With Jeremy Sherman PhD

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Where is Jeremy Sherman from? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

I

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/24/2024 at 11:08 PM

I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

It disappeared both times.

As our dialogue is on our blog, here is the post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/jeremy-sherman-rambles-without-due-look.html

II

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/24/2024 at 11:33 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

It didn’t disappear. I get to approve comments. I hear your fierce defense and dismissal of my suggestions. On contact. It seems like they must feel like poison to you. Such urgency to wipe them away.

I can assure you, you don’t have to worry about them. Carry on believing whatever feels true to you.

III

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 2:19 AM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Thanks for showing heavy psychologising, as well as a disposition for censorship.

On my blogs, I have rarely deleted comments other than spam for Indonesian casinos, and once I did so, it was to put the dialogue into a separate post rather than keep the comments section getting longer and longer.

"Fierce" / "dismissal" / "feel like poison" / "such urgency"

I think the real urgency to swipe things away is on your side, as your action shows, I take argument as argument and reply with argument.

I hope you will one day have to worry about this dialogue, for the sake of your professional reputation.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 6:02 AM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Hi Hans,

Well, obviously we're both engaged in psychologizing, so the interesting question for me is how to do it ethically. Here's my answer. I've written a fair amount about it. We're both entitled to our respective interpretations of each other's behavior. It's perfectly with me if you come to the conclusion that I'm a dim and benighted thinker who is too scared to deal with the truths you offer. I get that lots. Oh, and that because I didn't share your pearls of wisdom, it's proof that I'm scared of your wisdom and closed minded.

I hope you're fine with me guessing that you're kind of lonely and get off on pretending that you're straightening out the dimwits of the world who don't see things your way. Why do I guess that? You're opening gambit was not about respectful engagement in mutual curiosity. You seem to think that you can win hearts and minds by pulling rank on them. I don't know where you learned that. I'm guessing you had a teacher or parent who did that effectively with you when you were young.

It doesn't work with me. It doesn't work with most people. When I hear people do pull rank like that, I strongly suspect that they are m...ing in public for the enjoyment or perhaps because of a deficit in self-confidence. Me, I love m...ion in all it's forms. If you look at my other videos you'll see that I think that self-pleasuring to self-aggrandizement is a basic human need. But how we do it matters. I say self-love is important but get a room, don't let it go to your head, and don't turn the public forum into your m...ion nest by trolling or prothletising like you've solved reality and anyone who disagrees with you is a dim wit.

But again let me assure you. You are under no obligation to consider my opinion worthy of your attention. I've decided to show my respect to you, not by humoring you or by silence but by respecting your ability to hear another person's opinion for whatever it's worth.

I wish you well.

Jeremy

V

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 3:59 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

"It's perfectly with me if you come to the conclusion that I'm a dim and benighted thinker who is too scared to deal with the truths you offer."

I did not arrive there before you preferred psychologising over argument.

"I get that lots."

You seemed to get it way too early.

"because I didn't share your pearls of wisdom,"

I did not expect you to share them. I expected you to argue against them. If you had, psychologising would have been left alone on both sides, you started.

"You're opening gambit was not about respectful engagement in mutual curiosity."

There is in my book such a thing as respectfyl engagement in restrained animosity. That is what I had to offer.

"You seem to think that you can win hearts and minds by pulling rank on them."

Not the least. First of all, I am not sure what the expression "pulling rank" even means.

But second, because I expect a debate across such a chasm of disagreement to start with restrained animosity and just possibly sometimes, lead to winning a heart or a mind.

And third, when it doesn't, I hope to win some other mind, by exposing a bad argument in words they, even if you making that bad argument can't, they can relate to.

"I'm guessing you had a teacher or parent who did that effectively with you when you were young."

I had lots of teachers and other school encounters, who, deploring my mother's Fundamentalism actually tried it with me and failed.

Your resorting to psychologising reminds me of them.

Your next line will not be quoted.

I don't equate debating with that vice you mentioned. A certain word you used will be censored.

"by respecting your ability to hear another person's opinion for whatever it's worth."

I actually started out respecting yours. So far, you haven't earned it.

VI

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 4:08 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Another thing.

The disadvantage of being a debater, and meeting a shrink, as a debater, I think myself under obligation to defend anything attacked, while the shrink is more like a guy thinking he should attack everything defended - by an ad hominem.

I don't think it is very heavy handed psychologising on my part why you shirk away from debating.

