Henke 2022cy
Mr. Lundahl’s Proposed Experiment and What are His Qualifications?
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I state:
“Concerning my high standards for verifying the existence of a supernatural event or being, Lundahl (2022a) replies:
“Will you ‘lower it’ confronted with the fact that your ‘standard’ is not consistent with how we have historical knowledge?”
Of course not. Others might be willing to lower their standards for studying the past so that Mr. Lundahl can label likely fairy tales as “history”, but I won’t and neither should anyone else that studies past events. I will not lower my standards at all to comply with what he views as being “consistent” with historical knowledge, when he readily mixes angels, demons and other groundless claims with reality to explain both the past and present. Lundahl (2022a-g) is engaging in mythmaking and speculation, and not appropriate historical investigations. I am consistent in my very conservative interpretations of both human and geological history, and I see no evidence whatsoever to inject the supernatural into either of them.
Any literate individual can write and make up anything. This is exactly why Mormon apologists are so desperate to verify the Book of Mormon with archeology. They know very well that Joseph Smith Jr. or others could have made up the Book of Mormon. They recognize that they need external evidence to confirm that the Book of Mormon is history. Well, the same problem exists for Genesis and Exodus. It could have been made up by a “prophet” as I discuss in Section 5.0.”
Lundahl (2022m) makes the following comments on the bolded phrase from Henke (2022b):
“Let's be clear, the man is a geologist, we first started discussing over a piece of geology he had presented in a video, and when I asked for a experiment to test my idea, this topic petered out. As he had mentioned his takes on history in passing, and while this is not his topic, I decided to demonstrate, he bungles history as bad as or worse than I bungle geology, which admittedly isn't my subject.
He has, as geologist, no business whatsoever, to state that past supernatural events only become credible when the supernatural has been scientifically tested as a really just normal part of normal natural reality, not sufficiently extraordinary to even warrant the reasonable conclusion that God did it. The reason God on occasion did miracles was precisely to prove that He both had existence, attendance, powers enough to control our situation, and that He had chosen such and such a thing as revealing His will for us. It could not be done if miracles were just an ordinary, if unusual, and not too easy to access part of humdrum everyday reality.” [my emphasis]
I first met Mr. Lundahl in February 2022 in the comment section of a YouTube video by Gutsick Gibbon entitled: “Online Young Earth Creationists VS Their Guests” (better audio) at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FBqjwriVo&t=2371s Unless I missed something, all of the exchanges between the two of us in that comment section are shown in the Appendix at the end of this essay. This Appendix does not include comments that I made where Mr. Lundahl did not reply on the thread and I also omitted the comments that he made on threads where I did not reply. Because the posts in this comment section were downloaded on July 13, 2022, the time stamps of “5 months ago” refer to February 2022.
In the above reply from Lundahl (2022m), Mr. Lundahl mentions an experiment to test one of his ideas, but that the topic “petered out.” Mr. Lundahl proposed that Dr. Berthault conduct a flume experiment to determine if the Berthault rapid sedimentation process could replicate the varves of the Castile and Green River formations.
Dr. Berthault and I had a series of email exchanges about 20 years ago. Some of the results of our exchanges are summarized in the following webessays:
1. Dr. Henke: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_steno.htm
2. Reply from Dr. Berthault: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/guy_response_henke.htm
3. Response from Dr. Henke: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/questions_berthault_k_henke.htm
4. Additional comments from Dr. Henke: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/berthault_is_yec_henke.htm
Because I don’t know French, Dr. Berthault had a translator for our email exchange. I greatly appreciate this translator and the hard work that he did to help us.
Now, Mr. Lundahl and I discussed his proposed experiment to Dr. Berthault in the following section from the Appendix and at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FBqjwriVo&t=2371s :
38:40 "How can a Global Flood deposite pollen in only every other layer?" Knowing there are problems for Berthault in this case, Berthault would answer this one. The halite problem for Berthault in this I gave a tentative answer in halite layers (aka salt) getting pushed up or down from gypsum and calcite layers after the deposition happens.
Read more
1
REPLY
Hide 5 replies
I've debated Guy Berthault in writing about 20 years ago. He's a brillant lab sedimentologist, but he doesn't understand Steno's Laws or field geology. Besides a density issue, how would these flow movements create continuous and nearly flat layers over 113 km?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke The flume experiments of Berthault with hydrostatic sorting, not when water is calming down, but when it is hypersaturated, do create very thin layers, I saw the video. The layer being thin over 113 km - do you mean 113 square km? But either way, they would be thin because of the hydrostatic sorting, and big like that because the Flood produced very big flumes.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a straight distance of 113km. See my video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPErjyaJKw . Again, these are chemical precipitates. Berthault's sorting mechanism is a physical process and does not apply to the Castile and Green River formations. Berthault's sorting mechanism cannot explain all laminae.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I'll have to ask him to do an experiment.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sounds good. I don't know if he's retired or not. However, if Berthault uses water, as he usually does, the halite would dissolve.
2
REPLY
Notice from the above section that Mr. Lundahl had planned on contacting Dr. Berthault about his proposed experiment:
“I'll have to ask him [Dr. Berthault] to do an experiment.”
I don’t know if Mr. Lundahl ever contacted Dr. Berthault. Because this was his proposed experiment and because Mr. Lundahl knows French and I don’t, it was Mr. Lundahl’s responsibility to contact Dr. Berthault if he did not want his effort to “peter out.”
