Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Lies or Bad Guesses about Inerrantism being Protestant : on Catholic Forums

Series: 1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere 2) somewhere else : Bible and Church Questions 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy 4) item : St Augustine gives an inch and some take an ell 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : When St Augustine makes a fault, it is not all that faulty

Thread commented on:
Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
When did the idea that Scripture was inerrant first come about?
fisherman carl
When did the idea that Scripture was inerrant first come about?

Especially the NT like Paul’s letters, the gospels and so forth.
Wasn't it when Luther condemned the Catholic four senses of scripture and declared that instead we should only use the literal sense?

Does anyone else know the history of the idea? Patrick 457? Somebody?

God bless, Annem
Own comment here on blog:
No, Luther did condemn four senses, but not in the sense that four senses had not been inerrantist, only in the sense that senses other than the literal (that is three of the four) were no longer either inerrant nor even inspired according to him.

He was not condemned by Trent for "inventing inerrantism", but for attacking the four senses and other parts of patristic understanding.
Khalid (myself numbering his paragraphs and numbering my answers equally)
1) "Inerrancy", in the sense that the Bible was believed to be completely true in all of its parts (although not denying an allegorical sense, nor even denying that an allegorical sense could be the "literal" [primary] sense of some passages) was certainly believed by St Paul, but he spoke only of the Old Testament: "all Scripture is breathed by God" implies inerrancy, since God can not lie.

2) Now, as far as the NT goes, I think Augustine may have been the first to propose something like it, and inerrancy of either Testament is just as certainly rejected by Origen (who believed that there were material errors and absurdities in the Bible which would cause the observant and clever student of the Bible to look for the deeper meaning: Origen placed a near-exclusive emphasis on extreme allegorization, typical of the Alexandrian school).

3) The idea of inerrancy or infallibility in the Biblical text, such as is typified in its purest form by Fundamentalist Protestant Ruckmanites (who believe the English KJV is the only inspired Bible in the world, "more inspired" than the Greek and Hebrew) is very modern.

4) The typical "Chicago Statement" evangelical scholars' view (inerrancy according to the literal or historico-grammatical sense at all points) feels modern, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went back a lot further. It also may not go back much beyond the late 1800s.

5) As always, there is the doctrine proper, antecedent fragmentary doctrines, etc. which become modern formulations of doctrines through the development of doctrine (in response to heresy) as basically explained by Cardinal Newman. I wouldn't be surprised if the full formulation of the modern doctrine of inerrancy (acknowledging antecedents in both the Fathers, and, more strongly, in the Reformers such as Calvin) didn't arise (or, more accurately, is still arising) from the Church's assault by the heresy of evolutionism and historical-critical assaults upon the Bible. Old-age geology, evolutionism, and historical-criticism all came in to their own around the same time - the early 19th century - and soon after came the Church's (in the broadest sense) renewed thinking and emphasis on inerrancy. Even if the full elucidation of inerrancy is modern, or even if it has not been fully elucidated yet, does not mean the doctrine is not ancient and apostolic: the fullest expression of the Trinity was not given until at least four centuries after Christ's death, and likely not for eight centuries: but the doctrine is ancient and apostolic. Doctrines are fully defined only as circumstances (generally the challenge of a heresy focussing on said doctrine) demand.

6) The Protestants felt the hit of these attacks the quickest and the hardest due to "sola Scriptura", obviously (and thus the Protestants either liberalized to the point of Deism/apostasy or began elaborating the doctrine of inerrancy long before Catholics began to feel the shock, which was pretty much only after Divino Afflante Spiritu and mostly after Vatican II) but the Catholic religion is no less based in and completely dependent on the word of God written and the word of God incarnate.
My comment here on blog:
1) St Paul supported inerrancy of Old Testament but also of already extant parts of New Testament. "Keep to all of my tradition whether by epistle or by word of mouth." And his word of mouth traditions certainly included any already extant Gospel that he knew of, to recommend it as infallible word of God.

2) So, St Augustine cannot have been the first to propose inerrancy of all New Testament. Especially as that inerrancy is already implicit in the Council of Carthage enumerating the books of the Old and New Testament, a list which would have made no sense unless it had already been believed in the Church that all Divine Scripture of either Testament was inerrant word of God. Note that the list for the Old Testament includes the books that Protestants reject. The NT list of Council of Carthage was not the earliest one, that the Four Gospels (all of them, including St John which was presumably not written when St Paul came with the Gospel and which he can therefore not have personally recommended while on earth) all are inerrant Scripture is apparent already from Papias and St Irenaeus, way before St Augustine of Hippo. As for Origen rejecting inerrancy of Old Testament in the literal sense, that is no more significant than Luther rejecting inerrancy of Old Testament in the allegoric sense, since neither Origen nor Luther were Church Fathers. It is true that the Alexandrian school was exclusively for allegory, as it is true that Antiochean school was all for letter. And St Augustine, way closer to Rome when learning under St Ambrose, was not for either exclusivity, but for inerrancy of both senses.

3) Believing that the King James Version is inerrant is indeed modern, but believing that the Bible as such is so is not. Trent had defined that the Bible as such and thus each original manuscript was free from all error whatsoever. It took a lower case for Vulgate version, because it is a version, but nevertheless, wherever either Vulgate or LXX or both agree with original manuscript, they are inerrant. It was rejection of inerrantism, namely by Socinians, that was a modernity and rejected by Trent. Also by Jerusalem and Iasi, I think.

4) If Chicago statement was made for KJV, it was wrong, since that translation has even heretical errors in doctrine pertinent to salvation. But if it was made for the Bible in general it was perfectly at one with the Roman Catholic Tradition - with a leeway where Vulgate and LXX prefer, of course. And Trent was not convoked to condemn CHicago statement, and Vatican I, insofar as it condemned anything in it did not condemn its Biblical inerrantism.

5) Calvin was not a Biblical inerrantist, insofar as he considered that Book of Jonah could have been a pious novel without factual background. This I know from the scholarship of C S Lewis. Just as he dealt with Tobit which he rejected. He was however part inerrantist insofar as he declared that the Bible does not teach only what the Church wants it to teach, but all that it in fact teaches. Qualify "the Church" to "the Church at a particular time taken in its hierarchy" and it may be truth to it. Unless there are of course even now clearly inerrantist bishops. Or one of them is the real Pope.

6) The Catholic Church teaches that all of Scripture is inerrant. The Protestants that only Scripture - to exclusion of any particular magisterium and its traditions such as the Reformers presumed as human - is inerrant. Now, Tota Scriptura and Sola Scriptura are not the same concept.

And though the reflection on Sola Scriptura occasioned the reflection on Tota Scriptura in some such Protestants as reflected thereon, only part of Protestantism accepted this Tota Scriptura, whereas loads of Protestants are following Anglican Broad Church in rejecting Inerrancy as "another Papist superstition."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Augustine of Hippo Regia

Friday, August 23, 2013

... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

I video commented on:
GeneralHanSolo : Hugh Ross vs Danny Faulkner - How Old Is The Universe?
my comment (two comboxes):
3:45:35 - anything is model dependent, even if one does not even notice one is using a model, simpler model one has accounting for all the data, better chance one has of being right, but also "statistics tell us by how much we can be wrong" ... but that supposes the model was all right!

Now Geocentrism with angelic movers is a simpler model than totality of modern cosmology. It accounts for data, maybe all, as well and as *not specifically predicting* as a hand accounts for movement of a pen.

It leaves room for a very great error, way beyond statistic error margin assessments, as to stellar distances.

It leaves room for sufficient error to get "distant light problem" for young universe creationism out of the way.

Angelic either external movers or souls of stars are supported by Scripture Baruch 3:34-35 as well as Job 38:7 (which was of course used by JRRT when he wrote Akallabêth, but also accords with Anar/Isil model of solar and lunar movement, which I generalise).

[Same video followed up - responding to Hugh Ross - in part three of this series and in the message:

Creation vs Evolution : Carnivores in Eden

Added next day, St Bartholomew's Feast:
Danny Faulkner quite correctly said that phases of Venus killed Ptolemaic model but not Tychonian.

