Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Genetic Mutations In Humans that Caused By Inbreeding
Mega News | Ajoutée le / added 18 avr. / April 2017
I am not sure you got title right.
The mutations are not caused by inbreeding.
Getting the same mutation in two chromosomes, one from father and one from mother, well, not always caused by inbreeding, but it is a risk factor.
But inbreeding will not "cause a mutation" not previously caused by ... mutation. Which is not caused by inbreeding.
Get a condition which is autosomal recessive, it will show up more often through inbreeding (and that can have contributed to non-patholigical conditions diversifying ethnicities, after Babel).
BUT inbreeding will NOT involve causing a mutation which is autosomal recessive, either bad or harmless, it will only help it to surface more often or even give rise to populations where it is the norm. The latter probably not in cases of bad mutations.
Mentioning this due to prevalence of certain memes in creation versus evolution debate (inbreeding being the norm in some degree after Adam and Eve, after Flood - at least cousins - and after Babel in some populations).
Some would consider the skin colour of the "white race" is a kind of albinism. Though it is not the same as albinism.
[video claims examples to the contrary:]
4:25 The story behind Habsburg jaw is not of evolving a long under jaw from nothing, it comes from marriage:
It is alleged to have been derived through a female from the Mazovian branch of the princely Polish family of Piast. The deformation of lips is clearly visible on tomb sculptures of Mazovian Piasts in the St. John's Cathedral in Warsaw. However this may be, there exists evidence that the trait is longstanding. It is perhaps first observed in Vlad Dracula (1431–1476/77) and Maximilian I (1459–1519).
6:50 No, inbreeding can not per se (by natural genetics) have caused the mutation leading to elongated skulls.
It can come from nephelim, it can come from some divine judgement, it can be just a freak mutation which happened to become valued in certain places (Paracas and Egypt), like in Japan a crab with a human face design will be spared by fishermen, and in Egypt is was preserved by inbreeding. But it was not caused by it.
Now, there is a little quirk to this. Creationists have for quite some time been saying mutations are not caused by inbreeding, they just surface because of it. And now we have two videos from the same channel speaking of mutations as "caused by" inbreeding (one video) or incest (the other).
It seems like a media stunt to make creationism look bad./HGL
Two Takes on Susan, My Takes on Them · On Susan's Bow
Best medieval weapons for WOMEN
Shadiversity | Ajoutée le 22 déc. 2016
3:24 I think Susan was given a bow because it is not a melee weapon.
Suppose pulling a bow needs same strength or greater strength than swinging Peter's sword Rhindon.
Even so, Susan only pulls it once in order to get rid of two Telmarines (one preferring to flee, when other was down, hit on helmet), while Peter needs to swing his sword clearly more than once in fighting Miraz (and even then was on the loosing edge, if it hadn't been for Glozelle and Sopespian).
5:17 Noting that when a girl uses a weapon to threaten, not attack, Jill is using a dagger, held against the throat of a sleepy guard, not a bow held back more than 30 seconds.
I suppose C. S. Lewis, being an ancient* military, did know what one could expect a girl to achieve with either weapon type.
Would you say Tolkien (also ancient* military) gets anything wrong? Obviously, elves using bows is no problem, since Legolas is obviously stronger, though not looking like it, than Orlando Bloom. Same for dwarfs. And hobbits are mostly using, if anything, short swords (but one bow held in menace, Scouring of the Shire, was it a cross-bow?)
6:01 You just made the case for Susan's archery.
* old, former. I am pansing in terms of Francey ... "ancien militaire"!
What's the reason and rhyme for rhymes?
NativLang | Ajoutée le 18 juil. 2014
I on Mnemotechnics:
Speaking of memory : how well do the chapters 2 to 6 in Genesis rhyme or how mnemotechnic are they, in Hebrew?