In response to the other inaccurate statements in the above paragraphs from Lundahl (2022m), let me be very clear. Most, but certainly not all, of geology is an historical science. Geologists commonly use the scientific method to investigate the remaining evidence of past events. Although the methodology and specific analytical procedures will vary on a case-by-case basis, the general principles of the scientific method will be the same whether a Roman ruin is being investigated or an Ordovician outcrop. These principles would include the use and testing of multiple working hypotheses, the careful excavation and collection of samples, the proper use of statistical methods, spikes and duplicates as part of quality control and quality assurance procedures, etc. I have been thoroughly trained in the scientific method and on using its applications in investigating past events, and I’ve used it in my Ph.D. research in geology, my post-doc in chemistry and my professional career. As further discussed in Henke (2022aq), I’ve had over 3,000+ university students in my classes over the years and I’ve trained them in the scientific method and how to investigate the remaining evidence of past events. I fully admit that I’m not an expert on ancient history, archeology, and anthropology. However, as a scientist, it is my business to confront individuals, like Mr. Lundahl, whenever I see them using flawed investigation techniques, committing logical fallacies, deriving bad conclusions from bad data, and proclaiming dogmatic Bible stories as fact when there’s not a shred of evidence to indicate that the stories ever happened.
So, I must ask what qualifications does Mr. Lundahl have to discuss history or other historical disciplines? What formal university training has Mr. Lundahl had? What degrees in history or another history-related discipline does he have? How many books and peer-reviewed articles has he written? How many journals has Mr. Lundahl served on as a peer-reviewer? How many university courses has he taught and how many university students has he mentored on history-related disciplines?
As I stated before in Henke (2022a), Henke (2022b), Henke (2022au) and Henke (2022cv), history cannot demonstrate the existence of miracles because we can never rule out the strong possibility that the “miracles” were the result of lies or misinterpretations. If miracles occur, they must be demonstrated under strictly controlled and present conditions. Mr. Lundahl can’t accept this reality because it gives him no way to defend the Bible stories that he so desperately wants to believe. Even if miracles are eventually demonstrated to be real, we may never know who or what did them. There’s no reason for Mr. Lundahl to just assume that it would be a “reasonable conclusion” to claim that his God was responsible. Mr. Lundahl does not know how to investigate history any more than he does science or the scientific method.
Now, Lundahl (2022m) further states:
“The reason God on occasion did miracles was precisely to prove that He both had existence, attendance, powers enough to control our situation, and that He had chosen such and such a thing as revealing His will for us.” [my emphasis]
Besides once more misapplying the word “prove” (see Henke 2022ad), Lundahl (2022m) is making many other groundless assumptions in this sentence. How does Mr. Lundahl know that God exists? Where is Mr. Lundahl’s evidence for miracles and what experimental procedures were used to minimize the likelihood of lies and misinterpretations? If God exists, how does Mr. Lundahl know what God wants to do? How can Mr. Lundahl trust the Bible to be the word of God and to represent what God did and said? If God really wants to reveal himself, why doesn’t he do so to all eight billion or so of us all at once with one big and demonstratable miracle?
Appendix:
Mr. Lundahl vs. Dr. Henke at Gutsick Gibbon Video “Online Young Earth Creationists VS Their Guests” (better audio) at (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FBqjwriVo&t=2371s)
These posts were downloaded on July 13, 2022. Thus, the time indicator of “5 months ago” indicates that these posts are from February 2022.
31:46 As a linguist, I quibble on pronunciation, Heerema would be pronounced in Dutch approximately "HAY-ray-mah" - and not "huh-REE-muh" ...
REPLY
Hide reply
Ok. I apologized for not knowing Dutch in the original Castile Formation video. Also, it's varves and not wharves to quibble about what you wrote below.
REPLY
38:40 "How can a Global Flood deposite pollen in only every other layer?" Knowing there are problems for Berthault in this case, Berthault would answer this one. The halite problem for Berthault in this I gave a tentative answer in halite layers (aka salt) getting pushed up or down from gypsum and calcite layers after the deposition happens.
Read more
1
REPLY
Hide 5 replies
I've debated Guy Berthault in writing about 20 years ago. He's a brillant lab sedimentologist, but he doesn't understand Steno's Laws or field geology. Besides a density issue, how would these flow movements create continuous and nearly flat layers over 113 km?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke The flume experiments of Berthault with hydrostatic sorting, not when water is calming down, but when it is hypersaturated, do create very thin layers, I saw the video. The layer being thin over 113 km - do you mean 113 square km? But either way, they would be thin because of the hydrostatic sorting, and big like that because the Flood produced very big flumes.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl It's a straight distance of 113km. See my video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPErjyaJKw . Again, these are chemical precipitates. Berthault's sorting mechanism is a physical process and does not apply to the Castile and Green River formations. Berthault's sorting mechanism cannot explain all laminae.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I'll have to ask him to do an experiment.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sounds good. I don't know if he's retired or not. However, if Berthault uses water, as he usually does, the halite would dissolve.
2
REPLY
30:05 In flume experiments with hydrostatic sorting, several layers move and deposit at the same time. Salt also has a different formula, so a different weight, here also hydrostatic sorting applies - what happened to gypsum and calcite, btw?
REPLY
Hide 14 replies
No. See my comments on Berthaul's sorting mechanism below. Also, how would halite avoid dissolving if it was sorted by water?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "Below" means what time signature (I opened each comment with one) - halite, you have a point.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl In the replay below under your time stamp for 28:33
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Oh, I was already over that, and it didn't prove Milankovitch cycles, only mention them.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl View my entire video on the Green River Formation. I explain the cycles and how they are fatal to young-Earth creationism.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke That would be another video, another comment, another discussion. I believe you heavily overdo what natural science can examine and your conclusions are comparable to tea leaves' - but I save more detailed comments for when and if I see that video.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok. Then we can discuss the Kirkland model for the Castile Formation and why it beautifully explains the chemistry, physical properties and mineralogy of that formation while young-Earth creationism cannot. Also, geologists can explain the Milankovitch and other cycles in the Green River Formation, but again young-Earth creationism cannot.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I think I said I was taking that debate when I looked at your original videos, at my time discretion, btw, if you need that explicitly, if at all.
