Thursday, October 31, 2013

... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:
tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
Akita538 (to a previous one of notstayinsdowns)
Your claim that things *must* have always been the same because you didn't see them change is refuted by all the available evidence, logic and common sense - there used to be dinosaurs but no birds or mammals. Now there are birds and mammals but no dinosaurs.

Calling evolution "religion" is simply untruthful. You either reject science and evidence or you don't. It seems that you do.
That's weird, because I heard that birds are dinosaurs. That is why it a belief system because when one starts putting all the "answers" together it doesn't make sense.

And then there is the Cambrian Explosion.
Your post makes no sense. Does that make it a ''belief system?

The Cambrian Explosion is a crushing humiliation for 'creationism'!
The Cambrian Explosion proves a world wide flood because everything was buried in one huge event.

They really got you good with their brainwashing if you can't see that.
So you should have no problem pointing us towards the fossils of some Pre Cambrian people, donkeys, camels etc...the ones that lived and died before the flood.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with your assumption is the you are assuming "Cambrian layers" are earlier than "Triassic layers".

For Grand Canyon this may be so (earlier by a few days or even minutes during Flood, we would say), but for other parts of earth you do not find fossil bearing layers of both epochs on top of each other in that or any other order.
Answered twice:
  • DeathsHood (i)
  • Coolguy Canuck (ij)
DeathsHood (i)
There is no evidence anywhere on the planet positively indicative of a global flood.

Anything and everything that has been brought forth in support of Noah's Flood has been systematically dismantled, debunked, disproved and utterly destroyed by actual scientists working from an objective standpoint.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is no evidence anywhere except Grand Canyon for the Geological Column. And in Grand Canyon it could be produced by the Flood.

The people you call "actual scientists" are actually people who adher to a Geological Column that I am debunking.

There are plenty of evidence all over the world for rapid burial under high layers of mud (that become sediment).
Answered twice:
  • DeathsHood α
  • Akita538 β
HAH! Debunking the Geologic Column! Good one...

Coming from a guy who believes a flood could have carved a mile-deep canyon, with turns at up to and exceeding 180 degrees, through solid rock, in 'a couple days'.

Good one.

Go learn some basic geology and stop adhering to Hovind Theory, little one.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Basic geological fact:

Apart from Grand Canyon fossil carrying layers are not different eras in different levels.

Try getting straight WHERE the paleontologists get their Cambrian and their Triassic fossils.

It is on the wikipedia.

And it is not one place where you find Triassic 25 ft and Cambrian 50 ft under ground level (except, possibly, Grand Canyon).
Answered twice:
  • Teraku2 I
  • DeathsHood II
Teraku2 I
That's not a basic geological fact, that's a lie you just made up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not make it up, I looked it up.

On wikipedia.

en . wikipedia . org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
Answered twice:
  • Marco Hooghuis (1)
  • Teraku2 (2)
Marco Hooghuis (1)
Argument from ignorance.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Argument from knowledge. Only Grand Canyon (in that list or not?) and a place in Morocco span more than one or two closely neighbouring geological eras.
Marco Hooghuis
You are assuming that because those two areas are like that the flood must have happened. That is an argument from ignorance.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl α
  • DeathsHood β
Hans-Georg Lundahl α
I am rather saying that on all areas except the two (GC plus a place in Morocco ranging from Cambrian to Permian) there is not very much temporal stratification as to fossil finds.

And I am basing that on the wiki list of such sites.
DeathsHood β
He's also ignoring everything about Hydro-logic sorting dismantling a global-flood hypothesis.

But... Creationists and reality never get along.
Marco Hooghuis
And that even though the bible says the flood was global, somehow at least every Egyptian at the time missed it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Egyptian culture starts after flood and develops some kind of flood denial (Atlantis story can be flood minimalisation). And in case you say Egyptian starts before date of flood, no, either is a bit off the date (say if you date flood by protestant Bibles).
Marco Hooghuis
Ancient Egypt started around 3000 BC, the flood was apparently after that (according to answersingenesis it was 2348 BC). Atlantis merely proves that a city can be wiped out, not that it was done by a god. A force of nature is able to do the same.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
According to the Roman Martyrologium for December 25 it was "a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo" (2957 after Flood) that Christ was born.

