Jericho and Carbon Dates

I

Me to Damien Mackey

7 February 2018 at 03:37

(Oz time, not Paris time like the rest)

Jericho

I am hesitant on whether fall of Jericho is the 2200 BC carbon date or the 1550 (1650) BC carbon date.

Obviously, Jericho fell, according to St Jerome's chronology in 1470 BC, so, which you chose gives different amounts of extra years, which means different amounts of lower carbon 14 level in comparsion with carbon 12.

You are favouring the 2200 date?

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/6/2018 at 11:25 PM

Re: Jericho

What do you mean am I favouring 2200 BC for the Fall of Jericho?
I always re-date downwards those silly, inflated conventional dates.

Jericho fell to Joshua c. 1450 BC (very approx. date).
Archaeologically, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) Israelites destroyed Early Bronze III (EBIII) Jericho and other sites.

That ought to be clear from many of my articles.

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2018 at 12:41 PM

Re: Jericho

If you had read a few lines earlier, you would have noticed I was talking about two different CARBON dates.

Apparently my leaving out the word carbon at the second mention of the 2200 carbon date made you think I accused you of considering it as a real date.

No, thing is, there are TWO destructions of Jericho on top of each other, both of which have been cast as Joshua's Jericho. They obviously have different carbon dates, as well as different real ones.

The carbon dates are, as I recall, 2200 BC and 1550 BC. The qustion I asked you is which of them YOU favour as corresponding to the real date 1470 BC (40 years after Exodus, which was in 1510 BC).

The difference is this : with the 2200 BC carbon date, you get 730 extra years in the carbon dating of Jericho's fall, with the 1550 BC carbon date you get only 80 extra years.

2200 1550
1470 1470
0730 0080

Now, the extra years correspond to how much lower the carbon 14 content was. With 730 extra years, the carbon 14 was 91.548 % of modern carbon, with 80 extra years it was 99.037 % of modern carbon.

The former leaves a less steep carbon rise for between Joseph = Imhotep and Jericho's fall, but a steeper one after Jericho's fall.

The latter leaves nearly no steepness after Jericho's fall, but a fairly steep rise in carbon 14 between Joseph in Egypt and Jericho's fall.

Hence my question. The question about 2200 is because of a recent article in which you considered EBIII Jericho carbon dated or conventionally dated to 2200 BC as the relevant layer of Jericho./HGL

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2018 at 11:29 PM

Re: Jericho

I don't deal in carbon dates which tend to be highly erratic.
I deal in archaeology, and, for the Joshua incident, that is Early Bronze III. That is dated by conventionalists to the 2000's, but re-dated by revisionists such as I to the time of Joshua.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/8/2018 at 9:30 AM

Re: Jericho

OK, I do deal with carbon dates, which I believe capable of giving a relative chronology, if not an absolute one.

I just read some pages of a paper in Egyptology et al. (Palestine, Mesopotamia and Nubia were taken into account too) where a certain carbon date 4027 BP un-calibrated, was considered as giving more than one "calendar date" due to wiggles in the calibration.

I found myself asking, what if these are not wiggles, if the chronology is straight, and if the reason the non-carbon chronology gave a wiggly calibration is, there are dynasties supposedly after each other which were not really so, as you tend to say.

There is an alternative for Jericho, that is the Middle Bronze Age or City IV - which by Kenyon was dated to 1550 BC.

I was asking if you oreferred the 2200-dated destruction over the City IV one./HGL

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/9/2018 at 12:18 AM

Re: Jericho

1 Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.

It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true.

Dr. John Osgood

His reference

A Better Model for the Stone Age
DR A.J.M. OSGOOD
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_88-102.pdf

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/9/2018 at 12:42 PM

Re: Jericho

" Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so "

For the past 2000 years it has been so. (Give or take some)

Osgood is wrong on that one.

There is a time before the past 2000 or 2500 years in which carbon 14 was rising.

That is the time in which I am doing tables, how much was the carbon 14 ratio in relation to the present one at such and such a time?