I didn't ever say you were a dimwit, and you know way too well, your arguments are not up for my level of debate.

There is a reason why people like you are preferring to isolate Fundies over engaging with them. And "engaging" in a psychologising way is a tactic for isolating them.

HG

VII

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 4:41 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

Again, it's totally fine with me if you decide you're right about everything and I'm wrong. I'm very familiar with your arguments about why I'm out of line. I get comments and mail like yours almost daily. And you could be right. I don't rule that out.

I'm a fisher of men. I sermonize publically. But it's all catch and release. I'm out to find people who want to consider my ideas. But I don't care who in particular finds them interesting enough to think with me.

I get fan and hate mail lots.

I agree with you about shrinks. Solving other people's problems is easy, like you've been trying to solve mine, for the sake of my "professional reputation." A vocational hazard in my line of work is thinking that because you can solve other people's problems, you're an expert problem solver.

Anyway, brother Hans-Georg, I wish you well elsewhere. Humbled before your lord and lording it over anyone who disagrees with you. My ideas aren't interesting to you. That's A-OK with me. I could send you a list of people who, like you, have decided I'm wrong-headed and take my blocking as proof that they're open-minded and right about everything and that I'm a closed-minded fool who doesn't believe in free speech. It's a common troll move. I get that at least three times a week.

I wish you well elsewhere. There's room for both our kinds.

Cheers,

Jeremy

VIII

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/25/2024 at 4:08 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

• Your ideas are interesting to me as something to refute.
• If you are serious, and they are not just a fancy excuse for psychologising over anyone they happen to provoke (even if to polite debate), any refutation (and that was what I offered) should be interesting to you.

You see, there is actually one kind of thing I didn't comment on in the video, that is how you used the words "popularity contest" ...

I think whereever two people differ, third party is a kind of arbiter.

In some cases, two people will differ irreconcilably, and the arbiter will divide itself into factions. But I think the appeal to the third party, with recognised rules of logic is the most rigorous testing you can get for ideas (apart from God).

So, you misconstrue "you are wrong and this is why" for "I'm right about everything and you are wrong" or "I want to lord you" or God knows what.

You persist, and you even use compliment and apparent good manners.

"like you've been trying to solve mine, for the sake of my "professional reputation.""

Not the least. People like you are surrounding me with social and mental checkpoints and doing so to my writings as well.

I'm not trying to solve your problem. I'm hoping you're the one who gets the problem, this time, instead of me.

The kind of "fisher of men" you present yourself as, is what I am myself.

What you present ME as, is what my worst enemies would love people to see me.

What I have said is not, "let me help you with your problem" what I have said is "enough is enough, it's YOUR turn to get a problem now!"

You are persisting in dishonest and calculated and therefore utterly unethical psychologising. I hope it backfires soon./HGL

IX

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/25/2024 at 5:36 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not listening to you. I don't care what your opinion is of me. Like you, I keep my own counsel. I have many allies and friends whose counsel I heed. You're not among them. You're wasting your breath. I fuss elsewhere.

X

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/26/2024 at 6:35 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

There is one thing you could do decently, in that case.

1) If you like to allow debate between me and your other listeners under your video, keep my comments where they are. Either restore my answer to your answer or delete your answer.
2) If not, delete my comments and post a link to the debate on my Assorted retorts post and our meta-non-debate on Correspondence post. So those who want to see another take than yours can go there:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Jeremy Sherman Rambles Without a Due Look on Ultimates · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Jeremy Sherman PhD

What's so far happened under your video is not even half decent. It's not even half decent to an opponent to give viewers who watch the comments the impression this opponent first commented and then was satsified with your answer, as it looks when my comment is followed by yours, but not followed by my follow up. It's also not even half decent to pretend I should censor myself by deleting that comment to get this false impression away.

That's not on whether you listen, it's on whether you are decent or not to opponents. I usually am./HGL

XI

Jeremy Sherman PhD to me

4/26/2024 at 7:27 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

You really don't get it do you. You lost all moral standing with me. I don't hear you as the authority on decency that you proclaim yourself to be.

Here's how it seems to work for all of us: If we want someone's trust – if we want to be seen as credible by someone, we have to earn it. No one owes us trust and credibility. I didn't earn your trust or credibility. You didn't assume you owed it to me. I applaud your decision that I'm not worthy of your trust. That's fine with me.