Say Ancient Egypt's start is two hundred years after rather than hundred years before that and there you have it.

Atlantis and the Hindoo flood story are both untypical by not being global. Egyptians and Hindoos also share longer chronologies than the Hebrew ones.

That is a particular cultural denial - like Darwinism.
Marco Hooghuis
3000 BC comes before 2957 BC...

Darwinism is denial? How?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You said Egypt starts about 3000 BC

If Egypt had started 3057 BC that would have been 100 years preflood.

If Egypt started 2757 BC that would be 200 years post-flood.

3057 BC and 2757 BC are BOTH around 3000 BC.

Darwinism is denial of Creation and Flood, despite all stories we have of both. Egyptians and Hindoos were in partial Flood denial.
john clewes
You fucking stupid imbecile. If the Egyptian culture started 200years after the so called flood,how come there were enough people around to quarry,cut,and assemble 2million ten ton blocks of solid rock,Did the fabled multicenturion Noah and his band of merry shipmates produce this phenominal offspring,and re-populate the rest of the world whilst they were at it?? No,of course fucking not,the whole ark myth is complete nonsense,as is the entire biblical OT, and believing this rubbish is absurd.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
On exiting Ark after Flood:

Eight people. Three of the four couples start to reproduce.

One pregnancy takes nine months. One new born takes about 13 years before being able to reproduce himself or herself.

200 years is ample time for this. Do the maths.
john clewes
LMFAO,of course 300 years is plenty of time for three mating couples and subsequent offspring to repopulate the entire planet,how can I have been so stupid not to realise something so obvious .!!!!!! The mind fucking boggles.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As long as they have no competition and no real setbacks, yes.
Teraku2 (2)
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Please show me a geological, scientifically peer-reviewed article or journal backing up your statement.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please show me a geological peer reviewed article on any of the sites enumerated that contradicts the wiki on what eras you find fossils from on the site.
DeathsHood II
Not only are you completely ignorant of the geologic column as an idea, you're completely ignorant of basic geology...

Find me a single place on the entire planet where Cambrian-era fossils are found in Permian or Cretaceous rock.

I'll save you a few microseconds of research and say: There aren't any! No Cambrian fossils have ever been found in rock that wasn't dated to the Cambrian Era, just as Triassic fossils are found in the Triassic, Permian in the Permian, and Cretaceous in Cretaceous.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Find me a single place on the entire planet where Cambrian-era fossils are found in Permian or Cretaceous rock."

Find me a single place where Cambrian layers with Cambrian fossils are found under Cretaceous layers with Cretaceous fossils, for that matter?

Always excepting the Grand Canyon.

Provide it.

What you're doing is making claims.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I already back them up by linking to the list of fossil finds.

In that list I have not found any with two widely different eras. One place you find Pliocene and Pleistocene. One other you find Triassic and Jurassic.

It is rather rare to find Cambrian and Pleistocene neatly on top of each other.

Did I not give YOU the link to the wiki? Sorry:

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You didn't even read the article, did you?

Wow, this is priceless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have spent half an hour clicking one site after site named in that list.

You are the one who did not read the article. Supposing you even understood my point.

See, place A you find Cretaceous. Place B you find Triassic. Place ? do you find Triassic above Cretaceous? Or if you do, you bet they are hardly far off from each other.

There is not enough double era finds to substantiate geological column. Each era can be verified as fauna, but not likely temprally through column.
You said: "One place you find Pliocene and Pleistocene. One other you find Triassic and Jurassic."

So why is it that there are numerous Pleistocene formations located in: Eritrea, South Africa, Ethiopia, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, China, Spain, Italy, France, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Wales, Australia, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Idaho, California, S.Dakota, etc, etc, etc...

Seems like formations from the same era are located pretty much all over the Earth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, they are. But not in same places as Triassic formations also all over the world.