THAT in turn is why I am very interested in whether it is the carbon date 2200 BC or the carbon date 1550 BC which should match the real date of 1470 BC.

Because it would give different carbon 14 levels for 1470 BC and also different rates of carbon 14 rise both between Joseph / Imhotep as per 1700 BC carbon dated in the case of Djoser's coffin to 2600 BC and fall of Jericho on the one hand, and on the other hand between fall of Jericho and 500 BC.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/9/2018 at 12:44 PM

appendix on carbon dating

Three articles from my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Tony Reed on Dating Assumptions, Answered
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/tony-reed-on-dating-assumptions-answered.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Dating, Quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-dating-quora.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Halflife, quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-halflife-quora.html

IX

Damien Mackey to me

2/10/2018 at 2:01 AM

Re: Jericho

It's totally confusing, isn't it?

X

Me to Damien Mackey

2/10/2018 at 10:38 AM

Re: Jericho

No, I have two options.

Depending on which carbon date you or others favour for the real date.

For Göbekli Tepe which I consider the "Babel" of Genesis 11 (but politically same as the Babilu further SE, 5° and some either cardinal direction) the carbon dates are given as 9600 BC at beginning and 8600 BC at the end.

This needs to be checked to 2551 and 2511 BC, if Babel started getting built 5 years after birth of Peleg and if it lasted 40 years and if St Jerome's chronology is for post-Flood patriarchs up to Abraham LXX without the "second Cainan" which sets Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood rather than 529 after Flood.

You can of course do other timeslines than St Jerome's, but beginning and end of GT is set as to carbon dates.

With fall of Jericho, there are two levels that have been identified with the advent of Joshua, and which carbon date you pick depends on which of them is the right one.

So, I'll have to used both options in parallel ... I guess.

But "two options" and "totally confusing" are two very different things./HGL

XI

Damien Mackey to me

2/11/2018 at 2:08 AM

Re: Jericho

Let me make it very simple for you, monsieur, while you go and dust off all of that messy carbon.

The nomadic Middle Bronze I people of archaeology are the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua.
They walk like them, carry Egyptian artefacts like them, occupy the same places like them, find their way eventually from Transjordan into the Promised Land and conquer the cities there - the Early Bronze III cities (Early Bronze IV in Transjordan).

Just as the Pentateuch tells.

There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this.

[This may be the mail I should have read better.]

XII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/11/2018 at 2:46 PM

Re: Jericho

"Just as the Pentateuch tells."

I totally believe the Penteteuch. However, it does not mention the term "Middle Bronze I".

"There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this."

I had heard of two ... here is the other one:

"During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BC. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment ... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BC. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BC confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon."

Wickipeejuh : Jericho # Bronze Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age

Total destruction + inoccupation for some centuries after that = seems to fit the Biblical bill.

That is why I wondered if - and why - you prefer the layer conventionally dated to 2200 BC./HGL

XIII

Damien Mackey to me

2/11/2018 at 11:11 PM

Re: Jericho

Where are your incoming Israelites in that scenario?

Middle Bronze Jericho was the Judges era. Eglon of Moab.
For a total picture, see my:

Really Digging Jericho
https://www.academia.edu/32898565/Really_Digging_Jericho

XIV

Me to Damien Mackey

2/12/2018 at 10:00 AM

Re: Jericho

"Osgood’s next level at Jericho he thinks could have been Hittite (rock-cut tombs). Wikipedia: "In Genesis 23:2, towards the end of Abraham's life, he was staying in Hebron, on lands belonging to the "children of Heth", and from them he obtained a plot of land with a cave to bury his wife Sarah. One of them (Ephron) is labeled "the Hittite", several times. This deal is mentioned three more times (with almost the same words), upon the deaths of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph".

Then we get to the Neolithic phase that Osgood has connected with Ghassul, which is Abram’s era. Abram as a contemporary of Late Chalcolithic En-geddi and Ghassul IV is one of those clear signposts (refer back to Part One) now, thanks to Dr. Osgood."