Who and what killed Tychonian?

You could say Newton gave a physical explanation of Keplerian model that would not work for Tychonian. However, as Newton was an occultist, he did not necessarily believe that was all there was to it.

Nor did Bessel's phenomenon of 1838 kill Tychonian model, except on Newtonian assumptions of purely natural and physical causality. It was out, not disproven.

The trigonometry of heliocentrism is not operational science.

What you see in a microscope you can squeeze between two pieces of glass and then turn them around to see it from the other side.

What you see in a telescope is as mysterious as remnants of a past historically not dated.

You are not flying to any point eight light years away to see if alpha Centauri looks four lightyears away from there too. You do not check from a solid edge around heaven that earth is moving and sun is not.
Addition directed at the basically last words of Pamela, Hugh and Danny:
Finally about revelation.

Catechism of Pope St Pius X says in shorter words basically same thing as your quote here from Belgic confession. In Qs on 1st Article of the creed we find:

2) Q. How do we know that there is a God?

A. We know that there is a God because reason proves it and faith confirms it.

And reason proves it from nature.

And faith comes from Bible and Tradition.

Now, Genesis was NOT written to children, but rather to chiefs of Israel and Priests and Levites, and on top of that, when I was a child I was told about Mendel's laws.

And modern science has NOT put us in a position to previous generations as adults to children.

That is a position analogous to Reformers pretending to give Protestant faithful a position towards Catholic Medieval ancestors like adults to children.

It is an unwarranted claim.

As to Day of the Lord in Zachariah, where exactly do we find a long period of time?

I have skimmed through. I have in vain searched reasons d o t org, search word Zachariah.

If Hebrew has no univocal word for "longer but finite period of time", is it so sure even yôm is ever used that way?

Except of course when it refers to a near millennial day of pre-flood human lifespan.

Is the concept with its English synonyms as useful as we think?

De Descriptione Temporum, CSL, comes to mind.

commenting on II:
OppSchools : Hugh Ross: Advice for Adults with Asperger's Syndrome
my comment:
If you are better off as a goldsmith or a scientist than as a football player or a bricklayer, that is pretty much one basic thing about the Asperger diagnosis.

The probelm with making this a diagnosis is that goldsmiths and scientists are not less healthy than football players and bricklayers.

The other diagnostic aspects (lack of empathy, a tendency to bury the essential in details) are so much rubber diagnostic, the diagnosis is as such worthless.

If the advice HR essentially got was to be rather a scientist or a goldsmith than a bricklayer or a football player, I quite agree with such "medical advice", I only think he figured that one out for himself before he took the tests. I e one does not have to have a degree in psychiatry to figure that one out.

Kent Hovind would never be diagnosed as Asperger, but rather as ADHD.

The other one in fifty who does not fit as a pupil in a classroom. He could have been an excellent fb player or teacher and indeed he was a teacher.

He can do the show in front of a class of hundreds or thousands, I could hardly even get fifteen pupils together.

Now, let us first of all before any debate on anything forget about discrediting anyone's arguments due to his diagnosis, shall we.

commenting on III:
GeneralHanSolo : How Christian Men Should Treat Women
my comment:
"and younger women like sisters, with absolute purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2)"

You may have noticed, intro to the speech, that Timothy "was trying to be some kind of leader" ... right on, it- was actually a task St Paul laid on him, and the kind of leader he was would one generation later be called "bishops". In the epistle, the word "bishop" is used for another kind, what we now call "priest" interchangeably with the word "presbyter".

Now, that duty of treating younger women like sisters in all probability applies to him precisely because he is a celibate bishop, like St Paul was a celibate.

It does not apply to each and every unmarried man who as yet hopes to marry.

And, since it seems some have been praying for me to hear this, I might add that I am not a priest, not a bishop, not a monk, not a Pope, I am a writer and I still hope to get married.

Hoping this explains why the "absolute purity" part applies to certain men but not others & me included in these others.

Links about the personal things involved in II and III:
Creation vs. Evolution : Why I have a Personal Grudge against Kenotic Heresy

In other words, I don't believe a diagnosis like Asperger's says anything of value about sickness or health of a mind.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Misunderstanding Begging (Some Cultural History of, Blog Theme Obliging) and This Beggar

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : A very relevant quote from the wusti blog

HGL's F.B. writings : Be my Unwin or Hooper if you like.

In other words, I am a writer, a layman, not part of a ministry.

Link about angelic movers:
HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

video commented on:
ReasonsToBelieve1 : Did God create the earth before the sun and moon?
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, God "made" the lights and "made" is a perfect verb form.

This serves for Greek aorist, perfect and pluperfect and sometimes perhaps future perfect as well - if we go on to Latin.

But give one example beyond this verse where neither LXX translates with pluperfet or past participle, nor an adverb meaning before or after is there, and yet the meaning is pluperfect?

And name one Church Father who agrees with you.

Now St Augustine does not, his "six days and seventh day" are the same 1.

James Sue
If this man is correct, what then, does he think about star formations that continue to happen today? I suppose creationists will twist facts to fit the "god did it" garbage.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where is star formation seen today?
James Sue
All over space. There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star. While this is rare in our galaxy, it does happen. In fact, some of the stars we see with the naked eye are already dead due to the distance the light has to travel to earth. By the way, the sun (also a star) is also dying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star."

OK, who has observed a nebula forming a star? When?

Is this the theory of how stars are formed and "different stages of it" are observed - or has this anywhere for any star now known been observed each stage successively by human astronomers?
James Sue
Exactly when, where and by who, I am not certain. However, it is not a theory on star formations, it's the process that has been observed and documented. If you are really serious about your inquiry, I suggest you do your own research. I have not personally witnessed, but have read and learned from credible sources. I am not interested in doing your legwork. Science is beautiful and intriguing. The more you learn, the better. Take care.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not putting forward the option it was a theory with no observation.

I was asking whether the observations amount to:

a) all stages but in diverse stars


b) all stages in one same star.

And I would like to know what credible sources you refer to.
James Sue I said, I will not do your homework for you. My sources are various science journals and astronomers. Besides, if the process was never observed, how would it be known? Guesses? Read and discover for yourself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was giving you a chance to argue your case.

I do not consider agreeing with you a kind of goal of any kind of homework.

I am on my track, which is arguing. I am not going off it on some kind of wild goose chase just because you would like so.

And the fact that you would like me to is not flattering to your credibility or that of the "credible" sources you will not even name.
James Sue
Your original comment to me was not an argument by definition. Your comment was simply a question. Now, go stick your lip out at someone else because I refuse to answer any more of your elementary questions. You asked if star formations have been else would the process be known?????? Google it and have a nice life.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
How else would the process be known you ask?

My point is precisely that if it has not been observed it is not known but a guess.

That is the exact reason why I ask where and when it has been observed.

What is your point in commenting, if you dare not argue and support your claims?
James Sue
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure, you can say that.

I take that as chickening out.

I take it as saying "info is info" as if info were never ever intox.
James Sue
See my previous comment to that and read for yourself. Stop making an ass of yourself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am showing up your lack of intellectual honesty.

You have had a few days to name one of your "credible sources" and you have not.
Sorry, I just saw you had given a precise info.

Will google that story.
James Sue
NASA. I am not dishonest. Like I said, look up NASA and Astronomer James McNeil. There are two of my sources. Think before you accuse someone of being dishonest. Only a pompous asshole does that. In conclusion, have your facts straight before you spew diarrhea from the mouth.
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I agree truth is paramount.

BBL after looking into story.

Above was in reference to:
Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.] !
A google just may work - if you give me a precise title to google for. Preferrably an article that is still there.
James Sue
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula."*

Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning.

"Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s."*

No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came.

Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four.

So, once again no actual clear sighting of a star passing from pre-star to star in the stages of the scenario currently accepted by astronomers.

The observations do not amount to "all stages in same star" so far, only to "different stages in different stars" (except Sirius which passed from red, redder than Mars, to white within the last millennia, if Hovind got his sources right).