Meaning you cannot really tell whether Pleistocene and Triassic are different eras as evolutionists want to believe or just different faunas, as we Flood Geologists-with-adherents (I am not a Geologist myself) tend to believe.
Akita538 β
A typical North American erosion formation will consist of layers of rock strata as deep as a mile or more and covering an area of hundreds of square miles. Layers of limestone which were clearly formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine animals are interspersed with sandstone strata which were clearly formed on dry land, as evidenced by fossilized footprints of land animals, and other land animal fossils"
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And if limestone was a lot of shellfish overflowing an area during flood?

If sandstone was formed on wet land before getting covered by flood?

I am no expert at Geology, but I do know you gave no very good evidence for a column with Triassic on top of Cambrian and under Tertiary and so on.
The burden of proof is on YOU to explain:

1. why all science is wrong, and

2. why, in spite of that, your computer still works.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The burden of proof of a scientist proposing an interpretation is to show either other interpretations wrong or his own clearly functioning.

A computer technician shows his science correct for instance by making computers.

Shall I suppose you to mean that those interpreting Grand Canyon as made over millions of years (as to the sediment at least) are involved in making Grand Canyons over millions of years?

A bit hard for me to stay around and check their result if so.
Coolguy Canuck (ij)
When was the Martian Great Flood...and was Noah up there too?

The Mariner canyon is even larger than the Grand Canyon and of very similar morphology. Care to explain where all the water went?

Even the ancients describe Mars as being red, so the water must have disappeared almost immediately.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know where the Martian Mariner Canyon comes from.

Mars could have held some waters up to the Flood of Noah and some of the waters we got here was thus evacuated from Mars, if it comes to that.

And yes, Noah's Flood and water coming down to earth would have been an occasion for pretty much drying up Mars.

Thanks for telling me about that Martian Canyon, I had not thought of this before.
If evolution has provable flaws, why has no creationist managed to find one of them?

If they have *anything* genuine to work with, why do they consistently resort to dishonesty?
You mean besides the ones I have been pointing out that you can't refute?

Even the scientists can't agree on how "evolution" works and the very statement that I keep hearing, The theory is able to change with new evidence, means "evolution" is inconsistent and therefore is flawed.

Logic 101.
When was this? You appear to be hallucinating or suffering from false memory syndrome!

All of science is "able to change with new evidence". That's what it's like when people actually care whether what they say is true, rather than the easy 'certainty' of the bigot.

If there is any real argument or evidence to support 'creationism', why isn't it put to work?
Which I answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl A
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl B
Hans-Georg Lundahl A
"You appear to be hallucinating or suffering from false memory syndrome!"

Be careful with such allegations.

You had a false memory - if you like - about my having admitted angels as dong what is supposed to be parallax doing so on my view with intent to fake.

That I did not admit. And yet you pretended I had admitted it.

I even quoted relevant parts of our earlier conversation from my blog post where I had copied it*. It was not there, you made no excuse.

* ppt . li / dg
*Your* claim is that the parallax evidence for heliocentrism is the result of trillions of angels moving stars in a coordinated way (and that this conceals the supposed 'fact' of geocentrism)

It hadn't occurred to me that anyone was dishonest enough to seriously pretend that such a thing could be anything other than a calculated act of deception.

I don't need an excuse for telling the truth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My claim is that the supposed parllax supposedly evidencing heliocentrism is not parallax but the result of some ten thousand angels (majority of stars show no parallax) doing proper movements.

I do not claim this conceals the very open fact of geocentrism. You claim it would be concealing it "if Geocentrism were a fact", I claim the parallaxes are no clear sign of heliocentrism, because of the alternative causality being thinkable.

And therefore there is no deception.
Hans-Georg Lundahl B
"If there is any real argument or evidence to support 'creationism', why isn't it put to work?"

It is put to work in media like creation . com but if you were asking about National Geographic, you are very naive about evolutionists' honesty on creationist argumentation.
If God didn't create DNA, what came 1st, the DNA or the protein?

The protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for BY the DNA.

So, the protein couldn't be there 1st since its code/order is contained in the DNA that it decodes.

Proteins would have to decode themselves BEFORE they could exist.

Without the protein there 1st, the DNA would never be read & the protein would never be made. The DNA couldn't have been there first since DNA is made & maintained by the proteins of the cell.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
  • Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
I do agree so much.

