammurabi’s stele of law where the story of the ten commandments comes from. Some of the commandments attributed to Moses were lifted directly from Hammurabi's law code.

My answer:

No, 1250 BC is not a traditional date. 1250 BC is a date given by identifying the Pharao of Exodus (the one who drowns in Red Sea) with Ramses II (who did not drown in the Red Sea).

Roman Martyrology gives 1510 BC as date of the exodus event, and one of the concerns with my question is how to arrange a curve so as to have this carbon datable as some 200 years earlier, just before Hyksos invasion (I accept not the identification of Hyksos with Israelites, but the alternative one of them as Amalekites - and their taking of Egypt without a fight I attribute to Egypt having just lost its army in Red Sea).

Also, I do not think Moses got the commandments from Hammurappi's law, but I do think they coincide with the natural law, which was available to Hamurappi in his heart. And which those parts of his legislation reflect. IF he was more recent than 1250 BC, he can of course have been inspired by the Torah, which had existed since 1510 BC or rather since 40 years later (since 1470 BC).

AronRa:

Moses was evidently based on a combination of Sargon, Hammurabi, and the Pharaoh Snefru’s mage, Djadjamankh –among others.

My answer:

Bla bla. Sorry, but that is what it amounts to.

AronRa:

Even rabbinical scholars now admit an archaeological consensus that “the Exodus did not happen the way the Bible described, if it happened at all”.

My answer:

Oh, you mean Liberal Jews (or their Conservative Branch)! I am Catholic.

AronRa:

We know there weren’t two million slaves all living in one town at a time when the entire country only had three and a half million people.

My answer:

Gosen is a region, not a town.

Egypt having such a population [at the time] is an estimate, not a solid fact.

AronRa:

I mean think about it. If we excuse all the men, women, and children from the Hebrew ranks and just consider the 600,000 Hebrew “men on foot” that were supposedly at Ramses. If they set out for Canaan walking single-file, each man one meter ahead of the other, and they followed the coastline, the first men would get there before the last ones left. It’s only about 450 kilometers or 280 miles. If they walked 20 miles a day it would take them two weeks to get there, and it’s pretty hard to get lost when you’re following a coastline. Yet the story says that with God’s help they wandered lost in the desert for forty years! How’s that for divine guidance?

My answer:

Where does it say they were lost?

The obstacle was the Amalekites, and God not wanting to give victory to the generation which had murmured.

Joshua was given the privilege of beating Amalekites and Amorrhites.

AronRa:

I’m going to decline your invitation to correspond with you, given the way you addressed me in that first email.

My answer:

It seems you think it a VERY low insult to have your history suck as much as Hovind's does, but it does. He's the guy who can buy "the Vatican founded Islam by training Mohammed", and your stuff here is not very much better.

AronRa:

Clearly you do not know what you think you do, and I am not going any more time to teach you.

My answer:

• 1) I was not saying "look how much I know";
• 2) On C14 question I was asking for criticism specific to your expertise in Earth sciences as to my scenario for the atmospheric build up of C14, each and ANY reason you can think of why it should be impossible, and you haven't given me one;
• 3) in history, I do know more than either you or Kent Hovind, but that was even not the issue;
• 4) I was not asking you to teach me anything, I was pointing out things and offering a debate.

Thank you for at least responding on the Hercules theme, and thank you for good fun (at least to my readers) on the Bibel-Babel-Theorie in your version.

AronRa:

But when my book comes out in September, I would encourage you to get it and read it, because it will help.

My answer:

If you will send me it for free - do you mean September next year or December this year? - I might take some time to read and refute it, wholly or partially.

Thanks for this very brief correspondence, below I will add my adress but not include it in the blog post.

Hans Georg Lundahl

To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

I

Me to Kent Hovind

10/11/15 à 09h08
(in France this means 10th of November, not October 11th!)

This is DISTURBING, Sir!

I am right now in a library where I cannot watch your video and check what you said, but this is what someone else referred to it as saying:

(linking to my source)

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/kent-hovind-and-other-theologians-justify-biblical-genocide/

[Intro by Jerry Coyne]

Reader John sent me this video made by the disgraced (just out of prison for tax evasion and other crimes) but still active young-earth creationist Kent Hovind. While the 35-minute video includes Hovind’s usual blather about evolution and creationism, the reader wanted us to see Hovind’s justification for the Canaanite genocide. His/her email:

[Letter by John, cited by Jerry Coyne]

“Dr.” Kent Hovind has recently been released from prison and is back online, answering emails from the public in a daily Youtube broadcast.