Meaning "different stages" could be a misreading for different kinds of star.


[To be continued]
With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."

It does not.

Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.

Your evidence for a moving earth is ...?

Sunday, August 18, 2013

... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Trin80ty : Kent Hovind is Crazy #25: Carbon Dating
Hans-Georg Lundahl
diverse points to video:

Mammoth baby's divergent age has been explained like contaminated samples:
Some of those samples were wrong to begin with, since contaminated with younger carbon ... well, thank you!

Now, first this gives a light on accuracy of scientists in practise.

But foremost, if the Shroud of Turin was contaminated with younger carbon (centuries of soot, oil from when a fire was quenched with oil because there was no water - which is physically possible if fire is small and amount of cold oil large enough and which seems to have been what happened) the young dates go. No fake.


Methods of original calibration of C14 discussed:
Carbon dating started to be used on things which already had a known historical date, such as artefacts from the ... Egyptian ! ... Empire.

Yeah, right. No way Egyptian chronology could be anything like fucked up for any reason whatsoever, we access it as readily as Medieval History and know the lifetime of such a Pharao as accurately as that of Alfred the Great of Wessex. Or ... not true.

Another calibration is dendrochronology ... there was a slim spot just recently bridged, and I looked at diagrams from the official lab, about the time of Christ for a certain tree (pine? oak?) and to my mind not satisfactorily bridged. Before that the older series of dendrochronology was calibrated by, guess what: carbon dating. Now, around Christ the carbon dates would normally not be off too much, but that was not the only spot slim in samples.

The question of original calibration in Egyptian chronology for a half life of 5600 years begs the question on what methods like U-Pb or Ar-K or Th-Pb were originally calibrated.

Ticking of Geiger measure in lab, pure U ticking so often per minute indicating such a half life as ... millions of years? You kid me not!

Or Egyptian samples? You kid me not.

It was calibrated on very old - actually pre-existence - dated paleontological objects, like lava under dinos or sth.


The point against Hovind's honesty actually made:
Anti-Hovind point: Hovind's claim was debunked, he was embarrassed, he made same claim again.

Wonderful point if his point was actually debunked, less so if he, after a few public moments of embarassment, could check and find the earlier debunker wrong

Let us now
leave the word to someone else before answering.
Debra S
You have an unhealthy obsession with trying to discredit Kent Hovind by the looks of all the videos you have! is that because you don't like to hear the truth?? so you try and character assasinate him for "some" of his mistakes, could that be because you are an athiest who believes in evo-illusion lies and myths, hmmm???

This video deals with just one claim Hovind made. It shows:

1) Hovind made a claim not supported by his "reference."

2) That when informed of that, he refused to admit error.

3) And he never even bothered reading the reference before citing it.

I do find it pathetic that can't even spell atheist, which means can't spell theist. Want to talk about the grammar in this convicted felon/conspiracy nut "dissertation" accepted by a diploma mill?

The one that starts "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Correcting your points:

1) Hovind's reference was challenged;

2) He was not convinced of error when "informed" by that challenge;

3) Later he used same reference again.

His dissertation was not for a science researcher, but for a science teacher. And in history of ideas.

How many teaching evolution made dissertations in education stating that "Galileo was burned at the stake" or that Bruno was it "for heliocentrism"?

I did read rational wiki on topic of that dissertation - and wrote on it.

Spelling athiest instead of atheist may be hasty fingers rather than bad grammar.

Now correct your own sentence:

"I do find it pathetic that [you] can't even spell atheist, which means [you] can't spell theist."

Creation vs. Evolution : Why so shy about creationist pov on C14?

Some on Dendro in Comments.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think

... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Video commented on:
Trin80ty : Kent Hovind is Crazy #8: Catholics created Islam
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for Cathechism of the Catholic Church what it says about Muslims, it is about what you say about confessions outside Independent Baptism:

"Climbing the mountain of truth" ...

My dear Hovind, when Muhammed started out, the Catholics had the Holy Land. [My blooper!]

Except for a brief spell of Persian invasion under one Chosroes. [Which invasion lasted 614 to 628, i e an era during which the Hejra happened in 620.] Under his invasion a lot of Catholic Palestinians reverted to Judaism and persecuted the Catholic Palestinians who remained Catholics.

Then Heraclius took the Holy Land back.

Those wishing to be Jews went off to Persia, those wishing to be Catholics stayed as Palestians, so far only Christian.

Kent, trusting Jack Chick was not too bright on this one.

Trusting Jack Chick is not too bright on any other topic on Catholics either.

[But if one is to take any heed of the idea Mohammed could have been launched as an agent against the Persians, it might be an idea to ask oneself if Byzantium was behind - my own idea is he was deluded by a devil masquerading as "Djibril", at least at first, and therefore at least at first honest - but I could be wrong.]

[Digression on Foxe:]

Trusting Foxe's Book of Martyrs is not a very good idea either. I am not a JW, but I do once in a while pick up their Wake Up! They had one article on Foxe.

Through it I know, or first came to know, I have confirmed it later, that Foxe started out tolarably accurate about the English Inquisition. It was decided in 1401 against the Lollards.

But that first edition of Book of Martyrs was thin, and his sources on Continent were glad to find a dupe, basically. Not their assessment [of later and always thicker editions], (JW's), [but] mine.

[Back to Mohammed issue:]

And, if it has not occurred to you, Khadidja was not a Catholic nun, she was a Jewess.

Can add, I have not full documentation on that one. On Khadidja's Jewish background.

I have however documentation in two academic books about what really happened in Holy Land between Constantine and Omar.

Stephan Borgehammar - How the Holy Cross was Found

Derwas Chitty - The Desert a City (mostly about Egyptian Monasticism, but last chapter deals with Palestinian, up to Omar's conquest - which also explains why certain Palestinians are Moslems and no longer Christians).

Coz their Church is full of graven images!

Now that is an interesting topic.

Orthodox Churches are full of painted images, and have a few graven ones, at least one Crucifix in the hand of the priest while he is blessing.

They do have as a separate commandment the prohibition of idolatrous images, and insist that the point of it is against idolatry, not against sculpture with clearly Christian themes.

Caths usually agree about that text and conclude it was not a separate word, but part of 1st [Commandment or Word].

I would like you to read the Haydock comment (it is online haydock 1859 d o t tripod d o t com) for Exodus 20, verse 4.*

For instance:

"Altars and sacrifice we reserve solely for God, as St. Augustine (contra Faust. xx. 21,) well observes. Other indifferent practices must be determined by the intention."

Creds to Kent Hovind for, when telling the story of the Polish salesman later to become John Paul II, he admits to having not yet full documentation.

I mean there are Serbian Orthodox who will believe basically all Avro Manhattan says and lies without question.

I quite agree Avro Manhattan is not full documentation.

Against "Trin80ty:"

Muslims killing "non-converts" from or "apostates" (real converts) to Christianity cannot be compared to 2 Chron 15 killing or swearing to kill (but it was a human decision, and temporal, not a divine command per se) those who would not seek the ways of the Lord, since these were then an there clearly people seeking Canaanean idolatry, a very abhominable thing.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. EXODUS - Chapter 20

Full quote for verse 4:

Ver. 4. A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing, &c. All such images or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary, so far from being forbidden are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Exodus xxv. 15, &c.; chap. xxxviii. 7; Numbers xxi. 8, 9; 1 Chronicles xxviii. 18, 19; 2 Chronicles iii. 10. (Challoner)

Protestants insidiously translate "any graven image," though pesel, eidolon, glupton, and sculptile, in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, denote a graven thing or idol. They will, however, hardly condemn his majesty for having his representation stamped upon the coin of the nation, nor so many of our wealthy noblemen, who adorn their rooms with the choicest efforts of painting and of sculpture. They know that the object of prohibition is the making and adoring of idols. But they probably wish to keep the ignorant under the stupid delusion of supposing, that Catholics are idolaters, because they have images, and that they themselves are not, though they have them likewise at home; and even in their churches admit the absurd figures of the lion and the unicorn, stretching their paws over the tables of the law, instead of the pious representations of Jesus expiring on the cross, &c., which were set up by their Catholic ancestors. Let them read, and adopt herein just weights and measures, proposed to them by Thorndike, one of their most discerning and moderate teachers. In the mean time, we will assure them, that we abhor all idols; both those made with hands, and those which are formed by the head of heretics, who set up their own fancies and delusions, to be adored instead of the true God. Our general councils of Nice and of Trent define what we ought to believe on this head; and the matter is so fully explained in our catechisms and books of instruction, as well as from our pulpits, that no person can well remain in ignorance. If we perform various actions of respect before pictures, which are also done in honour of God, can any man of sense infer, that we look upon both with equal respect? Do we not read of the people falling down to shew respect to the king, and supreme worship to God, by the same act of the body? (Haydock)

Altars and sacrifice we reserve solely for God, as St. Augustine (contra Faust. xx. 21,) well observes. Other indifferent practices must be determined by the intention.