Only, should you not have put this as an answer to an evolutionist?

I am a creationist, you know.
Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Why start with the 'God did it' standpoint?

Maybe it was space aliens... there's equal evidence for both (none), but a far greater probability of space aliens than a deity as written in the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually space aliens would stand under exactly same problem.

They would be products of some evolution. And in their case too one could ask whether it started with DNA or with proteine.
"whether it started with DNA or with proteine." <-- I'm going to assume you meant 'Protein' here.

If that is the case, you just invalidated your own argument.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not.

And I assume Protein is American spelling for Proteine.
I'm not American, but whatever...

In any case, what is 'proteine' then?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Possibly a way too French spelling of Protein?

*apologetic smile*
I figured, but didn't want to assume.

That being the case, you still invalidated your own argument.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I still did not.
"whether it started with DNA or with proteine." Yes, you did.

^That quote^ perfectly illustrates your woeful ignorance on the basic subject of DNA.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you don't even understand the subject you're attempting to 'debunk'?

Really... you're just like Kent Hovind.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The argument is that DNA could not work for self replication without a proteine already existing, and proteines are built after recipes contained in the DNA.

Neither works without either eternal steady state universe or ... God.

Actually it is so well constructed that even an eternal steady state universe would need a divine designer.

Oh wait ... you mean the DNA is replicated via RNA and not a proteine?

Sorry point taken.
You assert that DNA required proteins, and that proteins require DNA, yes?

You assert that this is impossible, and therefore ONLY God can be the answer.

You invalidated your own argument by forming an argument from ignorance, providing no evidence to back up your claims, and following with a God of the Gaps,fallacy as the ABSOLUTE answer, despite having no evidence that any form of deity actually exists.

Your argument is invalid, as it is based on false premises, and baseless assumptions.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are things about abiogenesis which really require each other before working. Like self replication and cell walls around amino acids.

And in that case my point stands: saying Aliens are more probable than God ignores that Aliens would have developed on some other planet and their origin would pose exactly same problem.
"to teach young people things that we know are not true is tantamount to abuse of young people"

That coming from a catholic priest is priceless!!!!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We do not know if he is RC or Anglican.
A 20 second google search of 'Canon David Jennings' gave the first hit which is a C of E site.

Do you just make presumptions without looking these things up?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, he is David Jennings!

Did not hear that. And he is C of E?

OK, not a priest then! C of E lacks Apostolic Succession.
I heard the video twice trying to hear where did the priest ridiculed creationism but i heard nothing. Why then this video is titled as '' A Priest Ridicules Creationist''?

A deceitful and wily title!!!!!
All you have to do to humiliate a 'creationist' is to keep them talking - they do the rest themselves!
john clewes
Too fucking true,especially lunatics like Hans and his god monster adoring angels. Did you know they carry the stars?? Icertainly didn't,and im letting NASA in on the secret.,lol
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and his god monster adoring angels."

Where did monster come into the words? Did you get it I mean the angels adore God or did you get it backwards?

The secret is pretty old and open. Look up St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (or Summa Theologiae), Prima Pars, Quaestio 70, Articulus 3. Does exist in English translation too.

newadvent . org/summa/1070 . htm#article3
Mike Christ
I don't see the point in schools teaching creationism; the theory itself takes but a few minutes to learn. The entire class would simply be centered around disinformation to ensure creationism can fit with the pieces that don't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you mean the theory of how things were created, it can take more than that if you go into scholastic distinctions like what is God, why is universe produced by creation rather than emanation or identity, how is it like and unlike its maker, what is the difference between spiritual and material creation.

But creationism is also a pretty complete set of answers to the so called proofs for evolutionism. Why is abiogenesis impossible? Why is geological column unproven? How can C14 go wrong? Etc.
Mentioned flat earth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What Church Fathers denied sphericity, what accepted sphericity and what did not care about sphericity?

If you could get unanimous support from Church Fathers, which you cannot, what Bible passages would condemn sphericity?

None as far as I can see.
Matthew 4:8 (seeing all the Earth from the top of a tall mountain) and Revelation 7:1 (four angels standing on the four corners of the Earth), for example. And there are a few more.