In his November 5th 2015 video, he put his own spin–the most monstrous I’ve yet encountered–on the fictional Yahweh’s proclivity for genocide: apparently, mass murder of the Canaanites by Yahweh’s servant Joshua was a necessary public health response to the population’s bestiality-induced infectious disease burden! According to Hovind, the extermination of the Canaanites, innocent children included, can be considered entirely analogous to a physician prescribing an antibiotic to eradicate bacterial infection!

Imagine if you or Richard Dawkins or Peter Singer said such a thing!

The relevant excerpt of the video–amongst a half-hour of inane blather–begins at 6:30 minutes in: ...

[Jerry Coyne again]

The following is my [John’s] transcript (verbatim by intention, or, at least, as close to verbatim as I can manage):

[What Kent Hovind is supposed to have said:]

“As far as God telling ’em to wipe out the Midianites, well, there were nations that were so full of diseases and things like that … that God said, “Yes, they need to all be wiped out, especially, like, the Canaanites in that land”. God told Joshua, “When you go into the land, utterly annihilate them! Kill ’em all!” Well, one of the things the Canaanites did was sex with animals, and had all kinds of diseases … and … and … just endemic in the civilization, and God said, “Wipe ’em all out!” No different than a doctor saying, “Take this pill that’s gonna kill every bacteria [sic], even the little baby ones that haven’t done anything wrong. Yeah, we’re gonna kill ’em all, ’cause if you leave onebehind or one resistant one behind, the disease can come back with a vengeance!”

[Back to my words:]

• 1) Were these your actual words?
  
  
• 2) Are they taken out of context, so that you really give another explanation for the mass execution ordered by God, but take the health effect as a bonus for obeying God in this command?
  
  I would like an answer in mail, please don't think it will be wasted, I have a blog for correspondences like this one (any answer will be considered as your consenting to my blogging it).

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Answers from KH?

None per mail, and if one per video, it was not sent in any link. I was not very able to hear his videos or anyone else's, and might get a possibility later. But not in this library./HGL

I might as well take issue with Jerry Coyne's friend John for writing these words:

Imagine if you or Richard Dawkins or Peter Singer said such a thing!

Since Kent Hovind is a Christian, at least sort of (not Catholic = not fully Christian), he does believe (as much as I do, I suppose) there is a difference between the Testaments. This involves in NT times there is a standing order of "making disciples" and this "of all nations". Not "of people from all nations", but of "all nations" in their entirety. But a nation which is wiped out is incapable of becoming a disciple. Therefore God cannot in NT times be ordering Christians to wipe out any nations. Now, if it had been a Jewish rabbi, especially one who sees Palestinians as "Canaanites", that would have been cause of alarm or of comparison with Peter Singer./HGL

With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

1) Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems, 2) With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

Wednesday 21-X-2015, 16:30

Me to Jay L. Wile

Good day! As you I am YEC. I am currently modelling a buildup scenario for C14 content, from 3/64 at Flood (extrapolated from this being the mean between 1/16 and 1/32 for getting ages between 20.000 and 40.000 years, perhaps should have taken 5/128 instead?). Now, if I start out there, each seventy years multiply by 127/128 for the radioactive decay, and add 1/128 (i e same processes assumed to be at work now), guess where we land in 2013? 45% and something. How would you model it?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I am not sure that I understand what you are doing. Do you have a paper or something that describes this in more detail?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

I have blog posts.

I have tried different approaches to the modelling.

I am now preparing another one.

Do you read French?

If so here is the first of a series of blog posts:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I don't read French. One thing you have to remember is that carbon-14 is constantly made in the atmosphere because cosmic rays from the sun produce neutrons by colliding with atoms in the atmosphere, and those neutrons can collide with nitrogen-14 atoms, making carbon-14 and a hydrogen atom. Thus, any model that tries to track carbon-14 over time must take into account the activity of the sun, which affects the amount of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