I mean, chapter 1 is from Moses getting a revelation on Sinai (unless chapter 1 was given to Adam and Jubilees to Moses, as some claim), but 2 - 6 would have been preserved by pre-Flood patriarchs, 7 - 11 by patriarchs living post-Flood, before Abraham had a whole caravan of servants who might preserve some papyrus (he could have got the first of that in Egypt) or similar.
I reckoned, learning them by heart is at least not impossible (if you think it is, tell that to Milman Perry or to both, he / they might need a laugh).
But are they very mnemotechnic or just short and syntactically simple enough?
II on Rhyme Schemes:
2:15 "within 3 seconds"?
Hmmm ... is this expectation fulfilled when hearing poems with rhyme schemes involving patterns like ABBA?
This video is a speech. It involves some examples of Africans not succeeding and White Men succeeding, and while the general sentiment has some truth in it, the pastor bungles historic detail, and he also, which is worse, gets morals wrong.
Africans Have Never Built a Major Enduring City in 3,000 Years
ATLAHWorldwide | Ajoutée le / added 8 oct. 2012
1:57 "most people were of the mindset that the Earth was flat, and if you sailed too far" [you would fall off the edge, right?]
Excuse me, one little moment, where do you get that fact from?
We know St Thomas Aquinas did not think so. Where did he say ignorant people thought so anyway?
We know St Albert the Great didn't think so. Where did he say ignorant people thought so?
You may be thinking of certain writers a little further to the edge of Europe. On Iceland, people were, even as Christians, eagerly studying the epics and also myths of Pagan times, and one of them seems to indicate an Earth which is flat with a vault of Heaven that has the basic shape of a cheese bell (made of a giant's skull, held up in four corners by the dwarfs North, South, East and West, above that disc). But even on Iceland, perhaps you were not really believing these myths after Christianity, so it is a moot point whether Icelanders believed in a Flat Earth. What is not moot is that Iceland had a very different mentality from the rest of Europe.
[The following after he gets in St Petersburg along with Oxbridge:]
2:32 Peter the Great was however:
- quite a few centuries after 11th and 12th centuries
- two centuries after Portuguese had conquered lots of Africa
- since around 1700 he and Charles XII of Sweden were fighting the Great Nordic War.
- AND he was a kind of Antichrist, a man changing laws and (if he had dared, probably even) seasons.
Now, Charles XII was perhaps even more of an Antichrist, if he didn't ruin Sweden it was partly due to being off to war so much.
2:54 Was it England, wasn't it Holland he visited?
The problem is, he didn't only bring back ship building. He also brought back and forcefully foisted on Russian Church the 66 book canon. And forcing men to shave their beards (which Holland didn't, they were shaving voluntarily).
3:13 Black Sea and St Petersburg are two distinct things.
Black Sea would be the city Azov, which he started taking from the Turks.
St Petersburg is on terrain he conquered from us Swedes. It is in a deep bay, the corner furthest in, 42 islands in all, and it has two coasts going West from there, the North coast of the bay belongs to Finland, which Sweden kept despite him, but Russia conquered later, the South coast of the bay is on Estonia, which he conquered from Sweden.
3:35 Leningrad was not so named by Lenin:
"On January 26, 1924, five days after Lenin's death, Petrograd was renamed Leningrad."
Thank you, wikipedia!
3:48 No, it was not just after the death of Lenin that Leningrad was changed back to St Petersburg. It was decades later.
"Nach einer Volksabstimmung, in der sich am 12. Juni 1991 54 Prozent der Bevölkerung für die Rückkehr zum historischen Namen ausgesprochen hatten, nahm die Stadt am 6. September 1991 wieder den Namen Sankt Petersburg an. Die umgebende Verwaltungseinheit blieb aber ebenfalls nach einer Volksabstimmung weiterhin als Leningrader Gebiet (Oblast Leningrad) bestehen."
I mean 6 of Sept 1991 (my 23:rd birthday) is some decades after 1924, when Lenin died!
Danke, die Wikipädie!