Some writers clearly thought the Earth was square, some thought it was a disc (ex., Isaiah 40:22). None wrote that it was spherical, and they surely would if they had any knowledge of geometry.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You mentioned no Church Fathers.

Matthew 4:8

Ver. 8. Shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and as St. Luke says, in a moment of time. We cannot comprehend how this could be done from any mountain, or seen with human eyes. Therefore many think it was by some kind of representation; or that the devil shewing a part, by words set forth the rest. (Witham) --- He shewed him the different climates in which each country was situated. (St. Chrysostom)

Own hunch: showed by tele-vision (etymological sense)

Revelation 7:1 "corners" = major wind directions (NS-EW)

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: *he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
So, where is the eastern or western corner of the Earth?

And no, Isaiah doesn't say globe, he says circle. The two words are quite different in Hebrew (kadur and chwug), and the sentence was correctly translated to other languages (preserving the word "circle", not globe). A simple web search for "Isaiah 40:22" should make that pretty clear.

Stop making stuff up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Douai-Reims Bible Online translates as globe.

The western corner of any part of the earth is where the west wind blows from. The eastern corner is where the east wind blows from.
I admire your logical contortions, and the work you went through to find a revisionist translation, more concerned with correcting the Bible than with preserving the Word of God™, but I think not even you buy those explanations.

The Bible was written by uneducated people who had no idea the Earth was spherical (few people did, or had any reason to care about it, in those days). Same thing with slavery or treating women as property; to them it was perfectly normal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You may not have grasped that I am a Catholic.

If Douai Reims translates a Hebrew word as globe, I take it that globe is a good Hebrew translation for it.

Latin Vulgate has: Qui sedet super gyrum terrae.

The Bible may or may not have been written by people thinking the earth was flat, but if so they were curiously preserved from saying that out directly.

And people who accept psychiatry and school compulsion, not to mention child welfare are in no position to call Biblical slavery barbarous.
Answered four times
  • ExtantFrodo2 (1)
  • john clewes (2)
  • ExtantFrodo2 (3)
  • Cliffjumper24 (4)
ExtantFrodo2 (1)
" people who accept psychiatry and school compulsion, not to mention child welfare are in no position to call Biblical slavery barbarous."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What shall I consider in return for your insult?

Are you a social worker?
john clewes (2)
Child welfare??? That is a bit rich coming from a catholic.!! Does this supposed welfare include refusing to allow birth control in Africa,thus producing even more hungry mouths destined to die in agony of starvation?? Alternatively,do you class the systematic buggery and other ghastly sexual abuse of innocent children the world over by sexually dysfunctional paedophile priests as welfare.??? Personally speaking I would be delighted to see the pope and his cohorts of transvestite underlings shot
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Child welfare refers to a certain modern kind of administration which takes that name from its nominal concern for the welfare of children. In reality it takes children away from parents pretty often thereby reducing both to a real slavery.

As for sacerdotal child abuse, that is an issue after Vatican II, when one ceased to defrock priests for even slight offenses like touching a bottom or making a joke in bad taste.
ExtantFrodo2 (3)
The argument that some modern translations claim Isaiah meant "sphere" or "ball" when he wrote Isaiah 40:22 is not supported by the FACTS. Isaiah uses "chuwg" meaning "circle, circuit, compass" in 40:22. In Isaiah 22:18 he actually DOES refer to a "ball" using the word "duwr" meaning "to gyrate, circle, ball, turn, round about, to move in a circle".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vulgate which uses "gyrus" is at least as good a clue to the text as the present Masoretic one.
It isn't. As mentioned above, the original says "chwug" (which means a circle), and a globe or sphere would be "kadur". That's why pretty much every bible, in every language, has translated it as "circle" for several centuries.

I like how you equate slavery to child welfare. It explains why you have a problem with psychiatry.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Slavery means one man acting as if he owned another man and his children.

Psychiatry does that. Child welfare does that.

The Crampon Bible translated the word as vault:

Isaïe 40:22 Il trône par dessus la voûte de la terre, -- et ses habitants sont comme des sauterelles; -- il étend les cieux comme un voile, et les déploie comme une tente pour y habiter;

[My emphasis, obviously.]