What you don't seem to get is that your precious beliefs don't make you an exception to that rule. You have quite reliably earned no trust or credibility from me. None whatsoever. In part because of your absurdly pretentious double standard: You get to decide who's worthy of your attention; other's are simply supposed to take your word that you are worthy of their attention.

Why do you indulge in such laughable hypocrisy? My guess is self-infatuated desperation and the false assumption that your beliefs make you special.

Peddle your stuff elsewhere. I'm done talking with you.

XII

Me to Jeremy Sherman PhD

4/26/2024 at 11:31 PM

Re: I posted an answer to your comment under my comment twice

My only claim to have any authority on decency is being human, so you have basically dehumanised me.

"If we want someone's trust – if we want to be seen as credible by someone, we have to earn it."

Debating you was not about having your trust.
It was not about seeming credible to you.

It was about having argument as common ground between people who have little reason apart from that to trust each other's judgement.

In other words, you are cutting away at common ground.

"What you don't seem to get is that your precious beliefs don't make you an exception to that rule."

I never used them as that, liar!

Argument and debate are not "my precious beliefs" and also did not presuppose gaining your trust.

So, you basically debate with the liars you can trust to not dislodge your house of cards before the audience.

"You get to decide who's worthy of your attention"

Not the least. Never claimed it, liar!

a) YOU decided to leave your video open to comments.
b) YOU decided to answer one of mine.

but above all

c) YOU decided to censor my answer.

If you claim I have no claim on your attention, why offer me that attention?
If you offered me that attention, and on top of that offer me this attention, why use my "non-right to attention" as argument for censorship?

The hypocrite with double standards is you.

"other's are simply supposed to take your word that you are worthy of their attention."

Not the least.

Your blast of denigration, none of which answers any of my arguments, is a very clear indication that you think me worthier of attention than you admit.

I don't seek your, I don't seek your kind of it.

And you will now be blocked, we'll see if YOU can keep quiet.

And what this will look like to others.

Correspondences on Carbon Dating, Often Davidic and Exodus Times

I

Me to CMI

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Because, if organic material actually from the 10th C is dated as 9th C, that would mean, as I had originally predicted, when doing my recalibration, that carbon 14 levels continued to rise, after the fall of Troy PAST 100 pmC.

A 10th C organic object carbon dated as a 9th C such reads like ... an object dated 100 years too young. Which means 101.217 pmC in the original atmosphere surrounding it.

Which makes sense if the 100 pmC in 1180 BC (fall of Troy, historic and carbon date coincide) was from a rise after Fall of Jericho (real date 1470 BC, carbon date as per Kenyon 1550, 80 years too old, 99.037 pmC).

I am very intrigued to hear this ...

https://creation.com/en/podcasts/evidence-for-saul-david-and-solomon

And I'd be happy to have the details!

Hans Georg Lundahl,
wishing you about 24 hours in advance

Merry and Holy Christmas!

II

CMI to me

12/23/2023 at 9:30 PM

CMI Australia Brisbane office is closed for the Christmas holidays Re: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Thank you for contacting Creation Ministries International.

CMI Australia is closed for the Christmas holiday. Our office will re-open on Tuesday the 2 January 2024.

Warm regards,

Creation Ministries International (Australia)
ABN 31 010 120 304

PO Box 4545, Eight Mile Plains
QLD 4113 Australia
Ph: +61 (07) 3340 9888

visit us on the web at Creation.com CMI on Facebook CMI on Twitter
Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world

Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

--

Marivic Tang
Administration

Creation Ministries International (Australia)

P: +61 7 3340 9888

creation.com

Host a faith-building creation presentation—contact us today!

III

RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,

A staff member has replied to your ticket.

CMI is a faith funded ministry. Answers are provided freely. Please consider helping the vital mission of CMI in getting out more creation information. Please support CMI

Robert Carter

Staff - 2024-01-04 2:51 PM

Hans,

I am skeptical that any simple recalibration is possible. Consider the Halstatt Plateau (aka 1st millennium BC radiocarbon disaster). This period covers some of the most important periods of biblical history, yet carbon dating fails to properly date any of it. If we have rapidly rising ¹⁴C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period. Throw in an Ice Age, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns, vast amounts of old carbon being dumped into the biosphere via vulcanism and via the erosion of calcium-containing rocks, a collapsing magnetic field, and who knows what bombarding us from outer space, and I fully suspect that the oldest measurements will be far from precise.