4:17 He was Russia's Benjamin Franklin ... you got that one correct.
Enlightenment probably has as one of its roots admiration for Peter the Great - and Benjamin Franklin lived some decades after him. Peter the Great died 8 February [Old Style 28 January] 1725 and Benjamin Franklin was born January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705 - i e, English new year would have been on March 25 a few months later]. Their lives overlapped by 20 years only.
Thank you, wikipedians!
4:30 Sure, white men hadn't set foot in Black Africa when Oxford University was built, but they certainly had when Benjamin Franklin brought a black slave to France, some decades after Peter the Great had died, and made sure he spoke no French, because, in French colonies like Louisiana, you could have a slave (usually black), but in France itself, if a slave claimed his freedom, he legally got it.
So, you can't claim St Petersburg for the period when no white man had set foot in subsaharan Africa.
5:54 You said Columbus convinced men you would "not fall off"?
That is wrong. People were telling Columbus he could not go West to China, and they were in the immediate right, there is America in between.
And what a luck for him there was America in between, because he had miscalculated the circumference of Earth, his critics were much better on geography, and said, no, you have too few leagues, you will run out of food and fresh water before you reach China. Some also may have thought there was a belt on the West were winds were so stormy no ship could sail through, but this had been somewhat debunked since the days when Portuguese in the 1400's had proven you could go past the equator without burning to death from heat. But Columbus brought so little food and fresh water, if he hadn't come to America, to Hispaniola (now called Cuba, I think ... no, it may have been San Salvador or one of the others in that archipelago*)
* obviously : thank you, wikipedia! Here:
"Columbus called the island (in what is now The Bahamas) San Salvador; the natives called it Guanahani. Exactly which island in the Bahamas this corresponds to is unresolved."
Since you mentioned Columbus convincing everyone you did not fall off, do you get your view of history from Washington Irving? He wrote a historic novel about that, but he was not writing a history book with good documentation for the claim, nor is there any! Disney has had Goofy star as Columbus in a comic book taking up the theme. But Disney also is not a very excellent historian!
6:37 Did you say Cecil Rhodes was one of the first white men coming to South Africa, when there was war between Zulus and Afrikaners?
You are aware, I hope, Afrikaners are also called Cape Dutch! They came from Holland or Netherlands to Cape Town well before Cecil Rhodes, even before St Petersburg was built!
6:50 Cecil Rhodes became even wealthier in South Africa. You can say that again!
He was certainly doing the rich man's stuff, if you ever read about the rich man and Lazarus in the Bible.
6:59 Rhodesia, I mean Zimbabwe, is encircled by South Africa?
Here is wiki:
"Zimbabwe (/zɪmˈbɑːbweɪ/), officially the Republic of Zimbabwe, is a landlocked country located in southern Africa, between the Zambezi and Limpopo Rivers. It is bordered by South Africa to the south, Botswana to the west and southwest, Zambia to the northwest, and Mozambique to the east and northeast. Although it does not border Namibia, less than 200 metres of the Zambezi River separates it from that country. The capital and largest city is Harare. A country of roughly 16 million people, Zimbabwe has 16 official languages, with English, Shona, and Ndebele the most commonly used."
Thank you, wikipedians!
If you really want a small country encircled by South Africa, perhaps you mean ...
"Lesotho (/lɪˈsuːtuː/ (About this sound listen); li-SOO-too), officially the Kingdom of Lesotho (Sotho: 'Muso oa Lesotho), is an enclaved, landlocked country in southern Africa completely surrounded by South Africa. It is just over 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in size and has a population of around 2 million. Its capital and largest city is Maseru."
Thank you again, wikipedians. And Lesotho is not far from where Tolkien was born, in Bloemfontein! Fitting reference for Tolkien week!