REPLY
As for this video, Gibbon showed a clip with a CMI article stating there were difficulties with the uniformitarian model here.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, Oard and other young-Earth creationists claim that the uniformitarian model (for example, Kirkland for Castile) have "difficulties" explaining the Castile and Green River formations. However, my presentations show that they are absolutely wrong. The uniformitarian models work well. The various young-Earth creationist Flood and post-Flood models are total failures.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I have your word for it, and that is another video. Not this one. Has Gibbon forwarded the links to my posts with my comments under two of her videos and another one, and my debate under that one and this one?
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, if you want details on the Green River and Castile formations, you'll have to check out my presentations and my references.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I haven't seen much from Berthault in about 20 years. We'll see if he responds. Again, he may be retired by now.
REPLY
31:39 The looks of what your expert takes to be seasonal fluctuation and of what hydrostatic sorting would produce is not distinguishable. But of course Heerema is not invoking hydrostatic sorting. Why is precession involved at all?
Read more
1
REPLY
Hide 4 replies
32:23 The proton pseudos of your expert's reasoning is the presumption that wharves like that normally are from cycles of seasons. If you had had any actual exposure to creation science on this question beyond that single paper, you'd have known we disagree, it's normally (perhaps impossible for these chemicals) from hydrostatic sorting. If the wharves are normally not from such seasonal cycles, then there is no mimicking of seasonal cycles involved anyway and two different types of rapid layering can give similar results.
Read more
REPLY
Look at the original videos. The answers are there. Again, Berthault's and other sorting mechanisms cannot explain the varves in the Castile and Green River formations. Milankovitch and other cycles are seen in these formations. How would Noah's Flood counterfeit them?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I will have to break down this a bit. "Look at the original videos. The answers are there." It seems Gibbon is reposting answers and arguments already given in other videos, so it is difficult to know what video I should chose to look at. I came to this one and re-answered heat problem here after answering it on Top 5 arguments against YEC video. When I repost an answer already given, it's in answer to a new challenge indirectly given. (Direct ones, I could always refer to older debates or essay posts). "Again, Berthault's and other sorting mechanisms cannot explain the varves in the Castile and Green River formations." Berthault pure and simple, given halite, agreed. Berthault and other - not agreed to when I have looked at the other or supplement. "Milankovitch and other cycles are seen in these formations. How would Noah's Flood counterfeit them?" Exactly in what way is Milankovitch seen in these formations? If you tell me that - or link to time signature on this video, which I haven't finished watching yet - I'll be back on that one.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Castile video is here: Grehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPErjyaJKw&t=4322s The Green River is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9T8wXyrou8 The entire presentations are relevant.
40:55 "pre- to post-Flood boundary" - isn't a specific period. OK, Younger Dryas and genuine Ice Age (any "of them") are post-Flood but a Flood layer can depending on fauna be described as Permian or Miocene. Or lots inbetween or around.
REPLY
Hide reply
Look at the 2006 Journal of Geology articles on the Green River Formation: Oard vs Whitmore. The formation is Eocene and not Miocene. Whitmore demolishes Oard's Flood model. Oard does a good job of destroying Whitmore's post-Flood model. Neither discuss the varve cycles. Only the actualistic (scientific) model makes sense. Trying to move around the ficticious "Flood/post-Flood" boundary in the geologic record doesn't work.
1
REPLY
32:43 The calcite being marine as per marine biota is an indication of Flood waters - and the marine biota are definitely triggering some hydrostatic layering.
REPLY
Hide 3 replies
No. Berthault's sorting mechanism doesn't apply to the limestones and other salts in the Castile and the limestones in the Green River Formation. They're chemical precipitated and not clastics.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Ah, two sorting mechanisms could combine? (Layman's guess again) My proposed solution for halite would be in a first moment present in the water around all of it, and then getting pressed out from he layers of gypsum and calcite into the space between them. Obviously this would imply a pattern like "salt - gypsum - salt - calcite - salt ..." - sth which you may already know the falsification for?
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl How would that work when calcite, anhydrite and gypsum are denser than halite?
REPLY
39:56 Let me give one. ON the palaeontological or fossil side - you will not find for instance Permian land vertebrates below Triassic ones. You can find Permian sea vertebrates or non-vertebrates below Triassic sea vertebrates, perhaps non-vertebrates too, but there was a critter walking on land and it was not walking 25 meters below another critter walking on land. CMI would object that critters need not be found where they were before getting hit by the flood. True but irrelevant. A critter found 500 km or probably even 1 km away from where it was walking will not be found in identifiable shape. It will be bone fragments of peanut size or sth. If the critter was preserved more or less like sth remotely like a full skeleton, it was buried in situ. I have not seen it falsified yet, and I wrote Karoo where Triassic is overlying Permian, geologically speaking.