Have you seen our article How carbon dating works? I go through many of these issues there and I include a sketch of a possible calibration curve for the early post-Flood era.

How carbon dating works
by Robert W. Carter
https://creation.com/how-carbon-dating-works

Sincerely,
Robert W Carter, PhD
Scientist, Speaker, Author

Creation Ministries International (US)
Phone: (770) 439-9130 x 204
Website: creation.com
The trusted source for truth about origins

From:

Questions & Answers

Sent:

Tuesday, January 2, 2024 12:19 PM

Subject:

(#MJV-004-31952) You have been assigned to a ticket from Hans-Georg Lundahl

IV

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

1/5/2024 at 8:09 PM

Re: RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates?

"If we have rapidly rising14C levels, we cannot even assume the atmosphere would be fully mixed during the transition period."

How long does mixing of new carbon take?

I'm assuming a transition period of 1772 years from 2958 BC (Noah's Flood, 1.625 pmC, carbon dated as 39 000 BP) and 1180 BC (fall of Troy, 100 pmC, we have a carbon date coinciding with the historic date by Eratosthenes).

The Hallstatt Plateau is when the level is already roughly speaking flat. It's carbon dates around 550 BC for anything between 750~760 (including the traditional date for the founding of Rome, and oldest city-scape was dated to 550 BC, presumably before the Hallstatt Plateau was discovered) and 450 BC. 200 years too young => 102.449 pmC sinking (mostly) to 100 years too old => 98.798 pmC.

When carbon 14 is being mixed into the atmosphere at a 10 to 11 times higher speed than today, as I take from Flood to both beginning and end of Babel, 350 and 401 years later (death of Noah, birth of Peleg, LXX without the II Cainan as per Julius Africanus reused by St. Jerome, whose chronology is available via Historia Scholastica and the martyrology reading for Dec 25), that means that that kind of wiggle is smoothed out compared to the rise in carbon 14 overall.

There is more room for wiggles near the end, like, I agree with David Down's Egyptology, and make Moses' birth in 1590 BC coincide with Sesostris III's death, I agree with Kenyon's carbon date as a raw one, and calibrate the raw date 1550 as an actual 1470, this would put the Exodus date in 1511 BC in principle between carbon dated 1671 and 1618 BC, but a wiggle would allow eruption of Thera to be God's tool for the ten plagues or some of them (the tenth is of course angelic beings taking action independently of that one, which could not target eldest sons), and to have the carbon date instead at c. 1609.

If you accepted that the carbon 14 mixing in the preflood world was very much slower than since, than even now, that would leave the last pre-Flood remains also near 39000 BP, or whenever you prefer to calibrate that, and this means that if you accepted Göbekli Tepe, you'd have carbon rising 25 times as fast (up to 101 after the Flood, assuming Peleg is neither a prophecy only later fulfilled nor a later assumed nickname), but of you don't, your carbon rise up to 1935 BC (Abraham is around 80 in Genesis 14, already some year after his vocation and also before the birth of Ishmael) dated as 3500 BC (as per reed mats evacuating Amorrhean treasures from Chalcolithic En-Geddi, Osgood gave me the clue, even if I disagree on his general dissing of C14), you'd still have the carbon 14 dates pass by the conventional dates of Göbekli Tepe (from charcoal, so radiocarbon), which makes it likelier than either Ziggurat of Eridu or Palaeolithic.

As mentioned, the wiggle known as Hallstatt Plateau is 3.75 pmC units, and, I happen to underline that the "ten times faster" (on my view) or "25 times faster" (on my schematic approach to Ussher), that concerns, not so much the production as production as the final mixing. 1180 BC we do have Eratosthenes date for Troy falling, we also do have a carbon date for the probably relevant level of Troy. This doesn't simply mean that enough carbon 14 exists for the atmosphere as a whole to have 100 pmC, it means mixing at ground level has already reached 100 pmC.

So, what kind of vulcanism would for instance get carbon 14 levels down from, say, 20 or 40 pmC, to c. 1 pmC, if on your view Neanderthals carbon dated to 40 000 BP are post-Babel?

And after such a fall in radiocarbon, what kind of radioactive shock would boost it up again?

I admit, I have been too schematic to calculate in that the Younger Dryas (on my view just before Noah died) would have been speeding up carbon 14 production.

Anyway, thanks, and my point was, if Finkelstein did, after such a drastic carbon rise as I posit, it could be that levels rose past 100 pmC even before the Hallstatt Plateau, which would explain Finkelstein's mistake.