Latria, or supreme worship, can be given to none but the Deity. But we shew our respect and veneration for his servants in glory, by an inferior service called Dulia, giving honour to whom honour is due. How profane and impious must the words of the first reformers appear, who, after saying most falsely, that "papists make the Virgin Mary a god, (Luther. postil.) and worship images in heathenish manner," (Melanct. Loc. com.) attribute various fictitious crimes to the blessed Virgin and other saints! (Centuriators of Magdeburg; Calvin, &c.) They knew that all the saints abhorred their impiety; and therefore, in revenge, they vilify the saints, and condemn all the doctors and fathers of the Church, since the death of the apostles, as guilty of superstition and idolatry. (Haydock)

"By this occasion, dead creatures, and bloodless half worm-eaten bones, began to be honoured, invocated, and worshipped with divine honour. All which the doctors of the Church not only winked at, but also set forward." (Centuriators of Magdeburg, C. vi.) What is then become of the promises of God, to teach all the truth by the mouths of his pastors? (Matthew xxviii, &c.) Let others judge, whether we ought to pay greater deference to Saints Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, &c., or to Luther, Calvin, and the Centuriators of Magdeburg. But some will even admit that images were commanded by God, chap. xxv. 18, &c. Hence they lay great stress upon the words to thyself; as if all images were forbidden that man should make, without the express sanction of God. So Parkhurst Lexic. But those who are conversant in Hebrew, know that these words have no such import; and if things were inseparable from idolatry, they could not be sanctioned by God. (Haydock)

No creature must be represented as a deity. But sovereign worship, both internal and external, must be given to the great Author of all good, while we abstain from every superstitious act, and from all dealings with the devil and false religions. (Calmet)

Protestants, therefore, who only forbid images, diminish God's law. Were not the idols of Chanaan, Chamos, &c., which represented nothing in nature, also condemned? ]

I got one comment from the user behind Kent Hovind is Crazy series. One reply. Not one single defense of his attacks on Hovind against my defenses, so far as I have seen, just one answer on this qualified appreciation, this appreciation of his not being too wrong even when pretty probably wrong:
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Creds to Kent Hovind for, when telling the story of the Polish salesman alter to become John Paul II he admits to having not yet full documentation.
You are blocked for spamming more than 15 messages on this one video.

It is reckless and defamatory to say things that are false and not supported by evidence. If Hovind doesn't have "documentation" then he shouldn't propagate story.
My comment not under video (since I am blocked for "spamming"):
As to the more than 15 messages, most are in answer to some previous message by me and if you click them you will find they are a few essay wise replies, one to yourself (the one you answered to) and the others to Hovind's mistakes.

It is not your duty to enforce the 500 characters limit by characterising such prolonged replies as spam.

It is of course your channel and you can do so. And you used it to get rid of one Catholic commenter who is as inerrantist about Genesis ch. 1 and 2 as Hovind, but does not share his Protestant prejudice.

As to your critique of Hovind's historiography, which I put a bit more charitably than you did, I consider Kent Hovind to be most probably a honest dupe in this context.

And he has the good sense, if not fully to avoid that topic, at least not to make it his major one.

If he had thought the allegations false, I do not think he would have made them. Trusting someone one should not have trusted (as Avro Manhattan or even Albert Pike via Jack Chick, who at least did himself some favour*) is neither insane nor criminal.

If you want to bash one who clearly is in for denigrating the Catholic Church, if not full time, at least more than half time, why not get at the pseudo-history of The Forbidden Book by one Craig Lampe.

I have gone against it:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answers about "The Forbidden Book"

I have also notified him I did so and gotten a reply from him:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Good News about Protestants

You could have done the same.

You could for instance check out if Craig Lampe - whose Ph D is pretty certainly less well earned than Hovind's - has changed one jota of his lies and his hateful maligning of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. I mean, he has had a few months to do some checking up, by now.

But maybe it is easier for you to pick on someone who is in prison. And maybe you feel some devotion to the false religion of Evolutionism, as some Catholics nowadays are Teilhardist, and as some who even are not so are at least admirers (indiscretely so) of Georges Lemaître, the Jesuit who invented the Big Bang theory.

In that context, as well as in your Hovind bashing title, it seems you are yourself saying stories which you cannot document.

For if you have documentation that Kent Hovind used a Mammoth Baby's divergent Carbon Datings, which an atheist alleged was not well documented, that does not amount to documenting that Kent Hovind is, as you put it, crazy. See title of your video series, in case you forgot.

*I might want to check if Jack Chick did Kent Hovind a favour or not. I seem to recall either part of a video or comment under it in which he is called a friend of Kent Hovind. But as yet I have no full documentation on that one either.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 1, disc 1 of 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
two comments of mine against Hugh Ross' points:
When Hugh Ross says that "to have planets and stars, we need to have a universe expanding for billions of years" he is basically claiming to know the laws of creation as its creator knows them from the six days or initial singularity. Rather than - big difference - as we deduce them from the things they normally result in.

That is putting in a naturalistic and non-Christian principle into the interpretaion of the evidence.
Hugh Ross mentions modern evidence for parallax reached by virtually combining telescopes all over earth to a gigantic telescope.

But - not so fast - the two largest observed parallaxes are backwards.

And that is not possible if parallax is what they claim it to be. If earth were spinning around sun, it would only be spinning one way and stars would only seem to spin one opposite way - not some very clearly same way, as two largest "parallaxes" do.
Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 2, disc 1 of 2)
Pat Doyle
Description of Pat Doyle: Now that I am an ordained minister, I thought I'd create Atheistic Ministries. Still a snarky, satirical and sometimes serious look at the sad state of reason in America.
His actual comment here:
I love Hovind's position - if it is hard to understand, it can't be true. I have a really simple fairy tale that anyone can understand, so let's all just believe that.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is more like, if the key witness - he supposes like Hugh Ross and me there is one - expresses his witness, it ought to be clear.

Some people think rather "if it is hard to follow the proofs, the professors must have been clever to have followed them, so let us believe the professors to pretend we are as clever as they are."
Pat Doyle
The problem is that the Bible is not clear (as it should be if a god wrote it). However, I have studied electronics and nuclear physics for nuclear power - these were not simple subjects, but they are correct - they work. If you pretend to believe a professor when you don't understand, that's dumb too. But, one can test if something is MORE LIKELY to be true by looking at it's predictive power even when don't understand it. Like quantum physics - I feel it is likely to be true because it works.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, that is one thing where the difference between "operative" and "reconstructive" science comes in.

Unlike Heliocentric reconstructions like parallax of what happens far off (and unseen, unfelt with us), unlike Evolutionary reconstructions of distant past, there are theories which have at least certain testable and applicable sides.

Electronics and Nuclear physics come to mind.
Rory MacCormack
"You're wrong with this and here's two papers that prove it". Hovind's response: "I just don't believe you". To the vast majority of the American people, saying "trigonometry", "lightyear" and then "I don't believe you" is enough. Two weird words secure his credibility, then he brings it to a level that every idiot agrees with. "Give him money, honey, he doesn't make us feel dumb".
Hans-Georg Lundahl (answered by 1 Rory and 2 Pat)
And some people respond with "put him in gaol to wail, the fact he disproves what we were taught makes me feel dumb about believing it in the first place."