Read more
1
REPLY
Hide 2 replies
Other prediction - you will find (if carbon dating) that critters from the Flood date to 40 000 (perhaps 35 000) BP, unless there is a source for radioactive contamination. Armitage found some dating younger than that, I have explained previously by post-Flood landslides, but some of them are from Morrisson which involves Uranium mines, and that contaminates organic samples with extra C14. It may speed up decay of the C14 already there, but it more than compensates bc adding C12 -> C14.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just stay on topic please or go post this in the comments section of a YouTube view that discusses C-14 dating. Any other attempts to salvage Flood geology don't work when there's no evidence of a Genesis 3 Talking snake and Green River and Castile formations by themselves destroy Flood geology.
REPLY
29:58 As I mentioned hydrostatic sorting, what we need is thin layers, not each being uniform over 113 - is it square? - km. You cannot check that uniformity or continuity of each layer from the outside, but flume experiments show hydrostatic sorting results in fine and near uniform layers - the middle of the stream has them higher up, the sides lower. Now, Calcite and Gypsum have different molecules, therefore different densities, therefore hydrostatic sorting would apply.
REPLY
Hide 2 replies
Note, I am definitely outside my expertise here, but so are you, Gibbon!
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Another geologist and I reviewed this video. What she says is correct. Individual mm layers in the Castile Formation have been traced over at least 113 km. I show a diagram in my original video. Even Reed and Oard in a 2012 article, p. 104) admit that the laminae extend over 114 km. See Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2012. Three Early Arguments for Deep Time—Part 3: The ‘Geognostic Pile’: Journal of Creation v. 26, no. 2, pp. 100–109
REPLY
34:27 Lyell is not the very basics of the field. There are simple items for your side, like El Sidrón getting dates "The original calibrated AMS dates on three human specimens ranged between 42,000 and 44,000 years ago," (El Sidrón, 50,000 Year Old Neanderthal Site / Evidence for Neanderthal Cannibalism in Spain /ThoughtCo). And I provide a simple answer, the carbon date for the Flood in 2957 BC depends on 1.4 pmC as normal atmospheric level back then. The extra millennia are then due to carbon 14 levels some time before the Flood still rising up to 1.4 pmC. And then there are difficult things, like Green River and Castile Formations, where just Berthault won't explain everything about the wharves, as Kevin R. Henke just mentioned. The point given is, this exact case is also a difficult one for your side too. Hence it doesn't overthrow the general principle that YEC alternative explanations can be found.
Read more
REPLY
Hide 37 replies
Why are you introducing a new topic (C-14 dating) when the Green River and Castile formations by themselves destroy Flood Geology? That's the whole point of my two lectures, along with criticiziing Genesis 1-11. There's no evidence of a Talking Snake or a Genesis Flood. Just reject them as myths and embrace the reality of an ancient Earth.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke No, Green River and Castile do not by themselves destroy all Flood geology, because they are problematic to your side, as to ours. You seem to have a problem about logic. "problematic to us - doesn't destroy our side" "problematic to the other side - single handedly destroys it" My whole point is bringing back logic. "problematic to both sides - doesn't destroy one more than the other" (Green River and Castile) "easy for both sides - doesn't support either side more than the other" (carbon dating in a first approximation - I think it does support Genesis 1 to 11 or more properly 4 to 11 better when you take into account what it does to the timelines of culture) I have not seen your two lectures, this is the second video by Gibbon I attend to, and obviously you are introducing a new topic as well. However, as per attacking Genesis 1 to 11, that is totally outside your field as a geologist. Genesis is history. History is not proven by geology, and geology is not sufficiently univocal to even test history. The very intro of Gibbon was about specialists not speaking about things outside their specialities. I don't agree with the sentiment, but obviously, neither do you. Since assessing truth value of Genesis 1 to 11 is a matter of history. And in this field, "oral legends prove nothing" is so passé, so XIX C. We are getting back to believing in King Arthur and the Trojan War. Even if Genesis 2 and 3 were transmitted purely orally to the time of last verses of Genesis 11, that's more credible than someone poopooing legend because "legend isn't history" when in fact very much it is.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The Kirkland model easily explains how 209,000 varves formed over 209,000 years in the Castile Formation. The Green River Formation are easily explained as 50 million year old lake deposits. Despite the best efforts of young-Earth creationists, Flood Geology cannot explain the Green River and Castile formations as I explain in my videos, if you would take the time to watch them before commenting. I've been studying Genesis and young-Earth creationism for 40+ years. Yes, I know about Genesis 1-11 and that it is myth - made up stories. How long have you been studying geology?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke You just pretended a "myth" means a "made up story". Insofar as certain myths like Ouranos and Gaia would leave the alternative made up or revealed, you can class no more than Genesis 1 prior to Adam's creation as this. I have studied YEC geology specifically and some standard geology in nature books - that is amply how much you have dealt with even pagan "divine myths" and "legends" - since, when you make the distinction, Genesis 2 - 11 is obviously "legends" (and some verses of 1 as well) and legends are usually historic. Not made up. Dealing 40 + years with Genesis 1 to 11, treating them as "myth" gives a piteous lack of context if you don't know what "myth" means.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not calling Genesis 1-11 legends. Legends are essentially made up or questionable stories about historical individuals and events, like George Washington and the cherry tree. I'm calling Genesis 1-11 myths because unless you can produce a talking snake or magic fruit trees, I don't see any more historical evidence for Genesis 1-11 than Jack and the Beanstalk and the Three Little Pigs.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Oh, you use the naturalist or anti-miraculous bias to asses something as myth. Too bad for you. It is fashionable among atheists who are into natural or social sciences, but that is totally off when it comes to distinguishing myth from legend or made up from historic. Yes, there are a lot of historians who use that criterium too, but that leads to dichotomies within sources, for instance biographies of St. Francis, where lots is accepted without question, and yet miracles are put down to "legendary accretions" .... In other words, you approach this as an atheist fanatic, and not as a scholar in myths, legends or history.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Plus, you misdefine legend.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Show me a Talkiing Snake or magic fruit tree and I'll believe you. Otherwise, to believe in these Genesis myths is no more rational than believing in Jack and Beanstalk, Paul Bunyon or purple unicorns.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. There is no rational reason to think that Genesis 1-11 have any history in them at all. They're myths and not history or even legend.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke There is no rational reason to believe you can tell the difference between these accurately. I'm in the field.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Your examples involve stories known to be invented for the fun of it, and they would be that even if totally naturalistic, as is apparent from Sherlock Holmes. They also involve a specuilation on the skin colour / scales colour of probably Triceratops Horridus or some relative (Albertasaurus only has a round crest, no horns, around the face, and its sole horn is on the nose).