Blessed Epiphany!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Creation vs. Evolution: New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

V

Me to CMI / Robert Carter

4/1/2024 at 3:58 PM

Re: RE: (#MJV-004-31952) Fwd: Did Finkelstein reassign 10th C to 9th C based on carbon dates? / more on carbon dates

For how long does Robert Carter / do you, Robert Carter, suppose that carbon dates are "far from precise"?

To the time when Kenyon dates Jericho?

Here is an answer to a video by Gary Bates, as long as it takes him to show he doesn't master the subject of carbon rise:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/gary-bates-egyptian-matches-bungle.html

Here is a model for early on divergence of dates that are contemporary:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ? · Creation vs. Evolution: Convergence of Uneven pmC?

The latter link is part of a series I updated today, all on Creation vs. Evolution:

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

Hans Georg Lundahl

(I'm not confident about wishing someone happy Easter if he has Calvinistic views on the Blessed Sacrament, as I suppose many of you have).

VI a

background, I saw:

Dating Methuselah's Death: Pre or Post Flood? with Henry B. Smith Jr.
Associates for Biblical Research | 8 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwPmoxrK04

VI b

HGL to Biblical Archaeology Comments

4/5/2024 at 5:57 PM

Lamech 753, 707 or 777?

753 is famously how many years BC Rome was founded.

But the two other numbers also have a Roman connexion. We can agree that Il Duce ruled that city not very long ago? I mean, his Marcia su Roma was not in the pre-Flood or even at all BC era?

That was some gematria in ASCII, simple and atbash.

More seriously, thank you very much for the Methuselah problem dealt with by Henry B. Smith Jr.!

Here is my first attempt at:

a) proving the carbon 14 rise after the Flood did not happen so quickly it would have destroyed all vertebrate life
b) doing some calibration of C14 in a Biblical chronology:

1) Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique, 2) Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications, 3) Multiples échecs de trouver une meilleure table que les précédentes, 4) Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir, 5) Encore un échec ... C14 ... et un double, probablement (mais je serais bref), 6) Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près, 7) Un essai, décision de demander l'aide à un professeur de maths, 8) Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte, 9) Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?, 10) Et les autres méthodes radioactives?

Here is my curent status of same question, with recent updates added:

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

AND here is why I prefer the Egyptian pharaonic matches of David Down from 2001 over the ones which are being promoted now:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/gary-bates-egyptian-matches-bungle.html

Notwithstanding the date of it, it is not an April Fools Prank.

Enjoy!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Damien Mackey Seems to Run Out of Arguments

You see, he gives vocational advice. But, before I serve you that, let's get through the arguments we had, shall we?

I

Me to Damien Mackey

2/2/2024 at 2:04 PM

Who's the astute commentator?

"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science."

Is "rightly" your own assessment?

Either way, I disagree.

Here is the answer to that one, from my essay today:

Damien Mackey is, if so, very far from à jour with current Creationist literature. We regard Genesis, not as true systematic science, but as true, chronological, sequence of events history. When I say "history" and not "historiography", some may object that it's not historic research conducted in the way that modern scholars conduct historic research. It's a very ancient historiography. Yes, but history the way that modern scholars conduct historic research is a very modern historiography. History primarily, throughout history, means what certain modern historians would call historiography.

I don't think modern historians are to be confused with scientists, and the ones doing so are not us Creationists, it's the ones pretending we confuse Genesis with science, when in fact we don't.

And here is the essay:
Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses?

I'm sorry, but the adverb "rightly" makes your status as fellow Catholic moot, and therefore I leave to God either way how you spend your own experience of the feast day. Btw, it's probably already late on Hobart, maybe even tomorrow, from where I write.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Damien Mackey to me

2/3/2024 at 9:02 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

I hope your leaders can understand that H-G, because I had difficulty.

Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world.

The Bible tells differently, the 4 rivers of Genesis, for instance, were still there after the Flood, still at the time of Sirach, still there today.

From the blood of Abel to Zechariah, a sweep of history from the Beginning to the time of Jesus.
Where is the connection, where the continuity, if the Garden of Eden wasn't the same site as Jerusalem?

III

Me to Damien Mackey

2/4/2024 at 2:19 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

"Creationists I know believe that the Flood had a tabula rasa effect - nothing whatsoever left of the old world."

That's a totally different issue. Habermehl is of that school.