And when you say "original" I suppose you mean Masoretic. Note same thing.
Louis Segond: "C'est lui qui est assis au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre"

Bible du Semeur: "Or, pour celui qui siège sur son trône au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre,"

NE Genève: "C’est lui qui est assis au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre"

Segond 21: "C’est l’Eternel qui siège au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre;"

And so on.

It's actually a good thing that some people are revising the bible to fix its many errors. If only they would also fix the parts about killing gays, owning slaves, etc....
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Louis Segond was a Protestant scholar, I boycott his Bible.

Obviously he took the masoretic text.

I have not yet had time to see if Septuagint has "kyklos" or "sphaira" in the vers[e] ....

But even supposing circle is the original word - though Jews could have changed that to make their Babylonian Flat Earth convictions clearer in opposition to Christians - that does not specify whether the circle is a rim of a disc or any kind of cut through a globe. It could by itself be either.

If you take together "circle of the earth" and "four corners", the disc interpretation makes these contradict each other, the alternative ones of either do not contradict.
It isn't. As mentioned above, the original says "chwug" (which means a circle), and a globe or sphere would be "kadur". That's why pretty much every bible, in every language, has translated it as "circle" for several centuries.

I like how you equate slavery to child welfare. It explains why you have a problem with psychiatry.
Hans believes the universe to be 7200 years old and the sun orbits the earth between Venus and Mars.

I'm not surprised he's afraid of phychiatry... it's only thanks to a tag of a religious viewpoint that he hasn't been carted off to the funny farm (or maybe he has been in the past!)!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and the sun orbits the earth between Venus and Mars"

I am Tychonian.

Venus and Mercury are always between us and the Sun when it is not the Sun that is between either or both of them than us.

Mars and Jupiter are never between us and the Sun, but when either is on our side of the Sun, we are between it and the Sun.

Where is the problem?

As for psychiatry, I might or I might not be afraid, but I certainly condemn it.
Cliffjumper24 (4)
Even the catholic church has embraced evolution, although it takes the point that God breathed 'spirit' into the human soul.

I may not agree, but at least Catholicism has made the leap from crazy childish Creationist ideas into something that resembles the facts as we've come to know them thus far!

Maybe you should get in line with your own church's viewpoint?!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Even the catholic church has embraced evolution"

What has embraced evolution is not the Catholic Church.

What is still the Catholic Church has not embraced evolution.
Well, both evolution and the big bang theory were first formulated by priests (Mendel and Lemaitre, respectively). The fact that they had a lot of free time and didn't have to worry about working for their food enabled them to study those issues.

So, while religions that promote anti-rational thought are indeed a hindrance, in practical / economic terms, religions that promote the pursuit of knowledge were responsible for funding most science before the industrial revolution.
Mendel didn't formulate 'evolution' by any stretch, let alone be the first to do so.
He's generally considered as the father of genetics, which forms the scientific basis (i.e., the demonstrable working mechanism) for evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It also forms a scientific basis for certain refutations of evolution.

E g the one from Chromosome numbers.
That can only be considered "a refutation" by someone who completely failed to understand the mechanism.

The problem with most creationists is they don't even know enough to present an argument that makes sense, let alone an argument with any scientific merit.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh yeah?

creavsevolu. blogspot. com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-o­n-karyotype-evolution. html
Oh my, a link to a creationist blog that doesn't even work. My Lord, I have seen the light!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Remove the spaces and it will work.

Is this the first time you realise that links that do work cannot be posted in youtube comments?
Answered twice
  • ExtantFrodo2 A
  • RFC3514 B
ExtantFrodo2 A
This site does not indicate any understanding of any aspect of biology on your part. Try again.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

It indicates I have better understanding of chromosome numbers than PZM has.

You try again.
RFC3514 B
Duh! I did remove the spaces. It tells me "Désolé, la page que vous recherchez dans ce blog n'existe pas".