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Fossils are from real animals that once lived. Show me a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees and I'll believe you. Otherwise, you just might as well believe in purple unicorns.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke How do you prove the battle of Waterloo ended in the defeat of Napoleon from fossils of animals? I neither believe nor disbelieve in purple unicorns, since I don't know what skin colour Triceratops horridus had - or scale colour. I must confess to a mixup about "Albertasaurus" since I meant a name like "Albertaceratops" and I actually meant more like Centrosaurus or (outside Alberta) Monoclonius. But I believe in unicorns as firmly as in Ceratopsians - I believe they are the same thing. Now, you have tried to assess historicity of Genesis 2 - 11 from your a) professional geology perspective, and b) even more the perspective of the atheist community. Here are some quiz questions for you, and it's not whether you believe me, it's so our readers (yes, I am copying the debate to my blog, hope Gibbon got the mail and told you) as far as I can make it happen don't believe you: a) did the Trojan War take place? b) does the Odyssey show detailed geographic knowledge of Ithaca? c) Aeneas, Romulus, Hannibal - for each say if they are "myth", "legend" or "history" ... d) and when you have done that tell me if your assessment agrees or disagrees with the ancients (not just true believers in Homeric gods, but also those involved in philosophy or Christianity?
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually, have you heard of Waterloo dentures? Technically, they're too recent to be fossils, but you should get my point. The Battle of Waterloo is supported by contemporary newspaper accounts, letters , records, etc.. Where's your contemporary historical evidence for the Takling Snake? The important point is that dinosaurs lived. There's no more evidence for a Talking Snake than a purple unicorn. Then, to be consistent, you should also be neutral about the reality of Genesis 3. Now the answers to your questions: a) Archeologists have found Troy. There could have been a Trojan War; however, that does not mean that the Cyclops and Sirens existed. Where is the evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? The Talking Snake is no more real than the Cyclops or the sirens. Sirens and a Talking Snake are magical myths. b) Possibly. Genesis 2:10-14 also contains some valid geographic details about the Middle East, but Spiderman comics also give geographic details about New York. None of this is evidence for a Talking Snake and Spiderman. c) Aeneas - probably a myth, no evidence that Greco-Roman gods exist and had children anymore than supernatural beings mated with women in Genesis 6. Romulus - probably legend, - again, there's no reason to believe that Roman gods exist and have children. Hannibal - historical with some legends. d) Archeological and other evidence are what are important. I don't care about the opinions of ancient people. Now, I would ask that you answer my questions, some of which you have been avoiding: Where is your archeological or any scientific evidence that a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees ever existed? What basis do you have to think that any story necessarily must have an historical component? Didn't people just sometimes make up stories? How can you call Genesis 1-11 historical, as you did elsewhere in this comment section, when you're uncomitted about the existence of purple unicorns? If anyone shows me a purple unicorn or a Talking Snake, I'll accept the claim in Genesis 3 or that purple unicorns exist. Otherwise, there's no reason to accept either as reality. If we have no evidence that Aeneas or Romulus were the sons of supernatural natural beings, where's the better evidence that we should we believe that women were mating with supernatural beings in Genesis 6? If you're posting this on your blog. It would be easier for us to continue this discussion by email. My email address is on my website. I previously gave you instructions on how to get there. You could try posting your email here, but YouTube would probably delete it. Best, Kevin
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke PS, tired and missed a point. Livy is our outstanding source for Hannibal, and he believed Aeneas and Romulus were historical. He starts book I with the Fall of Troy.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Battle of Waterloo and the manufacturing of the dentures from the teeth have support from contemporary documentation unlike the Talking Snake story. I don't need to see modern Japan or the dead in 1815 Waterloo to know that they are/were real. When comtemporary solidiers write about the horrors of war that they experienced and different newspapers in different languages report the same detailed results at Waterloo and they're backed up by archeology and other government records, that's reality and not a matter of opinion. Conservative Christians views of Genesis 3 are opinions because they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up their beliefs. People make up stories all the time and some of them in the Bible are falsely labelled as history when they have no evidence of being historical. Certatopian dinosaurs were real, no matter what color they were. They were dinosaurs and not unicorns. There's no evidence of magical Talking snakes. As I said before, I accept history IF it's contemporary and backed up by artifacts and archeology. Genesis 1-11 is Neither. There's no historical evidence in Genesis 1-11. Even fundamentalist Christians claim that Moses wrote Genesis supposedly thousands of years after Genesis 3. There's absolute no evidence whatsoever that Adam and Eve wrote or said anything little alone that they ever existed. We don't know who wrote Genesis, but there's no evidence for any of the outrageous claims in Genesis 3. Probability indicates that it's a made up story. As I said before, just because Troy existed and that the Trojan War and migrations may have occurred that's no justification for believing other claims in the Illiad or the Odyssey. Any claims must be supported by contemporary records or artifacts from the time recovered by trained archeologists. I don't care about St. Augustine's opinions on Aenas or Romulus. What do modern historians and archeologists say about Aenas and Romulus? What's the evidence for them? That's what is important and not blindly believing what ever the Bible or Church Fathers say. Yes, please have Erika give you my email address. I tried going to your website, but they wanted me to log in before I could send you a message. I didn't want to create another account. Emails will allow us to exchange links, which YouTube would erase.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Livy was not infallible. Only accept what he says, if it can be supported by some contemporary records or archeology from that time. If his claims cannot be verified, then skepticism is warranted. Best to you, Kevin