It's an overreading into Genesis 6:7 (much as the Protestants overread a mistranslation of Matthew 6:7, against the Rosary).

You cannot make that a definition of Creationists, just because it happens to be a common position.

You also cannot go from that overreading into the definition you made in the paper.

I highly agree with you the location of certain things very much can be reseen in the post-Flood world.

That does not the least imply I cannot agree with them, that a) there was no significant time (less than a full week) before the creation of Adam and Eve; b) the timeline of the Bible in some of the text versions needs to be believed for what happened after Adam was created. People who don't know you would be prone to see your comment here:

"rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science"

as implying you deny the full factual historicity of Genesis. For the record, I think Adam was buried (with Eve) where he was created, and that spot is Calvary, which is therefore West of Eden.

Things certainly have been totally buried by the Flood, some of them, like Henoch in Nod would have been buried under the Himalayas. But some things were simply buried in the ground, also "off the face of the earth" for millennia, like the men laying around under lava that's dated to 100 ky or more. And some had already been buried in caves before, like the cannibals of Atapuerca or of the Neanderthal site in Belgium. El Sidrón, by contrast, is where Neanderthals ate mainly pine nuts and other veggies, which is why I don't think Neanderthals need to have been full blood Nephelim.

ANY reading of the text which states that ANY of the things actually happened as described is very likely to be, by "astute observers" stamped as a "modernist heresy, attempting to reduce Genesis to science" .... that's how I know the liturgically conservative modernists (a category where both Ratzinger and Kirill certainly fit).

Abel was probably also killed West of Eden.

If the Holy Sepulchre is East of Calvary, I think Calvary would have been West of Eden, Holy Sepulchre more likely just inside the borders of Eden. Because the Old and the Last Adam were gardeners ...

Did you read Does Genesis 1 through 11 have an author prior to Moses? or did you miss the point by pretending any defense of Creationism involves automatically subscribing to total annihiliation of the pre-Flood world, none of it recovered, none of it traceable as to place?

I don't think Creationism means that any more than Creationism meant believing in a pre-Flood water canopy.

And if it did, it would still not be more than a misreading, rather than what the "astute observer" claimed it to be, "reducing Genesis to science" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Damien Mackey to me

2/5/2024 at 7:39 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

Aren't you hedging your bets, H-G, with a global Flood that would have dumped miles of sediment upon the world - but a world that is still accessible to archaeology?

And I would rather take Our Lord's authoritative geographical connection between Jerusalem and Abel than your "probably" west of Eden.

V

Me to Damien Mackey

2/6/2024 at 10:26 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

1) Our Lord never said Abel was killed inside Eden. Genesis 3 actually implies the opposite.

He also doesn't explicitly state that the moral unity (of Himself with Abel, of Pharisees with Cain) is matched by geographic unity.

2) Miles of sediment depends on area. Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas. The Sima de los Huesos is accessible to archaeology, but it's still in Mountains, where the Flood dumped Sediments:

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

The archaeological significance of this part of the province of Burgos became increasingly apparent in the 20th century as the result of the construction of a metre-gauge railway (now disused) through the Atapuerca Mountains. Deep cuttings were made through the karst geology exposing rocks and sediments of features known as Gran Dolina, Galería Elefante and Sima de los Huesos.

See, without those deep cuttings, the Sima de los Huesos would still be covered by huge chunks of sediment. Pre-Flood archaeology also covers El Sidrón, Denisova Cave and some similar ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidr%C3%B3n_Cave

The total length of this huge complex is approximately 3,700 m (12,100 ft), which contains a central hall of 200 m (660 ft) length and the Neanderthal fossil site, called the Ossuary Gallery, which is 28 m (92 ft) long and 12 m (39 ft) wide.[2]

In 1994, human remains were found accidentally in the cave. They were initially suspected to be from the Spanish Civil War because Republican fighters used to hide there; however, later analysis shows that the remains actually belong to Neanderthals.[3]

So, if a cave is 12 thousand feet deep, how much sediment does the mountain above contain?