I agree Abraham is contemporary with late Chalcolithic En-geddi. As per Genesis 14.

I agree he was contemporary, either with Narmer, or with a son of Narmer, or with the pharao in Buto previous to Narmer. As per Genesis 13.

Ghassul IV - ends in carbon dates 3 C. before Narmer at least, still possible for earlier life of Abraham.

If carbon 14 level is rising, beneath 100 % modern carbon, earlier samples will be more misdated than later ones. For instance, Göbekli Tepe being Babel would have been, if I interpret St Jerome's chronology well (Christmas martyrology doesn't per se mention Babel) 2551 to 2511 BC. If in this time carbon 14 ratio to carbon 12 rose from ... I'll cite my own article here:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

"Then 2551 BC dates as 9600 BC, 7049 extra years = 42.626 pmc being original level of carbon in the objects at start of GT. And 2511 BC dates as 8600 BC, 6089 extra years = 47.875 pmc being original level of carbon at end of GT. In the atmosphere and in the objects, of course."

Here I do not agree:

"A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups - the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2)."

I look up Natufian.

"The Epipaleolithic Natufian culture (/nəˈtuːfiən/[1]) existed from around 12,500 to 9,500 BC in the Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean."

The Wickipeejuh : Natufian Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture

To 9,500 BC? But that is beginning of Babel! Centuries before Abraham!

Carbon date 9,500 BC = 2551 BC (in my now take of St Jerome's chronology). Genesis 14 is in sth like 1935 BC. This corresponds to carbon dates like 3000 - 3500 BC, not to such of 9,500 BC!

Now, your article on Jericho mentioned a destruction in 1470 BC which you identify with a layer carbon dated (by others than you, perhaps indirectly even) to 2200 BC.

It also mentions a rebuilding of Jericho in the time of Achab, real times on diverse daters:

"William F. Albright dated his reign to 869–850 BC, while E. R. Thiele offered the dates 874–853 BC.[3] Most recently, Michael D. Coogan has dated Ahab's reign to 871–852 BC."

The Wickipeejuh : Ahab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab

I'll add Syncellus: 930 / 926 BC Achab of Israel (start of reign, thus up to 908 or 904 BC).

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html

Now, this rebuilding, if it is in the 800's period would be close to carbon dated in the 800's period.

Was there an intermediate rebuilding by Eglon and destruction after that? Or was Eglon simply camping in a waste where Jericho had been? You see the problem?

In terms of carbon dates, we are dealing with more carbon years than real years (as I suppose you already figured out), and this means we have options on what carbon year to identify a real year with.

For the real year 1470 BC, death of Moses, taking of Jericho, we have an option of carbon years c. 2200 BC or carbon years 1630-1570 BC.

What I am asking you for is motivating the option of 1470 BC = "2200 BC" rather than "1570 BC". Or, in other words, why you take it as "Early Bronze Age III" level rather than as City IV.

By the way, if you DO give a good motivation against City IV (say, city IV could refer to a destruction after Eglon? I am rusty on history of Judges), and for 2200 BC, it would not be unwelcome. It would simplify the task I have been setting myself for quite some time now:

Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html

Oh, by the way, when looking up the link I gave, it seems Jericho was reoccupied, which would mean the 1570 carbon date could be 1185 BC ... the hitch is, there was some gap between invasion by Joshua and the rebuilding by Eglon, but this seems not reflected in any gap in the material.

That could of course be explained by carbon 14 temporarily going down instead of up. If carbon going up can exaggerate a time span, a wiggle with carbon going down can of course obfuscate its existence./HGL

With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

On quora mail. "Last Tuesday" is so on Friday 9.III.2018, meaning it was 6.III.2018.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

If you like to add more to the debate, there will of course be updates on this:

... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/on-whether-geocentrism-is-obliging.html

Anthony Zarrella

15h ago

Richard Muller's answer to What evidence can prove the Earth actually orbits the sun? It seems very unrealistic.