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke Can you prove Hannibal from archaeology? Let me give you a pro-tip : a bacterial variant i the Alps that could be related to elephant poop and some very few Roman and Punic weapons from Cannae don't prove him. In fact, you would be hard put to prove Julius Caesar existed as portrayed by history from archaeology. As I mentioned, this is my area of at least relative expertise, not yours, and you are heavily bungling it. History is known from history and not from archaeology. It is sometimes corrected (notably as to inessentials, like material appearance of artefacts) from archaeology, but it is known from stories from the past.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "The Battle of Waterloo and the manufacturing of the dentures from the teeth have support from contemporary documentation unlike the Talking Snake story." I accept documentation, I don't accept "unlike" clause. "I don't need to see modern Japan or the dead in 1815 Waterloo to know that they are/were real. When comtemporary solidiers" In order to know the soldiers writing were contemporary to Waterloo, you need to know that from ... history. Back in 1820, people were certainly able to tell who was a contemporary of Waterloo. How are you able to tell that 200 years later? "People make up stories all the time and some of them in the Bible are falsely labelled as history when they have no evidence of being historical." I haven't so far seen you argue as if you understood how we know history. Or what is the evidence of history. "Certatopian dinosaurs were real, no matter what color they were." Yes, so was the snake. "They were dinosaurs and not unicorns." Perhaps you mean "not unicorns as depicted in Medieval bestiaries" - you get badly drawn pictures of elephants in them too. As far as I am concerned, "dinosaurs" is a word classifying certain creatures from fossil dig fame (others are known as "pterosaur", "pelykosaur" and so on), while "unicorn" is a translation of a Hebrew word arguably used by the people who saw a couple of Ceratopsians on the Ark. "There's no evidence of magical Talking snakes. As I said before, I accept history IF it's contemporary and backed up by artifacts and archeology." History usually is not contemporary to us. Most ancient history has no contemporary documentation and no decisive backing from artefacts and archaeology. Livy did not dispose of written documents contemporary to Hannibal any more than to Aeneas, as far as we know. Acta Senatus, as a source for 1st C. Caesars, was not started in the time of the Punic Wars. For Hannibal and Scipio, Livy relied on things like the family tradition of the Scipios (yes, they were still an extant branch of the Cornelii in his time). Oral transmission before writing down = legend. Keep this in mind. "Even fundamentalist Christians claim that Moses wrote Genesis supposedly thousands of years after Genesis 3." Yes, and had Genesis 1 account of the six days as a revelation given to him by God on Sinai. When George Leo Haydock (Father or Reverend) edited his comment on Genesis 3, after quotes and own comments on v. 24 he added this as comment on all of the chapter: "Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned." "Probability indicates that it's a made up story." Probability indicates made up stories tend to get preserved with that status. So, no. "As I said before, just because Troy existed and that the Trojan War and migrations may have occurred that's no justification for believing other claims in the Illiad or the Odyssey." Oh, that's problematic. Very problematic. It's like saying "just because Rome and Carthage existed, we don't have to believe the stories of the Punic Wars". I made an exception for the part of the Odyssey which Ulysses as stranded guest on his way on is narrating to Nausicaa - probably Homer had them from an ancestry in Demodocus' lineage - since he knew no one could check that. This exception does not extend to the general outline of the war or Ulysses' return or the other nostoi, at least major ones, though some has been garbled or transferred from other wars (notably the Hittite contingent at Kadesh, I presume, hence the otherwise very odd involvement of Egypt and Ethiopia). "Any claims must be supported by contemporary records" This is the so called Weibull school in historic research. It works comparatively well for recent centuries. As a Latinist, I am very sure it breaks down (for reasons indicated) when we get to Antiquity. "or artifacts from the time recovered by trained archeologists." Artefacts are ambiguous and would be so to trained archaeologists as much as to untrained ones, unless we had history, which we have, as explained, from other sources. "I don't care about St. Augustine's opinions on Aenas or Romulus." Too bad. Why do you care about Livy's opinion on Hannibal? "What do modern historians and archeologists say about Aenas and Romulus?" There is a fad of denying historicity all through the past century. That of St. Augustine was closer to the times of these men, than that of Weibull. "What's the evidence for them?" Tradition - precisely as for Hannibal. One point in favour of sceptics, as against the Roman tradition, there seems to have been a previously extant tradition that Aeneas instead founded the city Aenea (in Macedon). He could have founded both. Dido is certainly some centuries after him, but Livy, unlike Virgil, has no encounter with her. A few decades ago, archaeologists were saying urban Rome's lowest layers carbon date from 550 BC, that is very shortly before the traditional date for the beginning of the Republic. However, a 1990's calibration of carbon dates by dendro reveals the "Hallstatt plateau" - all actual dates from 750 to 450 carbon date around 550 BC. Romulus is by tradition said to have founded Rome in 753 BC. The other day, I heard a podcast on Vikings on youtube. There were Vikings buried just SW of Finland, not in the modern state Finland, but in that of Estonia, they could be genetically traced to Uppland, and the era was Vendel era - the time when Adils started the Swedish colony of "Finland" - something previously dismissed as myth. "That's what is important and not blindly believing what ever the Bible or Church Fathers say." I am here not arguing from the Bible as God's word, or from Church Fathers as the norm of Catholic theology. I am arguing from the fact that believing Romulus to the ancients was as obvious as believing Waterloo is to you. And note well, ancients as in all of them, not just the true believers in Olympian or Capitoline pantheons. I picked St. Augustine precisely because he did not believe in these. "Yes, please have Erika give you my email address. I tried going to your website, but they wanted me to log in before I could send you a message. I didn't want to create another account. Emails will allow us to exchange links, which YouTube would erase." Thank you very much, I will.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth? As another example, for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies), statues, coins, mosaics, inscriptions and other contemporary artifacts mentioning and sometimes describing him. The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today. All of these artifacts confirm the histories about Carthage and Alexander the Great. There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3. Yet, people want to believe in a Talking snake. Why? How is it justified? If you have a relative expertise in history, explain why anyone would trust Genesis 3 more than the records and artifacts about Hannibal?