7:41 You are right there was a king who foolishly signed a paper:
"Rhodes had already tried and failed to get a mining concession from Lobengula, king of the Ndebele of Matabeleland. In 1888 he tried again. He sent John Moffat, son of the missionary Robert Moffat, who was trusted by Lobengula, to persuade the latter to sign a treaty of friendship with Britain, and to look favourably on Rhodes' proposals. His associate Charles Rudd, together with Francis Thompson and Rochfort Maguire, assured Lobengula that no more than ten white men would mine in Matabeleland. This limitation was left out of the document, known as the Rudd Concession, which Lobengula signed. Furthermore, it stated that the mining companies could do anything necessary to their operations. When Lobengula discovered later the true effects of the concession, he tried to renounce it, but the British Government ignored him."
Matabeleland is not all of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, though, just the West somewhat to the South.
8:48 "The King or African people had no idea of their value."
Of their value among white people, because they had another culture, of course!
9:34 Don't be too sad over black Africans building no cities that last.
You know who built the first city, which may have lasted to the Deluge, or perhaps to some wars before it?
Cain, naming it after his son Henoch, built the first city in the history of mankind in Nod, East of Eden.
And Babel, the first post-Flood city, was built with, not under initiative, but under later leadership of a relative of yours. Nimrod also was a son of Kush. Now, Babel, probably Göbekli Tepe, did not last. But it is the second major city of sin mentioned in the Bible.
Don't be too sad about not being city builders. Perhaps some ancestors of yours were taking the fate of Nimrod as a bad omen.
10:04 They bombed it back to the stone age?
I don't think so. The stone age was partly a period between Flood and Babel, and partly an area (like Amazonas or Kalahari now, but back then including Europe) before the Flood.
I don't think people in Coventry learned to make flint knives just because they were bombed. Did Churchill at least warn them, so they could be evacuated rather than die?
Here is wiki:
"An estimated 568 people were killed in the raid (the exact figure was never precisely confirmed), with another 863 badly injured and 393 sustaining lesser injuries. Given the intensity of the raid, casualties were limited by the fact that a large number of Coventrians "trekked" out of the city at night to sleep in nearby towns or villages following the earlier air raids. Also, people who took to air raid shelters suffered very little death or injury. Out of 79 public air raid shelters holding 33,000 people, very few had been destroyed."
A good decision? No, if Churchill could have saved Coventry that november day in 1940, he should have. 568 people whose prime minister he was, whose king George VI was, were standing before God, some of them going to Hell, because they weren't Catholics, and telling Him, they died because Churchill betrayed them, so he could pretend not to have broken a code.
12:54 I am not sure who has sent you, I don't think it is God.
And if black men had not known how to do "nothing", how do you figure your ancestors survived before white men built cities in Africa?
This is not from my video comments, but added here:
Lilongwe in Malawi was in deed made into a town by the British. But it is after independence that Lilongwe grew. While Malawi has high infant mortality and low life expectancy it is also doing sth to improve the lives of its citizens. The boy who reinvented wind driven electric power generators (already in use in the West of US, but he hadn't heard of that) was fairly sponsored by Lilongwe after that. As to the life expectancy, it is for both sexes 58.3 years.
Taken at face value, this is like Medieval and later Royalty in Europe (not counting child mortality).
But since a high child mortality is involved in the short spans, this means that if you survive to 21 in Malawi, you can at least count on living to 64 or sth - the Medieval non-royal figure. Or perhaps, if infant mortality is even more important in low figure, even higher.
Hope they learn fidelity and get rid of AIDS, some time soon!/HGL
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
This one is rambling, it is also in response to a rambling video. I therefore number the diverse points, which may sometimes be very diverse. Here goes.
Reading Ken Ham's Ridiculous Tweets
CosmicSkeptic | Ajoutée le / added 8 oct. 2016
- I 1:30
- "Yours [your morals] are based on"
Let's enumerate and respond.
"in an ancient book"
You prefer them only coming in a recent one, and all our ancestors missing out on the absolute truths of morality?
"written by people who didn't know the Earth orbits the Sun."
Because it does?