This time I am trying LITERALLY to follow a slow build up scenario. Decay as now (a constant in each of my models, though I got the time rate wrong in first post or first two posts by assuming the decay of 1/64 = 1/32*5730 years). Compensation by C14 production as now. That would, assuming a constant percentage now, be 1/128 added in the same time as 1/128 decays. That means: 1 * 127/128 = 127/128 127/128 + 1/128 = 1 Every 70 years. Now, I am doing same operations, but starting out with 3/64 in 2957 BC. Stability (1 or thereabout) is NOT reached BC. It is not reached even now. We would in this scenario be having 45% and some decimals of the stable C14 content. Which of course involves we would reinterpret previous C14 contents as if division by 0.45 etc were division by 1. Do you see now?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

The problem is that the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere isn't constant by any means. Look at figure 2 in this link:

Journal of Cosmology
Alterations and cyclic fluctuations in solar activity may be linked to periods of global warming and global cooling (Eddy, 1976; Jansen et al., 2007), extremes in weather and storm activity (Khare and Nigam 2006), and possibly even health and disease (Joseph and Wickramasinghe 2010; Wainwright et al…
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange104.html

Those data come from tree rings, so they are very reliable. A constant replenishment just doesn't work.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

Ah, you would agree then that the replenishment needs to be greater between Flood and well recorded and well dated history than between that (say 507 BC) and our time?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I don't know. It would depend on the activity of the sun.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

I looked at figure two: "Delta 14C indicates the anomaly of carbon-14 content compared with the modern atmospheric carbon-14 concentration." Would 0 equal the amount we have now?

And thanks for mentioning activity of sun as a variable, though in this case it would if alone have varied far more than the diagram.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

Yes, 0 represents what we have today.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

And the "permil" means we are talking of aberrations of 1/10 of 1%?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

Well, since the aberrations are up to 30 per mil, that means a few percent, which is larger than the 1/128 you are using in your model.

Thursday 22-X-2015, 12:41

Me to Jay L. Wile

Now, I have several models. However 1/128 would be the MEDIUM value of new atoms added for a stable C14 content, in the same time as 1 is multiplied by 127/128. You are talking about a net result of all over C14 content erring up to 3%, but I am not yet sure over how much time. However, even if for SHORT spells the add for 70 years is even in the last millennium well above 1/128, for the buildup, supposing we had arrived at steady, we would still need such well above adds, but for a LONG period of time. It is of course possible. But I am noting it is not quite uniformitarian. Not that that is an absolute criterium, just that that has been offered as a solution, more or less like that, like in Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature or in Kent Hovind. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying they are incomplete. Unless I make some radical mathematical discovery while remaking this table.

Thursday 22-X-2015, 14:19

Jay L. Wile to me

I just don't see how a uniform addition will ever make a model that works. We know that the amount of carbon-14 made is not uniform. It changes based on the activity of the sun. Without taking that into account, I don't see how any model would work.

Thursday 22-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

If the activity of the sun is overall cyclical, a uniform addition would in medium equal the NORMAL input from the sun. I am right now agreeing with you, that that will probably NOT work. Sun activity shifting back and forth is one thing, but sun activity taking a trend far off from the present medium (or supposed and near such) is another one. I don't say it can't have happened, I say if it did, I think it did, it was an extraordinary thing. One reason I could think of was if there was a need for an ice age - like if there had been lots of nuke wars just before Flood and God used both Flood waters and ice to cover the radioactivity so it couldn't kill humanity off after the Flood. If so, it would perhaps have been so bad, that the Flood was God's only way of saving mankind from what might be in store if "a star called Wormwood" refers to anything radioactive. (Apoc. 8:10,11). Your link does suggest there can be a connexion between a cause like higher solar activity and a double effect, more C14 added and climate chilling. In that case the same very high solar activity which produced a very much faster rise in C14 would also have caused the well known ice age. Würm and all that (as per creationism currently: only one).

But in that case nuke radioactivity may have contributed too.

Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems

1) Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems, 2) With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

I

HGL to Tas Walker

05/10/15 à 13h19

An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

How incomplete? Well, I am showing only four dates. Cyrus 2500 BP, Trojan War 3100 BP, birth of Abraham, 4030 BP, Flood 4972 BP.

The good part is that I have used "original C14 content" as the main factor, counting in 1/32 of present content.