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries. Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3. I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation. How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time? Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims? Again, we have numerous dinosaur fossils from the Mesozoic, why do you believe in a Talking Snake without a shred of evidence? Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil? Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed and that he received any information of God? Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not? The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that? Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them. The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews. And until you can produce evidence of a Talking Snake, there's no justification to believe anything in Genesis 3. Produce that evidence and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Again, I'm willing to accept what Livy, Homer and other ancient writers say IF it's supported by contemporary evidence - such as coins, plaques, statues, written records that unambiguously name individuals and conform the historical claims. Otherwise, I'm skeptical. So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem. You have no evidence for believing in Genesis 3 and just admit it rather than going off on tangents of historical events that actually have reasonable evidence.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth?" There are coins for Noah's Ark - which you consider a myth. There are coins for Pallas Athena, which we agree is a false goddess. Are you suggesting we did not know Hannibal was a true character until archeologists very recently dug up these coins? And if both sides had elephants on the coins, is a conflict the only way to explain that? How would we know the coins referred to a conflict without the evidence from history, earliest narrative we access being Livy? "for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies)" I'd very much like to see those referenced! Akkadian was not being read between 1st C and 19th C. AD. And I bet that Akkadian cuneiform tablets featuring Alexander are even more recently dug up than that. To the best of my knowledge, the authors featuring the stories of Alexander are on either Greek or Babylonian sides as little recent as Hannibal was in Livy's time. Are you suggesting Alexander was not known until a recent dig-up of Edessan clay tablets? Or that he was as known by coins depicting him with two horns, like coins of Athena prove her historicity? Again, we would know nothing without a narrative that is in non-contemorary sources: "Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[18] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[18] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.[18]" WIKI, now, back to you: "statues, coins, mosaics," Coins don't prove people more than gods. The statue that is so well known is centuries younger. The Alexander mosaic is from 100 BC. In other words, you really don't know your stuff, you have no more an idea how to prove Alexander than how to prove Hannibal.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today." The bridge Caesar ordered built over Lake Geneva doesn't, and without the history we would know nothing of the purpose of that causeway, or if evident it was for a siege, not who did it. We can only assign it to Alexander because the dating coincides with the historic - that is later narrative - dates for Alexander. "There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3." We have later narrative for Genesis (based on the original one by Adam and Eve, not separately extant), as we have later narrative for Livy or for Rufus (based on the ones by Scipio Africanus and Alexander's generals, not separately extant). "Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries." How many of these, when were they exhibited to the public? Would people have known these back in 1950 when schoolbooks I read about Waterloo were written? I'd argue, the narrative we have is mainly second hand, though first hand accounts by generals involved are certainly preserved - and they are biassed sources. However, for antiquity, be it Hannibal or Alexander, the first hand accounts even of biassed sources are lost. And the dates on letters from 1815 only mean anything if you can by narrative confirm that AD dating was already in use 200 years ago. Again, the knowledge we have depends on narratives from the past - as with Adam and Eve. "Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3." The check-ups are only possible with reference to artefacts we know to be from the early 19th C. by narratives from the past. Most of these do not apply to most events known from the history of antiquity. So it is in the same boat, more or less, as Genesis 3. Not quite, but almost.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation." Same as with Livy, then. But the problem is, your interpretation of the confirmation is totally dependent on Livy. "How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time?" I thought that it was clear there was a single horn on the tip. I'd go against rhinos in favour of ceratopsians because Job says the ... oops, no, it wasn't Job that considered unicorns tameable by virgins, very much on the contrary. Well, rhinos would be an option too. However, ceratopsians would have been around at the time of the Flood, 1447 years before the Exodus. "Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims?" I've actually conducted a survey of the fossil evidence, and it doesn't support (outside marine biota) the "geological column". It is very well compatible with all fossils being from the Flood of Noah. In each place where we deal with land vertebrates, we deal with one level of fossils. And yes, I know Karoo or Karroo has both Permian and Triassic, and some Jurassic too, but they aren't tens or hundreds of meters higher and lower in the same holes, they are kilometers to the East or West or North or South of each other, compatible with these critters having had neighbouring habitats in the time of the Flood. I specifically asked palaeontologists in Karoo, and they said there were no exceptions - even if only because one hadn't bothered to look.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil?" I don't believe Holocene starts before 2957 BC, so I don't believe in Holoecene fossils, obviously. "Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed (1) and that he received any information of God (2)?" 