Thoughts? I suppose this is a much more complex version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s “saves the appearances” solution, but it does seem to be a solution that allows both of us to be more or less right.

See, my insistence on heliocentrism is because, due to the way gravity works, the Sun pulls the Earth towards it with more relative force than vice versa (I’m speaking very imprecisely from a physics perspective—technically the forces are exactly equal, but an equal force affects a lesser mass far more than it does a greater mass). So, if we use a coordinate system and frame of reference that allows for an elegant formulation of gravitational effects, then it leaves us with the Earth orbiting the Sun.

But as Prof. Muller notes, it is possible to construct a consistent model in which the Earth is wholly immobile… it simply requires a lot of convolutions in the models and equations that aren’t necessary if we allow a moving Earth.

The one thing I’m waiting to hear back from him on is whether the equatorial bulge can be explained without positing a spinning Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7h ago

You can hear it from me : if the ether spins around earth, equatorial bulge could result from that or be preproduced by God to fit that.

As to gravitation, it is a somewhat ambiguous topic.

I thought that Earth orbitting Sun for 4 . 5 billion orbits would be ridiculous, since I looked at the experiments of another orbitting, that one due to static electricity, I was then beaten in a debate on the two body problem Earth and Sun, but for one thing, it was only for 4 . 5 billion orbits, not for an eternity of them and also, it was only for a two body problem - it seems a several body problem has no fixed solution, Chinese just showed that.

A l s o … as Christians we believe in God and in Angels.

St Thomas believed the daily movement to be one of the whole heavens, under the Empyree, and it is produced by God. He and Riccioli agree more or less the yearly movement of the Sun around the Zodiac is produced by whatever angel is moving it (for St Thomas : the angel moves the Sun in relation to its sphere which is moved by God via some other spheres, “slowly,” eastward, for Riccioli, the angel moves the Sun through the void, westward, much faster, just a bit slower than each angel moves each star of the fix stars westward).

This means, we need not expect the outcome to depend only on gravitation, since we don’t expect a football match to be played by gravitation of ball and earth without any players either.

Anthony Zarrella

1h ago

As for ether, I’m trying to see if the system can be made to work without requiring a radical revision of known science (also, not really sure how ether would cause an equatorial bulge—the present explanation has to do with the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth, not anything pulling it externally).

The same goes for divine special intervention—yes, of course I believe that God could create an equatorial bulge directly, but…

• Why? Unless it’s His goal to make us think the Earth is spinning, why bother to make it an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere as most ancients and Medieval scholars thought?
• As I’ve said before, I believe that God gave us reason in a rationally explicable world. Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. (Again, not at all because He can’t but because it doesn’t fit with what I believe He would do.)

As to angels, of course I believe in them, and I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe. It would bother me not at all to posit that there’s an angel whose divine assignment is to hold atoms together (what we call the “weak nuclear force”), or to regulate the flow of electrons, or to pull masses towards one another (“gravity”). I could even posit that there’s an individual angel assigned to the orbit of each planet and star.

But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.

St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

“Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. “

Non sequitur.

Semi-Deism.

Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.

St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.

“I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe”

That was not the point.

In case you missed the football parallel, a ball is not moving across the plane for only reasons of gravitation and inertia between earth and ball. It is moved by freewilled agents.

My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.

“But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.”

The ball moving across the field as in a match is precisely NOT an empirically deducible physical law about effects of ball + earth + intertia + gravitation.

No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.

“St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.”

Dito for you.

That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.

So, what is your point?

Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?

Anthony Zarrella

1h ago

“Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.

St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.”

Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.

“My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.”

With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.

I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws. Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics? Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.

“No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.”

Sure, in some sense I agree.

But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement.

Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid.

If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will.

To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation.

“That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.

So, what is your point?

Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?”

A good point—though I’m not sure it gets you where you’re going.

Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise.

And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form, the quest to use our God-given reason and intellect to learn of the mind of God through His creation. The only “ideology” is that empirical and testable observation is the cornerstone of new knowledge (which seems to me eminently reasonably, given that general revelation has ceased).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30m ago

“Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.”