Some people feel dumb about the taxes they pay for science like the one proposed by Hugh Ross, unless they can be certain it is true, and therefore hate the one who challenges it.
1 Rory MacCormack
Pretty sure he was jailed by the Government for failing to pay income tax. And the US Government is largely Christian and would presumably condone his work anyway?

That aside, he disproves nothing. He's a salesman praying on the insecurity, desperation, and often stupidity of the average American Christian citizen. If he did what he did in Europe he'd be laughed out of the building.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
US Government is largely Masonic, and when nominally Christian usually Evolutionist.

It is not likely to condone his work any more than Rob Skiba's or when Lyndon LaRouche as well as Hovind challenge the ethics of Georgia Guide Stones.

He disproves a lot, but if you are too evolutionist to see that, too bad for you.

I am in Europe, they have quit innocent smiles and started campaigns. Some of which probably with reference to Hovind's case.
Rory MacCormack
I think you should reevaluate what proof is.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are wrong there.

About me that is. But maybe you should. Pretty certainly MrBlonday should.

You know the comment in which he resumes one part of the dialogue as:

"ross:'*proof proff proof proof proof proof'

hovind:'wrong, the god i worship said this which must mean it's true with ABSOLUTELY NO speculation or evidence of anything what so ever'"

That is not what was said, and Ross does not become more "proof" because that is how he is resumed, nor Hovind less because of MrB's resumé.
2 Pat Doyle
Oh yes, I hate Hovind - but not because he challenges my beliefs - he is no challenge. I hate him because he lies to gullible people. I hate him for pretending to be a "doctor" (he bought his Phd for $100 from a diploma mill) and that he was a high school science teacher - he wasn't. He set up a home-schooling program with his fake Phd in "religious education". Then he cheated on his taxes, after having some brushes with the law for assault. He is a low-life con man, That's why I hate him.

[Note that the words about cheating on taxes are Pat Doyle's, not mine.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl (two parts which Pat answers separately below)
I actually looked up the links about his dissertation.

Rational wiki has an article about it.

I have not accessed the dissertation so far, but I have accessed the rational wiki article. Whoever wrote it included people as little meriting PhD's as Hovind, or less.

As it was in history of ideas, and as Hovind is a Protestant, I am surprised he did not make worse.

I do not count myself as gullible because I like Hovind's reasonings and debunkings of fake Old Earth "science".

Lyndon LaRouche was also in gaol for cheating on taxes.

That is why I do not trust the details of the charges.

I found a link supposedly to "58 felonies" earning him ten years.

I found no such list there and it linked in turn to pages no longer existing.
Pat Doyle (to first part of above)
Well, then you should listen to some real scientists then. Hell, my science education does not go beyond the Bachelor's level, and a lot of reading in the years since, but even I laughed uproariously the first time I saw Kent's sideshow. I tried to take some notes but literally could not keep up with the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and logical fallacies that he spewed like a mini-gun spews rounds. Seriously - the man is a clown with no scientific credentials.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, but the logical fallacies are on the side of evolutionists and heliocentrics.
Pat Doyle
That's a nice assertion, but false. However, if you are a geocentrist as well as a YEC, then you are likely beyond hope. However, you might want to look at the "geocentrism debunked" series. I was surprised at first that anyone would bother to do such an excellent, detailed series on such a laughable subject, but I've since learned that there actually are people who need it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What user?

I'd be glad to do some debunking on it!

Oh, I used a search on the phrase (not finding a series on it) and the first called Geocentrism debunked in a minute was cowardly enough to have approval of comments before publishing, and when he had answered a point of one commentator, he had understood it wrong.

Thanks for giving me a chance to smile at a bungler!
Pat Doyle (on second part of above)
Hovind did not even file taxes in 1995, 96, 97. He paid workers "under the table" to avoid paying FICA taxes, he carefully made many cash withdrawals in the amount of $9,900 to avoid the automatic reporting of withdrawals of $10,000+. Now, since I am not sure just how bright he is, it is possible that he is the victim of bad advice. He is known to have consulted Glenn Stoll, a promoter of several tax avoidance schemes, but he was guilty and his final defense was laughable.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
He might have felt something like taxes being used for unconstitutional as well as immoral purposes?

[Note my question mark.]

I can't believe that alone adds up to ten years.

[I would not want to speak falsehoods of what Kent Hovind was convicted for. Here is his son's story:

ppsimmons : Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
ross:"*proof proff proof proof proof proof"

hovind:"wrong, the god i worship said this which must mean it's true with ABSOLUTELY NO speculation or evidence of anything what so ever"
Hans-Georg Lundahl
ross - with telescopes all over the earth, we can measure angles less than one ten thousandth of an arc second

hovind - you do not convince me you can measure angles less than one ten thousandth of an arc second, it makes a very skinny triangle, you will have to convince me

what you bring up as his sole answer is just the third item of his answer

Of course I sympathise with Kent Hovinds point about a very skinny triangle.

I think measuring with absolute certainty an angle like 0.76 arc seconds (the parallax for four light years away, closest star in that ideology) is possibly beyond human capacity.

It is two lines crossing each other at centre of earth and surfacing at a distance of about 30 yards or little more.
Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 3, disc 1 of 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
One wrong for Kent: The only thing God wrote with His own fingers [Ten Commandments God write for Moses] ... sure that that was what Jesus wrote in the sand?
Exegetics of "there was evening and there was morning" ...

The order for each day of the six is:

1) God's work for the day

2) "there was evening"

3) night, in which God does nothing

4) "and there was morning, the nth day" = end of the day, scene set for next day's work.

"First day" is actually called "one day", but that seems to be for grammatical reasons.

No closure on day seven ... maybe because that was when the evening started to belong to the following day?
James Barr was a Professor in Hebrew, and he said all such upheld that the authors of Genesis meant 6*24 hours or something closely similar.

Hugh Ross says the guys he meets in Seminaries are all agreed they mean long periods of time.

Sorry, but most people he meets at seminaries are not professors of Hebrew, they are Seminarians, i e future priests or clergymen or pastors.

It's like "no oranges are green", and "you are wrong, plenty of apples are green". Hugh Ross, points off on credibility!

Other discrepancy, James Barr (cited by Kent Hovind) spoke about professors at world class univeristies, and Hugh Ross speaks about Semaniares and campuses where he speaks - sure he was in Oxford and Cambridge and Harvard and Ivy League and Sorbonne all that much?

I am not.
Day like a thousand years.

Adam died the same "day" = "millennium" in which he ate the apple.

The traditional exegesis on that one.
Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (part 4, disc 1 of 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hovind, what did you just say about the God you worship and readers knowing Hebrew not mattering for them understanding if they can access translation?

You are of course absolutely right, but that has two corrolaries:

  • about Church (and not an Anglo-Scottish king James VI & I) being guaranteed the ability from God to provide right translations, when it really matters

  • about Zwingli's take on Christ's words on the Last Supper.

Are you a Catholic? Sounds Catholic to me, if you go on!
It really upsets me that Hovind repeatedly tries to commit the fallacies of Ad Populum and Ad Hominem Abusive, in that he both appeals to the population as "Most people would say this is what the bible says" and a personal attack in that "I just want to point out that you don't actually know hebrew" and "I've read most of your books so i know to check out what you REALLY mean" It simply undermines his credibility completely and makes his argument weaker.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ad Populum is not a fallacy.

"I just want to point out you do not know Hebrew" is putting it gently. What he says about qa'l perfect is true of any perfect. Qa'l vs Pi'el and Hitpa'el are not about time or tense but about intensity or reflexivity or activity or passivity (qa'l being the simplest active), and perfects sometimes can be translated as pluperfect, but why did not LXX or St Jerome ever do so for "had made the sun" instead of "made the sun" if that was true?

I do not know Hebrew either by the way, ma studied it at University, and I know what status constructus is and how perfect and imperfect work.