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

Located in Altai Krai, near the border with Altai Republic, both in Russia, the cave is near the village of Chorny Anui (Чёрный Ануй), and some 150 km (93 mi) south of Barnaul, the regional capital. The cave, which is approximately 28 m (92 ft) above the right bank of the Anuy River (a left tributary of the Ob), has formed in upper Silurian limestone and contains a floor area of about 270 m2 (2,900 sq ft). The cave is composed of three galleries. The central chamber, the Main Gallery, contains a floor of 9 m × 11 m (30 ft × 36 ft) with side galleries, the East Gallery and the South Gallery.[9][10] It has been described both as a karst cave[2] and as a sandstone cave.[10]

It would seem that here the Anuy River did the digging, or cutting, or some post-Flood stream did so, otherwise the Denisova cave would have been inaccessible.

Goreham cave on Gibraltar contains no Neanderthals, only Mousterian tools. It contains charcoals dated to after the Flood, but ... nearby you have caves where Neanderthals have actually been found and carbon dated to before my Flood date.

Show me one item of the things I call pre-Flood archaeology, anything containing a Neanderthal or a Denisovan, is as shallow beneath the surface of a plain as Göbekli Tepe is under the "potbelly hill" that gave the site its name. THEN you'll have a case.

Other wager that you might want to check: I have presumed the "very high mountain" on top of which Noah built the Ark was lifted up above the now flattened by the Flood Meseta. If this is true, no Neanderthals or Antecessors / Denisovans / Heidelbergians should be found there, since the present level is one that in pre-Flood times were covered by a no longer extant mountain. My other alternative for where he built the Ark would be in the vicinity of Denisova cave, another site where both Neanderthals and Denisovans were in pre-Flood times, since the eight on the Ark involved were mainly of the Cro-Magnon or Sapiens sapiens race, but included "half breeds" both Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry. That's why we find those genes today.

By the way, kudos to Wellington's men for defending the last homestead of Noah (if I'm right) against the Revolutionaries.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2024 at 4:17 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

Henoch in Nod East of Eden is probably buried under the Himalayas.

I hope that was meant to be funny, H-G.
I always appreciate a good joke.

If it was not a joke, then I think that you might be better occupied doing something you are good at.

VII

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2024 at 10:19 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

I am good at spotting people who prefer snobbery over actual argument.

You just made it to that list.

I am also good at spotting people who don't really believe the Bible.

You gave me a reminder you are on that list too.

I am extremely good at spotting people who want censorship in Academia (de facto, none with hard rules they might actually find applied to themselves, of course) and do that by pretending to give vocational advice.

I'm actually a magnet to those. If everyone who had done me that "favour" (in his own view) had done me the favour of finding me a reader, perhaps a publishing company even, I'm not saying I'd have the income to buy something in Beaconsfield, like Chesterton, but it's not all that far off.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Damien Mackey to me

2/7/2024 at 8:34 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

It's not a case of snobbery or not believing in the Bible, H-G.

Your comment about Cain's city would have to rank as one of the silliest I have ever read. Please don't buy a publishing company, at least for that.

Wishing you all the best for the future,
Damien.

IX

Me to Damien Mackey

2/7/2024 at 9:20 PM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

The etymology of "silly" is "sælig" ... I am obviously not intending to put all my carreere or success on hold until I happen to please you.

The silliest thing I have seen in this debate is a tendency on one of the parts to decide things by "it's silly" rather than by an argument.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what "miles of sediment" means. It's not like one single flood layer which is equally high everywere, it's like (according to the Flood geologists I have seen) six different layers, all over the world, deposited in unequal intensity and left in place in unequal depth for each as abrasion events would succeed each other.

What would a) get buried rather than swept away in smaller and smaller scraps, and b) get buried so shallow, or have the depth shallowed by abrasions, would be an extreme lottery.

As for a post-Flood rise of the Himalayas, my mathematical model is supported by the fact that all the time from Flood to Babel and some more, no human occupation is visible even in the lower hills.

Care for a look?

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

And, like for the widening of the Atlantic (more recently), the overall destructivity and violence is less than what many other Flood Geologists (who actually are Geologists), count it as.

Width of the Atlantic

Hans Georg Lundahl

X

Damien Mackey to me

2/8/2024 at 3:29 AM

Re: Who's the astute commentator?

All the best with your writing endeavors.

Challenge to Bishop (if such?) Robert Barron

Before the actual letter exchange:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html

Was sent to Word on Fire Institute, on the 8.I.2024.

Also, that day, a letter was sent to Dr. Holly Oardway, as associate of that institute, to to Dr. Stephan Borgehammar, friend of myself, but on the other side of the question, to David Palm and to Michael Lofton. If responses are made to my challenge, and if I am free to read them and answer them, you should have more than just these lines on the 5.II.2024.