And because, if it does, not knowing that makes you disqualified to talk about morality?
I mean, I can hear parents say "don't beat your sister, if she were bigger you would not like her beating you", but somehow they are not saying "don't beat your sister, the Earth orbits the Sun". Or are they, in the meantime?
- And even if Ken Ham likes secularism lite, your promotion of secularism tout court reminds me of some secularists in history.
Cicero. Julius Caesar. Augustus. Tiberius. Claudius ... can I hear someone say Nero?
Constantine and Theodosius between them ended secularism, because it had failed to promote the peace promised between diversities of belief.
New secularists: Attila the Hun. Theoderic the Great. Partly Visigoths in Spain, not persecuting Catholics for heresy, but for breach against secularism.
Even newer ones: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler ... Atatürk who was so very kind to the Greeks, wans't he?
A little earlier, in France, a series like Jules Ferry with Émile Combes, leading up to Clémenceau - all three of them inspiring Hitler, also a secularist.
A little further west again, Azaña and further west than that, Calles. Check out why Catholics rose against Calles and failed and got slaughtered (Cristeros) and why they rose against Azaña and succeeded (Franco).
And yes, North of Calles you get people who promote a kind of secularism at American Revolution, but some decades later Albert Pike is so fine with making Ku Klux Klan defend it against the Catholic threat.
Sounds like, secularism is not an excellent way of promoting peace between religions. It has failed so often.
- III 2:40
- If Christianity were erased, it would prove Christianity wrong.
- IV 2:53
- When God hardened the heart of the Pharao, He didn't make it cruel, it already was so by the Pharao's own choice.
What God did was to remove obstacles from Pharao remaining obstinate, withdraw graces He could have given.
See here my debate with fellow Creationist, but NOT fellow Catholic, Jonathan Sarfati:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition
Sorry, seem to have lost the part where I debated him on Pharao .... somewhere.
No, what I did was refer him to an earlier debate with Monty Collier, Calvinist :
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Contra Monty Collier - De libero arbitrio:
- V 3:40
- Yes, I agree, we have some common ground on disagreeing with "most reasonable Christians".
3:45 I can prove it even more to you.
Some "Catholics" will stand up and say the Fathers took Ark metaphorically.
Yes, but what they leave out is that they took it BOTH literally AND metaphorically. Literally about the then event (I just checked that Creswell Crag didn't contradict my carbon date limit of 40 000 BP as archaeological date for Flood), and metaphorically about the Catholic Church now.
This is from City of God, book XV:
Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.
Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?
But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and liker to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?
They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.
As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words "every creeping thing of the earth" only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said "male and female," no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, "They shall come unto you," Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, "They shall be male and female." For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has "male and female."
Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals,— whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities—the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.
Link for above:
The City of God (Book XV)
St Augustine, scroll down to chapter 27
- VI 3:56
- Accepting only the New Testament as truth is not an option for a Christian.
We know Albigensians were heretics because they rejected the Old Testament.
- VII 4:08
- You suppose the fossils are independently of where they are found datable to 100's of millions or years?
At least not by carbon dating!
Creation vs. Evolution : Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?
- VIII 4:50
- Billions of galaxies vs Flat Earth?
Frankly not the only alternatives, have you heard of Classical Geocentrism? Like Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe (I'd say Tycho beats Ptolemy in accuracy, but Ptolemy was a decent approximation) ... they believed - correctly - that the Earth is round.
"Each galaxy" having billions of inhabitable planets?
The exoplanets supposed to be in our own, so far detected, are I think 777. I don't think a single one of them is uncontroversially inhabitable.
So, that makes your initial estimate very moot.
Then, supposing there are extraterrestrials "on their own planets". That is not all that "believing in aliens" means, it means believing they have visited us.
According to YOUR astronomy, getting from alpha Centauri to here would take 4 years with light speed, 8 years with half light speed, 16 years with quarter of light speed, and with highest attained rocket speed (relative to sun in my reference*), it would take:
17 077 326
Yes, 17 million years.[**] AND alpha Centauri does not even involve a detected inhabitable planet.