It was Qa'l, Pi'el, Hitpa'el, Nif'al, Hif'il and in total 15 of them which scared me off from trying to learn Hebrew.
If you took the 2 seconds to google the term "Ad Populum" you would see that it is indeed a fallacy and I am not educated in the ways of Hebrew so I cannot argue the point of what was said in the original text.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ad Populum is not a fallacy when it comes to deciding points of grammar or to understand what a text is conveying. At least the most obvious of it.

I can say that if "perfect" here had meant "past action previous to the rest of the verse", translators should have chosen a translation with meaning of "previous action" as opposed to simply "past action".

And I know St Jerome for making of "great lights" has fecitque, not feceratque. Nor luminariis magnis factis. Past action in told in sequence.
I think it's pretty obvious that the priests and other scholars who wrote the Bible believed that 1 day = sunrise and sunset.

In everything else Hugh Ross is right and he completely owns poor Kent.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have just made a point meaning that Hugh Ross is incompatible with Genesis being a Revelation from God - and that Kent's standpoint does not produce such incompatibilty.

By the way, your p o v is pretty much that of James Barr, cited by Kent Hovind back in part three. He believed Bible became inspired in later parts, like Gospel, but not back in Genesis.
Travis Lawrence
Ross: We know this, we have many ways to prove this.

Hovind: I don't believe you.

Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it is wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ever heard of The Emperor's New Clothes by H.C.Anderson?