And for you there might be a bad part about the explanatory text being in French, but on the other hand, as you know what it is about, you will not be needing it:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

My "curve" is very angular. Between Trojan War and birth of Abraham, EVERY difference of 1/32 takes 155 years. Between birth of Abraham and Flood, EVERY difference takes 37.7 years. You will know the proper techniques for smoothing out the curve.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, and of course, for filling in the "apparent carbon age" (according to uniformitarian presuppositions) in the right hand column between my given points./HGL

II

Tas Walker to HGL

12/10/15 à 05h19

RE: An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

A graph of the calibration curve would be helpful.

III

HGL to Tas Walker

12/10/15 à 10h35

RE: An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

Well, I am very much less good at graphs than at tables.

However, I discovered a little about the issue while doing tables.

At the time of the Flood, if carbon ages are 20 - 50.000 years, the midway amount of C14 in the atmosphere the years up to the Flood would have been about 3/64 of the present amount - at least proportionally. Assuming carbon content overall is the same now as after Flood, that means that between Flood and 2500 years ago 1/64 of present content has been added about every 40/50 years.

The problem with that is that if we are in an equilibrium (and a constant rate since 2500 years ago at least suggests that), then cosmic radiation replenishes C14 at same rate as C14 decays. However, cosmic radiation replenishing is usually presumed to have been constant. And this constant is way beyond 40/50 years, for 1/64 of C14 content it is about 179 years.

If we are getting new C14 at same rate as medium rate between Flood (4972 years ago) and 2500 years ago, we ought to have 55/32 of present C14 content. Or if C14 content has only remained proportional since 2500, we would have been emitting more fossile carbon (C14-free carbon) than one assumes, like enough to extend an "effective replenishing rate" (i e replenishing plus extension) of 40/50 years to proportionally a replenishing only rate of 179 years.

You see, if C14 content is constant, we are dealing with a replenishing rate equal to the rate of radioactive decomposition.

This is 5730 years for 1/2 of content, roughly 5730/2 for 1/4 content, roughly 5730/4 for 1/8 of content, roughly 5730/8 for 1/16 content, roughly 5730/16 for 1/32 of content and roughly 5730/32 for 1/64 of content. Which is 179 years.

If instead we take C14 as continually rising since Creation, up to 2500 BP/500 B Chr, then we get a C14 at Flood of about 1/2 present content, and ages for Flood buried fossils would by carbon dating be far more recent than 20 - 50.000 years.

If cosmic radiation was more intense, that may have been part of why life spans shortened, and the clothing of skin that stone age peoples had would have been like skin ponchos to protect from skin cancer and other cancers. Troglodytism would have had same function.

Equator might at certain times have been a zone which one could cross and get a cancer or live in and die very soon in cancer.

Possible exception for the darkest skins, but even there I am hesitating.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

HGL to Tas Walker

14/10/15 à 11h48

two more tables

New blog on the kid : Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/correction-de-la-table-taux-de-c14-et.html

If you don't read French, the comments are about the kind of implications I was writing about.

The latter of the two tables gives a pretty nice curve, but with one 32nd of present C14 content added each 11 years for a century before it calms down, we are talking about a major (I think) radioactive disaster, like a nuke war before the Flood, mercifully buried in deep sea oceanic basins or so. IF that could affect a N atom down there and produce C14 that could mount to the surface.

A steady rise between Creation and 2500 BP is out, in that case the Flood year would already have nearly 1/2 of present rate and the fake age added by uniformatarianism would be only one half life. Which is not what I have seen on your site. (Your as in CMI).

A somewhat steady rise between Flood and 2500 BP is possible, but in that case Abraham "would have been dated at birth" to far older than Woolley's Ur and we might try Urfa instead. Which is not necessarily a problem if Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel and if Biblical Erech could be Urkesh instead of Warka. Just sent a mail to those excavating Urkesh.

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

HGL to Tas Walker

19/10/15 à 11h19

This table models a hypothesis which inserted history (dated vs recorded) proves unreal

New blog on the kid : Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/une-hypothese-ne-pas-retenir.html

The hypothesis being that C14 production in atmosphere abruptly rose to 3,854118132619418, nearly 4 times the present production for each 70 years, stayed that level to 367 av. J. Chr. /B. Chr. daté comme/dated as 317, and abruptly dropped to present level of prodction which balances out the decay.

Do you have any tips for calibrating additions each 70 years (that is the time for decay to 127/128, right?) to a neat curve which fits known chronology and probable matches better?

Should a bell curve do with higher additions at start, lower at end and faster change in the middle? I mean of course right half of a bell curve.

Hans Georg Lundahl