So, how large are chances of aliens visiting us, if they are biological entities from exoplanets***? Slimmer than chances of God being that of the Bible, unless you are very prejudiced against that one, I'd say!
[** I suspect there is some kind of anomaly, and if the speed limit implied is correct, I wonder if Voyager 1 really is already 18 light hours away ...]
*** Demons arranging sham visits is another matter, I don't think all contactees or even most of them are hallucinating from mental disease.
- 5:09 It's not that there is some kind of conspiracy, we have to reject God, and reject sin and salvation.
Well, there is.
French Grand Orient involves rejecting God and some of its members are obviously in positions to influence both science faculties and education faculties without being very open to all concerned they are Grand Orient.
If you go to Grande Loge and a few others, more conservative, they may accept a concept like "God" or rather "Great Architect of the Universe", but reject orthodox belief in the Biblical one, and that precisely on the points of sin and salvation. They are also in high ranking positions and also not very open about it always.
And most freemasonries of English speaking world are a bit like Grande Loge.
Also, there is a fairly heavy collusion between Grand Orient and left wing in France, and if left outside Latin countries is less indebted to Grand Orient, recall where Karl Marx stood on the matter.
Yes, there is very much a conspiracy against Catholic beliefs, or, depending on how you define conspiracy, perhaps "culture" would be a better word.
It is not as unlikely as an alien from another galaxy visiting us to imagine people of Marxist or Grand Orient or both at a time convictions are coopting each other to higher and more important positions in research and education. It is in fact extremely likely, even, if you care to look around!
5:16 "Do you actively want not to believe in unicorns"
No, I actively believe in unicorns. Not sure if Biblical word so translated refers to a rhino or to a Triceratops (one horn being bigger than the others), but I believe in both and in men being along both.
BUT your citing that exact same phrase as I have heard so many others citing seems, depending on definitions, a culture or a conspiracy.
- X 5:33
- If I put this on a blog, I might take the still of your eyes into our faces.
Eyes are not explainable by evolution.
- X illustration
- X contd:
- 5:37 No, you are NOT including compelling evidence for God in either science or history classrooms, even if the evidence is of a type belonging there.
It's like saying I could gain the Nobel prize by proving either evolution wrong in general (as with mammalian evolution being impossible from common ancestor due to karyotypes) or by proving a common argument for it wrong (as with detailed verification of fossil finds and of carbon rate tables that neither geologic column, nor carbon dating, proves any longer time span than the Biblical one), if YOU were the Nobel committee.
I know Swedish scientists, I am from Sweden. I might stand a better chance with you than with the Nobel committee.
In fact, there is a political conspiracy over many countries to :
- state monopolise or quasi education of children and teens
- allow evolution but not creation in science class rooms
- teach science to all children and teens with that skewed preference.
I would be extremely naive if your "'we" - essentially those involved in this multinational conspiracy - would be credited with that much objectivity!
I am not all that naive.
- XI 5:56
- Funny, on the demographics you show, there is no separate entry "atheism", but the equivalent (more or less so) "no religion" ranks second. 26,349 people in March 2016, 30.8 %. True, much on juvenile delinquency, since at 15 + "no religion" is only 24.1 %, but there too it is the second.
And if Christians are 49 % overall, but 61 % above 15 years, it is perhaps because Christians are better raised (less likely to be juvenile delinquents) but are less well treated in job applications and a few things like that and therefore tend to be more "disappointed with life" - or involved with some network of ethnic type, less willing than Muslims to use boys under 15 for their dirty work.
Read more here, it is stats from UK : http://ppt.li/3vv
- XI illustration
Atheism in prison
- XII 7:59
- The point is probably this: if God is ultimately in charge, there may be a day (especially if He's said so) when disease and sufferings end (at least for those loyal to Him).