Monday, August 12, 2013

... on Soul

video commented on:
TheAmazingAtheist : Stupid Comments
continued from:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abortion
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Spermatozoa contain half a human genome. Ovula contain half a human genome. Half a genome only = no human person. As to human feelings of foetus, we do not know whether it feels or not. It has a soul and an eternal destiny to make, the soul is not a computer, thought and feeling are not computer output. Brain is an instrument for it, not that of which it is a byproduct.
You can't demonstrate that souls exist. Your argument is invalid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You think (I presume, I know I do), and dead matter or for that matter biological functionings do not think. Therefore there is a soul.
Christian Ramirez
"Dead" matter can think. Dead matter makes up living organisms. The most advanced example we have of this is the brain. We also have less advanced things such as computers and robots that can create vocal pasterns from hearing others speak and simulate simple emotions. In the animal kingdom, there is also a direct correlation between brain sises/complexity and output (including thought, emotion). Besides, there is no medical/scientific proof of a soul. However, this does not matter for this.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Dead matter does not think. Living organisms are not dead matter. They are not even made up from only dead matter, but from some kind of soul as well. A creature with only a plant soul or animal soul cannot think either. Computers cannot think. Their simulation of patterns of thought is comparable to an abacus' simulation of matematical thought: beads do not think, strings do not think and frame does not think. Mathematician handling abacus does think.
Christian Ramirez
Plant soul? Animal soul? Not even the bible specifies plant souls.(feel free to object) Right now every field of science (physics, biology, astronomy, geology) agrees that all known life (including brain) is carbon based (made up of 4 main elements). No branch of science has ever accepted the concept of souls. You can not prove your point with a simple analogy. We are just a simulation of repeated patterns and instincts from DNA. We are more complicated than an abacus, therefor better.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Spermatozoa contain half a human genome. Ovula contain half a human genome. Half a genome only = no human person. As to human feelings of foetus, we do not know whether it feels or not. It has a soul and an eternal destiny to make, the soul is not a computer, thought and feeling are not computer output. Brain is an instrument for it, not that of which it is a byproduct.
Christian Ramirez
  • [1) ...?]
  • 2) There is no scientific proof of a "soul" or "eternal life". Those things are pure conjuring of human imagination. (I do not want to debate religion right now) Through medical science ("brain scans") we know that the brain produces thought and feeling and the brain is a computer. (a very complicated, ever-changing and awesome computer) Visual, audio, ect. input goes to the brain, it performs calculations, and outputs action signals. We can read these signals. They do not pas through the soul.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The signals in the brain are tools for the soul. The soul reads them as images, whereas from outside we read them as electric signals. They are not the soul. They are not its thoughts, just imagery accompanying them.
Christian Ramirez
Again, get me scientific proof of your claims and I will consider this point. However, why does the presence of a soul matter for the abortion debate's sake? I wouldn't care about anyone any less or more if they had a brain or a soul. Even if the signals from the brain are tools for the soul, either way there must be a brain present for input and output. I assume you are religious? Religion has so far not contributed to science.(it has to other things) Do not expect me to take it seriously.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do you consider astrology science? St Augustine rid astronomical inquiry of the astrological superstition for centuries over astronomers who were also Christians. Do you consider the workings of nature as bound by fixed laws essential to science? Christianity contributed vastly to such an understanding of nature. Author of Theogony or Red Indian Shamanists are not what scientists are made of - nor are matter ignoring and nature ignoring Platonists. Aristotle gets some pre-Xtian creds though.
Christian Ramirez
True, that there were and are many Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, ect. scientists who have contributed to science. I acknowledge this already. I Don't have anything against them either. However, (I should have been more clear) the Bible scriptures have not contributed at all to science and even contradict it in some areas. I can not take any unproven or untested hypothesis or idea into consideration in a serious argument..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) St Augustine who contributed to ridding science of astrology did so because of the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau - same hour born and thus same horoscope. But different fates and characters.
  • 2) We can have a branch off discussion on where Bible contradicts "science" if you like.
  • 3) As already said, soul is not an unproven concept nor a mere hypothesis. Materialistic explanations of thought merely break down, logically. Even without the Bible to start with.
Christian Ramirez
  • 1) "Did so because of" does not qualify. That is a Christian inspired by Christianity. He is not the actual Bible.
  • 2) No. Since you quoted science, I am lead to believe you do not trust it. It would be useless to have a scientific discussion with one who disbelieves science.
  • 3) Your explanation was "Nothing dead can think, therefore we have a soul" I stated that dead things can think. You dismissed this because dead things can't think. This is a yes, no yes, no argument. I will provide proof.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) St Augustine is not the actual Bible, but the story of Jacob and Esau is in it, and it contradicts astrology.
  • 2) As Dawkins said about debating creationists - after debating Edgar Andrews earlier on .... or as Pentecostals say to you about "debating the Bible" when you do not believe the Bible.
  • 3) I have seen the lists, will answer.
Christian Ramirez
  • a) There exist machines that can closely recreate memories just from reading brain signals.
  • b) Psychological conditions can be cured through stimulating brain nerves.
  • c) Deterioration of the brain will cause loss of thought and memory.
  • d) Do psychopaths, narcissists, and pyromaniacs have defective souls?
  • e) In the animal kingdom thought, memory, and intelligence are directly correlated to brain complexity.
  • f) Psychological conditions can be detected in the brain. Continued...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Qualification for F - conceded if we speak of very basic states, like alpha state, wake, asleep, angry, sad, happy.
Christian Ramirez
f) No. I speak of bipolar disorder, narcissism, pyromania, psychopathy ect. These types of conditions or disorders.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you try to detect those by brain scan, to detect someone's morality by encephalograms, you are a scoundrel and a sham scientist. That is all there is to it.
Christian Ramirez
Not morality... Just mental illness or disorders. (that could effect morality) Besides, according to you, what causes "multiple personality disorder"? This interests me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, but narcissism is a statemant about morality, whether you rephrase it as a statement about mental illness or not/ I do not know what multiple personality disorder is, or whether it is even the same thing in all cases or whether it is even a disorder in all cases. According to Chesterton all women have multiple personality, which is why polygamy does not really add to the variation. It can also be manufactured with hypnosis pushed to extreme.
Christian Ramirez
No, all women do not have multiple personality disorder. It is always a disorder. It involves a person with multiple selves/personalities inhabiting the same body. (such as a little boy, a murderer, a teenage girl) They choose to address each personality as its own person. Usually this disorder comes about after abuse as a child, but may come out of nowhere in some rare occasions. ...And no. They are not faking it. Some of their personalities often try to kill themselves. No one's faking.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
When a personality tries to kill himself that may very well be a disorder, because killing oneself is. Chesterton did not say all women have multiple personality disorder, just that they all have multiple personalities - usually of course without it being a disorder. Some of the hypnotic induced stuff may well bethere for demonic collaboration with hypnotist. Some of the murderous or suicidal stuff without a hypnotist similarily.
Christian Ramirez
  • a) There exist machines that can closely recreate memories just from reading brain signals.
  • b) Psychological conditions can be cured through stimulating brain nerves.
  • c) Deterioration of the brain will cause loss of thought and memory.
  • d) Do psychopaths, narcissists, and pyromaniacs have defective souls?
  • e) In the animal kingdom thought, memory, and intelligence are directly correlated to brain complexity.
  • f) Psychological conditions can be detected in the brain. Continued...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • C - conceded. Soul's work is tied to brain. Does not prove it is of the brain.
  • E - very roughly so, and in the animal kingdom under man there is no real thought. Forethought and considerations, but not real thought.
  • A, B and F - clearly doubtful about purported fact or interpretation of observations. [For F, see qualification above]
  • D - there are exemples of sin and there are examples of misdiagnosis in those cases (in "pyromaniacs" that includes false charges of arson). Either "these" or their observers have a sinful soul.
Christian Ramirez
  • I will address E and C later.
  • a) People were shown a movie. Without any previous input the computer was able to extract parts of the movie from their minds. People imagined something. The computer recreated these images The people confirmed their authenticity.
  • d) All narcissists, psychotics, and pyromaniacs aren't misdiagnosis.Some can be cured through altering the brain.
  • b) Curing someone of a mental illness is not up to interpretation. He is either cured or mentally ill/recovering.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As to your b - there is also misdiagnosed and that is more common than any other.
Christian Ramirez
I assume you meant d? I can personally disprove this. I am a diagnosed narcissist. I can attest to the diagnosis even before I was diagnosed. I have helped many people. (not for attention or praise) A purely sinful soul would not help someone.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I meant "b) Psychological conditions can be cured through stimulating brain nerves." I do not know whether you have helped or marred the ones you think you have helped. No soul is "purely sinful" but sinful in some areas at worst (not getting in to how that worked out for Nimrod or will work out for Antichrist). Helping one by doing ill in other respects may be sinful. Imagine one is helping while doing the reverse is sinful when it is not just stupid.
Christian Ramirez
Do not bring about the possibility of my help "delusion". You are trying to avoid a conclusion. I know who I've helped and who I've marred. The difference between the two is monumental. This is my last post. I have a 1 month vacation ahead of me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We do not always know what is really helpful. And I do not think your science is always helping you to know that. Enjoy your vacation.
Christian Ramirez
[g - m see below]
  • n) Emotion, thought, and memory (everything) can be attributed to a certain spot in the brain. This info has been correctly used.
  • o) Personality can be measured through brain activity.
  • p) Animal thought and emotions can be altered through altering the brain.
  • q) Alzheimer's? How does a space-less entity lose information?
  • r) The brain can spontaneously kill you, or is that the soul?
  • s) Drugs effect judgement and thought. We've tested it on brain cells.
  • t) The brain encourages lust. Continued...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • N - emotion, imagery of thought, imagery of memory - conceded. Not conceded as to conceptual parts of thought or memory or as to will as to emotions.
  • O - no, unless by "personality" you mean prevalence of this or that basic state (anger, sadness, wide awake, alpha state ...)
  • P - animals have no thought properly speaking. As to emotions and forethought and consideration, see C and E.
  • Q R S - see C.
  • T - so? We are sinful.
Christian Ramirez
  • n) No. By everything, I mean everything.
  • o) By personality I mean primitive thinking styles, strives, goals, view of others, ect.
  • p) We have plenty of experiments confirming animals do have every thought and emotion humans have. Every single one, individually.
  • t) God created the soul. Why would God program it to want to sin? Isn't Satan responsible for all sin?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • N, O, P You are dead wrong.
  • T - we sin because we abuse our free will. This is not "programmed" by God, insofar as we are too weak, it is due to Adam's sin. Satan temps but rarely forces anyone to sin, each remains responsible for his deeds.
Christian Ramirez
I'm currently doing something and may have to leave for a month. (summer vacation off work) but I will ask one question. If Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge because God told them not to, how did they know that not listening to God was wrong. After all they had no knowledge until they ate from it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
They had that much knowledge. What exact knowledge they had not or imagined they had not about good and evil is debated. But they had that much knowledge.
Christian Ramirez
  • g) People who don't have a brain are dead.
  • h) Removal of half the brain causes psychological and social conditions.
  • i) Removal of everything except for cerebellum causes only instinct to remain.
  • j) An isolated brain will break down in confusion. (electrical signals)
  • k) Toxoplasma gondii alters human emotion.
  • l) Some organisms can enslave others through brain signal manipulation.
  • m) Splitting of the brain hemispheres can make 2 people. Continued....
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • G conceded if you mean lacking not only cerebrum and cerebellum but also medulla oblongata. Otherwise not conceded.
  • H, I, K - conceded, see further what already was said about C.
  • J - not knowing what you mean.
  • L - I presume both organisms are beasts, but even if victim were a man, that would fall under C.
  • M - not conceded as to 2 actual people.
Christian Ramirez
  • g) I mean lacking at least the cerebellum. (Shot in the head)
  • j) When isolating a brain (keeping it alive outside the body) it will not calm itself as you would expect if we had a soul (since in heaven all that exists are our souls). It goes crazy as if it weren't meant for isolation.
  • m) It has been tested. There exist multiple individuals with only half a brain which are considered and cared for as people. Conservation of the other hemisphere will keep 2 different personalities.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • G - Shot in the head is not just "lacking the cerebellum" it is also usually making medulla prolongata dysfunction.
  • J - In Heaven bodies do exist. Souls are meant to be reunited to their bodies. That experiment is so evil, anyone who does it looses moral sense and his conclusions on subject are not trustworthy at all. Same for M.
Christian Ramirez
j) There was a really immoral & messed up scientist who experimented with monkeys. He took the brain out of a monkey and put it in a different one's body. It slightly worked. (because he could not properly connect it) He might'ave been a sick & evil person but his work was well documented by many others. It's trustworthy. [To possible deleted parallel comment of mine: Evil does not mean untrustworthy. He was obsessed with science. He, nor his men, nor his documents lied.] Obviously the "soul" doesn't care about the body if it can switch to a different one and function. Also, do siamese twins get their own bodies in heaven? Obviously acording
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The brains of monkeys do not necessarily reflect the souls of men. The men who documented the work for him were nearly as evil, or possibly worse than the scientist. Slightly worked because he could not properly connect it? Then the monkey died, I presume? A soul cannot switch to a different body and function. A soul makes its bdy function while alive. A human soul then lives or agonies without body up to resurrection. And then it gets its body back. Dunno what Siamese twins get or want.
Christian Ramirez
  • u) How can a space-less, material-less entity communicate with a material entity? That type of signal doesn't exist.
  • v) Ones changes of mind and emotion can be attributed to the brain rewiring.
  • w) Neuroscience medically works in practice.
  • x) If souls are eternal, why are we scared of death?
  • y) Some thoughts are controlled by instinct. Editing certain parts of the brain can change instinct and thought both directly and indirectly.
  • z) Why is there a brain if we have a soul? It's useless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • V - or the reverse.
  • W - and in practise it is sometimes maiming patients. I was going to add neuroleptics to item C ...
  • X - because the body too is us.
  • Y - examples?
  • U - you are presuming that the space-less and material-less entity communicates with the material entity as two material entities with each other via signals, if at all. In case of man's rational soul, it is the substantial form of the body and participates in its experiences (which explains C). Also answers Z. God and angels need no brains, but spirit has naturally control over matter. Rather than reverse or "no-contact".
Christian Ramirez
u) You do not need signals to communicate between even 2 material objects. I know this. Please explain your concept of a soul in depth so I may properly reply.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Between two material objects you could have signals or physical contact. My concept of spirit - and man's soul is a spirit - is one where the fundamental capacity of knowledge and of decision is not tied to matter, but can nevertheless observe and control more or less of it. Man's spiritual soul is a special case insofar as it is the substantial form of the whole body. It therefore observes or controls matter exterior to it only through its bodily organs for sense or handling. B[ut] spiritually.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Video commented on
EKrassner90 : Kent Hovind: The Age of The Earth
gus tucker
Most Christians, including the Catholic Church, believe the Universe came from the Big Bang. Why is it that US xstian fundamentalists disagree? This is one of the many reasons why I find it 'difficult' to believe (understand) what you people say.