1) In this case, he wrote the Pentateuch. And if you like to deny this on account of us lacking manuscripts from his time, that would cut out against our main source for Caesar too. Oldest manuscript of Corpus Caesareum is from after 900 AD. I told you, this question is my field, you are out of your depth here. 2) If he could divide the Red Sea, he arguably had divine assistance, which suggests divine vision for Genesis 1, and inspiration preventing error from what he left. "Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not?" They didn't part the Red Sea, they didn't raise dead, they didn't give blind their eye-sight .... and I know this from what Muslims and Mormons claim of them. "The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that?" The Haydock quotation proves Adam and Eve existed from the stories they handed down to their descendants. Like we normally prove Hannibal or Alexander existed. Remember your failures a bit higher up this turn? "Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them." Example? "The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews." Prove it for Greeks and Romans, before you assume a parallel for Hebrews ... once again, Greeks and Romans are way more my expertise than yours. Oh, someone "made up" Ouranos and Gaia? Possible, or also possible that Hesiod had a reveletion by nine muses - that were not sent by God, and that didn't help him raise any dead to life. You have not proven there is such a thing as the psychology of a man who makes up a story and tells it to his descendants in a way making them believe him. I'm not presuming it about Greeks and Romans any more than about Hebrews. "So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed." Narratives are words in the mouth (or pen), not artefacts in the hand. You are as empty handed about Hannibal and Alexander. "So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem." I am not diverting, I am showing a real parallel and insofar as either of us has a real problem, it is you, you have not studied ancient hisory or how it is known. I have.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh really? Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them? By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts. Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5) and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees. Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever. After you honestly answer my question, email me like you said you would and I can give you links for the references that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc. in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit.
Read more
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke "Oh really?" Whichever remark that one was for - arguably yes. I don't recall any tongue in cheek remark. "Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them?" I didn't say they were from the Ark. My point is, coins do not uniformly refer to only real people and real events, giving one example where we would disagree (the Ark) and one where we would agree (Pallas Athena). "By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts." Harry Potter took place starting the year Nicolas Flamel would have been 665 years old, supposing he had found the Philosopher's Stone. The coins of Harry Potter and Hermione from the mint of Paris are sufficiently contemporary to 1995 to warrant credibility on your view of evidence. On mine, we can of course consider that the oldest known public to Harry Potter considers it made up, but the oldest known public to Balkan War narratives consider them as news stories of real events. This kind of specification is what you can't get from an ancient coin. Even if contemporary. "Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5)" Didn't give any, strictly only gave relevant equations. "and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees." Not as events, Hannibal and Alexander were infinitely (nearly) less important, but as to the mode we have of knowing them. "Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever." Just have the courage to admit that I give a tit for that follow up to each of your arguments, while you prefer handwaving my actual words, resuming them very casually, not to say glibly, and step out of detailed argument. You gave a very clear challenge to my religion, I gave a very clear backchallenge, you haven't answered it. You have given no examples of one generation of Greeks inventing stories and the next one believing them as history. "After you honestly answer my question," I have honestly answered question after question, argument after argument. You are the one who bailed out of honesty, so far. "email me like you said you would" Haven't got her reply last time I checked my inbox, so can't yet. "and I can give you links for the references" You can give titles and authors. I can search. Oh, nothing that Researchgate offers only for members to read, unless the argument is simply in the pre-view. "that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc." You pretend that I was enquiring, when I was actually giving you answers .... drink a coffee, get new spectacles, or stop being a hypocrite, whichever best applies to your failure to answer squarely! Fatigue, bad eye-sight, dishonesty ... whatever! "in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit." There is not much detail to give as to the fact that Alexander the Great is known from no narrative that is directly preserved in the narrators own words earlier than Diodorus Siculus, 1st C. BC, lesser but comparable to Homer from Troy. Given the longer longevity in pre- and early post-Flood times, comparable to at least Adam to Abraham. And given the greater chapter length, after Genesis 11, the sources are arguably written, not just preserved orally.
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just stop your dishonest diversions, email me, finally admit that you have no historical evdience for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees and that you can't equate them to the historicity of Hannibal or Alexander the Great. We can then discuss the issues in proper detail in emails and with proper referencing and attached articles. As long as you don't edit out or edit in material without my knowledge, you can even post our discussions on your blog as far as I'm concerned. If you're really interested in knowning history and geology, EMAIL me.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I managed to send you my email address through messager to your Facebook account. Now, you have no more excuses for not emailing me as you said you would. Now finally answer my question by email: what is your historical evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? After you answer my question honesty and directly without further diversions about Hannibal, the Battle of Waterloo, dinosaurs, Alexander the Great etc. I want to see all of your references for your claims about them - list the authors and other vital information of peer-reviewed journals, any URLs of websites that you may use, etc. . I'll provide references and attachments by email to support my claims. Best, Kevin
Read more
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got an email from Erika (2:22 pm Eastern Time 12 Feb 2023) and she says that she has not heard from you. You told me two days ago that you were going to email her to get my email address. Why didn't you do what you say you're going to do?
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I did, but she may have forgot to look at the spam filtered mail.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke What you call diversions aren't such. They are very pertinent to the case. Peer reviewed journals aren't.
REPLY
@Kevin R. Henke I was nearly "editing out" one comment of yours by overlooking it. But I know history better than you. As a Latinist, partly Grecist, I can with confidence say I know it better than any Geologist.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Proverbs 16:18 to you. I got your email. My future responses to you will be by email only.
REPLY
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You're right. Erika found two of your emails in her spam folder. I'm sorry for doubting you. Kevin