If no God is in charge, not only is evolution responsible for disease and suffering, but disease and suffering are responsible for evolution, for us, since they are what eliminate the less fit, you know "survival of the fittest".
This means, with evolution, there is no chance of disease ending until the whole planet blows up, if even then.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Creation vs. Evolution : Ubi Crux, et Corona (Genesis 1:28) · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Why Concerned if Non-Religious Rebel Against Genesis 1:28? (quora)
- Why are fundamentalist Christians and Catholics so concerned if people they don't even know use birth control?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
- Answered just now
- More like:
- we are concerned if acceptance of birth control becomes the rule
- because birth control is not acceptable.
Suppose you were talking of a man living in a house, either white collar employee or self employed. Suppose he expressed an endorsement of keeping stealing illegal, and that if someone was trying to, for instance, argue that a bank robber could keep the money, as long as no one was actually hurt during the bank robbery.
Would you ask why people in his situation are so concerned if people they don’t even know rob banks? Especially in cases where it is not their money?
One little item arguing it is in part our money (those of us Catholics and them Evangelicals who are against it who are paying taxes, which currently I am not) is, as just said, taxes. Birth control is sponsored, sponsoring is by tax money.
But this is peanuts compared to the ravages of “demographic pyramids” looking more like top hats.
Before certain social ensurances became the rule, working men knew their main way of having a decent old age was having children.
Now that social ensurances are here and sponsored birth control are here, some believe they don’t need children, their money will take care of their old age. Well, as the lives are longer, the old age rents are less likely to be totally paid for by the worker himself before retirement. But even more, they were perhaps laying money aside, but not the utilities they buy for it, and these utilities are produced by the persons of a generation some of them were not willing to grant existence very much, a generation smaller than it should have been. AND the actual payments of money come from money earned and paid in taxes by that generation.
Sweden no longer says the State will guarantee old age pensions. One has to sign up for private insurances to compensate. They won’t be able to guarantee it either, but when they go bankrupt it won’t be the state which does, and since there are diverse of them, one may go bankrupt while others are still on.
Germany has more old age voters than young voters and is chasing the young with harder taxes and more pressure to get a work.
France is doing away with retirement at 60 and 35 hours work week.
Young people are paying for having been born in generations which are defective in numbers relative to the older ones, due partly to abortions (teens and tweens in France are showing stats on a site translateable as “one in five”, referring to abortions only) and partly also, less gruesome, but “perhaps more numerous”, the children never even maid, avoided by condoms and pills (some of which “numbers” are also actually early abortions, since pills are not just preventing conception, but if taking one after some pause, preventing a conceived human embryo from nesting, therefore killing a person).
Meanwhile, medical doctors who are very antilife in relation to the young in this way are also very prolife in prolonging the ages of the old.
Suppose you want to avoid a total disaster (I guess you can fill in some blanks), the answer is:
- young people must start having babies again;
- older people must stop telling this or that teen “you are too young to marry” or “you are too young to have children”
- pills, condoms and abortions must be banned. And homosexuality lived out as a sex life also.
As on quora, this answer counts as "signed" by being posted by my profile, I here also sign it.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
This has not too much to do with accepting modern technology, btw. Anyway, here is the quoran question with my answer:
- What were two ideas that emerged after the medieval period?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Middle Ages fan + Latin student in Lund (where Medieval Latin rules).
- Answered just now
- Answering "What were two ideas that emerged after the medieval period?" - In other words, two ideas powerful today but absent from Middle Ages.
I guess you allow me to pick any two, as long as both fulfil the criterium.
- 1) Communities can "emerge" with no single identifiable founder, so naming of a founder "is no proof" he actually existed and disputing his existence need not mean implying existence of an alternative one;
- 2) Consciousness can "seem" as a different thing from what we call matter and the Medieval scholastics called bodies, without actually being so.
These two ideas strike me as very post-Medieval and also as very illogical.