Harpist may be more appropriate.

Also, if God so constructed the universe, outermost part of turning aether is one part He “plucks by hand” and celestial movements are what angels “pluck by hand” and God by their obedience.

Note, when God moves most things through “secondary causes”, let’s not forget the most noble of those are freewilled creatures and the most noble in nature of those are angels.

“With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.”

Not at all, if you refer to that of stellar movements.

Angels don’t fumble.

“I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws.”

You are confusing “data” with “conclusions by scientists”.

They are simply NOT synonymous.

The laws which would govern a ball if only Earth’s mass and its own mass are relevant cease to be the main thing (for spectators at least) when players come into play.

You have no datum whatsoever proving a celestial body is moved by gravitation and inertia exclusively and not by any freewilled movers, that is ideology, not data.

“Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics?”

Celestian mechanics are not a known, they are an ideology.

“Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.”

You are forgetting two OT Solar Miracles Joshua and Hezechiah, the Son going dark without a Moon to eclipse it over Calvary and the Sun dancing over Fatima.

Four times equal never since when? You are repeating a ideologeme from an atheist who denies all four occurrences, no doubt, but doesn’t tell you so, he doesn’t like you to know all of his premisses.

"But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement."

Not at all.

First, I did not say all events not caused by natural laws are miracles.

Second, a set of natural laws are very fine for our earthly uses of manipilating our environment, both in accordance with "mandate" and because of Adam's curse, but since God, angels and the things they manipulate are not what we manipulate, theoretically, they could even be not even describable according to natural law. Obviously, even if they are on some level describable as such, this doesn't mean God and angels need to observe merely human limits in how they are manipulated.

"Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid."

In that sense, Tychonian orbits, God moving the aether and angels moving celestial bodies (stars, sun, moon, planets, comets) within it breaks exactly no natural law which we can rely on as being valid.

"If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will."

So? I have never said I "discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature". You are giving me a false dichotomy between such a discarding and bowing down to "then it is celestial mechanics that decides solely where celestial bodies are". Tertium datur, ego dedi and you are ignoring it.

"To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation."

Nor is it to me that God also consistently wills that freewilled agents can interfere with the course gravity would give a body if not interfered with.Have you played volleyball? The goal is to keep the ball off the ground while it is on your half of the course. This is directly contrary to the course given by Earth's gravitation to the ball.

AND you somehow see now problem with volleyball being played, but see a problem with angelic movers doing celestial movements not determined fully by celestial mechanics ... where exactly is your consistency?

"Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise."

I am sorry, but you are once again repeating an ideologeme having no relation to the facts.A body of its own could on his view have a tendency to rise (if light) or to fall (if heavy). This due only to its nature and environment. If this were all, celestial bodies would stay in their spheres, since that is where they are balanced with surrounding bodies ... if sun sank to orbit of moon it would rise as a balloon you dip into water, if it rose to stars it would sink as the balloon went down on the water. This does NOT explain either daily nor yearly movement and is NOT mediated by angels. The movements are over and above the natural tendency and mediated as to daily one by God and as to yearly one by an angel.This does very much NOT equate to the angel just executing the sun staying in its sphere.

How come with changed physical details suddenly this metaphysics of celestial movements is inacceptable to you?

Also ... "Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics" no way, José!

Aristotle did that more than thousand five hundred years earlier.

Also ... "of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise." No way again!

He said what he said, he did not mumble what supposed successors want him to have said but they said it more clearly.

"And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form,"

No. You have very consistently used a "method" which either is atheistic or anangelic or reduces the role of God and angels to merely executing what scientists with atheistic and anangelic methods have "predicted".

If that is NOT anti-Christian, I don't know what is!

It may be noted that due to a glitch on computer access (deliberately arranged on Nanterre University Library, where my popularity is moderate at best?) deprived me of seeing the last message had been sent, and so I kept sending it over and over again, and Zarrella may think I was overinsisting against him, when I was overinsisting against the computer./HGL