I think that people like Kent lack the understanding of a family living in poverty in the third world. Amen Kent! (You really define the word patronising!)


Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, not including the Catholic Church.

Including influential and many Catholics.

Council of Trent states the Holy Bible is inspired in every one of its Scriptures (73 books, and Daniel has a few chapters more) and therefore absolutely inerrant in original manuscript. However only not quite as absolutely so in each translation, but at least sufficiently to exclude doctrinal error in the translation known as Vulgate.

However, whether Vulgate was right or wrong to translate Hebrew ha-shamayim in Genesis 1:1 as coelum (sg) where in other places it translates as plural (coeli) is not inerrant.
several rants on parts of video
(which in general I find good)
You did one wrong thing in attacking St Athanasius.

God really wants us to partake of the Divine Nature - on His terms.

The problem with the devil's words were he was DENYING those terms. Like obedience.

Apocalypse 20 says - verse 4:

"And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Also, note that Proverbs 23 has verse 30:

"Surely they that pass their time in wine, and study to drink of their cups."

That is not same thing as drinking a Budwary or a Plsn. That is drinking a lot of them at a sitting.

Confer 1 Timothy 5:23, confer Ecclesiasticus 31:22

Habacuc 2:15 in my Bible:

"Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness."

You just conveniently left out a few clauses stating the bad intentions behind the sinful version of giving one's neighbour drink.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed ...

First of all, God can create and destroy matter. But getting philosophical, there are four answers to why something seems to be there:

  • 1) eternism

  • 2) creationism

  • 3) evolutionism

  • 4) illusionism

Eternism is true about God. Creationism is true about Cosmos, all kinds, and each individual specimen of it. Another creationism is true about man made objects. GMO's are "created" both ways. Evolutionism is true about individual growth and varieties, and illusionism cannot be true about everything. A false Agamemnon can be a real actor. An unreal Abraham or Nimrod can be a real dream. And so on. And if the false Agamemnon is not a real actor, it may still be a real mistake to take him for Agamemnon. And if the unreal Abraham is not a real dream, it may be a real picture or Moving Pics Film Theatre.

Every unreal something is a real something else.

Using eternism about cosmos is an even older ruse than using BB evolutionism about it.

You know Carl Sagan? He is only marginally BB evolutionist. He is mainly a BB / BC (Big Crush) alternating states eternal cosmos believer, an eternist about the world. Just like Lucretius (who btw was a periodic catastrophist in order to explain why humanity does not keep historic record of all eternity past).

That is also Satanic.

Manlius Boëthius said it very was far from Philosophy or Wisdom.

"The guys are a lot smarter than I am, but I slaughter them because I am right and they are wrong."

Spot on, that is why even some Catholics (this one raises a hand) like Hovind Sr (and Hovind Jr for publishing the material with Hovind Sr).

Universe, etymology.

Versus actually means turn. In verse and prose it refers to turning to a new line when a set number of syllables or syllabic short lengths (two such for a long syllable) have been reached.

In universe it refers [originally, when it referred to anything] to the unified turning of the heavens around the earth each day, in somewhat less than 24 h (the sun, lagging behind it, makes it in 24, since they are 24ths of a solar day).

HBJ, General Science, 1989, p.362 ...

The "nothing exploded" is NOT a a strawman!

ghasp *if my jaw could have dropped to the floor without taking the rest of the skull with it, I guess it would have*

[Re: ] Conservation of angular momentum ... why do some things spin backwards then?

"God did it on purpose to make the BB theory look stoopid".

Well, what about another reverse: reverse parallax, and some stars that show it show more of it than any stars showing ordinary parallax.

Can God (and his angels) have done it or be doing it on purpose to make heliocentrism look "stoopid"?

"Shut your mouth and quit your wine ..."

well, Timothy was told to use some (and Jesus provided some for some others at His first miracle - which also shows how the Blessed Virgin Mary introduced the public miracles of Her Son as much as Himself, that is why we call Her Mother of Our Salvation).

If you have committed ONE SIN you are guilty and going to Hell.

If it is a mortal one, yes.

Even if you were born again before that.

And if you are not, and live long enough, sooner or later you might commit them pretty easily.

How many here know how to get saved if you were already born again by the Sacrament of Baptism and commit one or several mortal sins?

John 20:21-23

That is right. Absolution by apostles' successors! Priests.

After Confession of the sins you need absolution for.

And guess what?

If you are Baptised, you are so to the Death of Jesus to die from sin. It is not something other than Christ's sacrifice.

If a priest absolves you, you are absolved by the authority of Christ who Rose from the Dead. It is not something other than Christ's Resurrection.
video commented on:
EKrassner90 : Kent Hovind: The Age of the Earth part 2
This Kent Hovind guy is a fraud. Some American Christians think they dont have to pay their taxes eventhough they live in the community. They want all the pirks like hospitals, public transport, schools, roads, welfare, civil servants, child welfare agency, police departments etc. But they think that theyre paying too much in taxes. But its GREEDY GREEDY people like Kent Hovind who wants to hold onto his millions.Im glad God doesnt think they should be above the law. Now in jail for a decade.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"They want all the pirks like hospitals, public transport, schools, roads, welfare, civil servants, child welfare agency, police departments etc. "

They want schools where all are forced to attend and listen to evolution?

They want child welfare agencies some of which take away children from Christian parents?

They want hopsitals to continue abortion, contraception and in some cases mental treatments for Christians?

C'mon! Be real, for once!

And u speak as if there were no bad judges too!

And if the public system supports Jacques Cousteau, and the élite who could raise the Georgia Guide Stones, is it just greed not to want to contribute?

Romans 13 gives a list of reason for, among other things, paying taxes.

There are some things done by modern states clearly not on that list. And those that are might not be even much more than half of the budget.

Not to mention that a man who attacks these and Philip Duke of Edinburgh as well might find less than justice in courts.

Have you missed that Lyndon LaRouche also attacked the Duke of Edinburgh for the "virus" quote before he was convicted for tax fraud?

I mean, if they got Philip right, they might have had a reason to attack him.

If they got him wrong, why did not the attacked man deny the quote or apologise for it, so far ever, and why are two men who attacked him for it convicted by US justice?
Hans-Georg Lundahl [to the video]
Amuse, etymology.

Muse means think, ponder, meditate or daydream (over something).

Amuse originally make someone else muse.

Bemuse is now used for amuse.

Amusement parks are parks that help you to muse - in the sense of daydream.
Col 2:8 - "philosophy and vain deceit" - not that it is further qualified "after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ".

It is not wrong for a Christian to believe in a Philosophy which is consistent with the faith. Which Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy of Church Fathers and Scholastics is, and evolution is not.

Back then Stoicism and opposite Epicureanism were as little after Christ as Evolutionism is now.
classic quote:
"I have a theory about that. About six thousand years ago, God created everything. About 4400 years ago there was a Fluhhdd. So the oldest ... is less than 4400 years ago."
applicable to:
Oldest tree, largest desert, largest coral reef (at least).
slight disclaimer:
He is not a Geocentric (see reverse spin of parallax comment above under link to other video)
clue to why he is in prison:
He insulted Disneyland, CNN, Jacques Cousteau (who had a carreer in French army and resistance) and whoever is behind the Georgia Guidestones abomination. He also joked about a possible threat to petrol consumption. If petrol formed during Flood of Noah, there may be human remnants squished into it. Petrol industry happy? Possibly not.