What kind of argument do you expect to "prove" by posting a link to your own blog anyway, even if it wasn't broken? Is this one of those "it is written so it must be true" arguments?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, when you have done that and clicked, one more step: there are funny characters inserted:

[...] letter-to-nature-o%C2%ADn-kary­otype-evolution [...]

[...] letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-­evolution [...]

Try that.
humans do not get possessed by demons. People just lose sanity. Exorcism does not cure insanity, but it can make the insane feel the people are not all out to get them and thus relieve their fears for a time.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neither of these two affirmations are true.

Both insult the Gospel truth.
Insulting the bible is required. It is an insult to any intellect. It is an insult to humanity. It is an insult to our better selves. It is an insult to morality. It's a fucking fairytale.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fairytales are no insult to the intellect, nor to a will that is innocent. They are an insult to perverted intellects that serve perverted wills.
john clewes
Ah,a fucking catholic,that says it all.!!! Do you feel proud belonging to what is probably the most inherently evil,manipulative,corrupt,and sexually dysfunctional religious cults ever devised by mankind?? Does it warm your heart to think of the millions of innocents starving to death in Africa,courtesy of the insane catholic doctrine of banning birth control?? Do you get a hard on thinking about homosexual so called priests systematically buggering children,only to be absolved by the Vatican???
I am not the Catholic. The person in the video is.

But people are starving in Africa because of the godless political leaders. There is plenty of food and most of those countries were good producers until the IMF introduced socialist programs.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As a Catholic and a Creationist I do appreciate if you do not add Evolutionist Fanatics to the number of Catholics.

I did not know (since I overlooked) that the speaker was an Anglican.

Someone pointed it out to me and I wrote him to notify him of the blog posts where I save my parts of the debates.
I appreciate your comment. My intent is not to disparage Catholics but core Catholicism believes it is in charge of all religion and therefore does not always represent Christianity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know why you call such a thing "core Catholicism".

Except in the sense that truth judges all error the Catholic truth cannot be in charge of Non-Cathoic errors.

By the way, I have difficulties seeing Karol Wojtyla as a Catholic.

If you want to know what Catholicism is, take a look at authorities like St Robert Bellarmine or Pope St Pius X. Newman is not always absolutely right, but generally good (and not a modernist, despite reputations).
john clewes
Pope Leo X was by far the best catholic leader,a drunken glutton with a penchant for small boys {obligatory??},he openly admitted in front of several dinner guests Jesus Christ was an invention.!!! BTW Hans,google it first before throwing a tantrum,it is a recorded historical fact.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Recorded" by an Englishman devout to Martin Luther whom Leo X had excommunicated. An Englishman which tektonics (a Protestant apologetics ministry) called Bilious Bale after the nickname he had in his own day. "Recorded" in a book that was admittedly a satire.

But this is of course the kind of "history" you call recorded facts.
'Creation Science' is science in the same way that a 'fake gun' is a gun.]
Michael Brown
A naturalistic evolutionary creation would be science just as much as the magician is truly cutting the lady in half and putting her back together alive.

There is no ingrained naturalistic dynamism that would have led life to add to its genetic complexity while leading it to evolve into a higher life form. Dogs are an example of the fact that mutation are always creates flawed mutants.

Your peers have been able to peddle a silly mythology as a scientific concept
Physics: look it up. Do you think God spends all day causing the weather? Or is it conceivable that it is the result of natural processes, without requiring any mystical powers?

You appear to live in a pagan twilight zone rejecting the concept of a God who created the laws of physics and instead believe that any organised matter is caused by spirits of some kind.

Perhaps you should take more water with them? : )
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Any MOVED matter is caused by spirits of some kind.

Matter without spirit = INERTIA.

Your vision of a clockwork with "laws of physics" acting like a spring is Newton's Deism.

"Do you think God spends all day causing the weather? Or is it conceivable that it is the result of natural processes, without requiring any mystical powers?"

God is eternal and omniscient. He is not "spending" time attending at anything. He is quite capable of making every electron (if there be such) make its due orbits around the nuclei everywhere in the Universe. [... and still attend on exactly everything else at every other level as well and still not "spend much of" His attention on created things, if it were correct to speak as if God's attention were divided into portions.]

God is however also capable of leaving the immediate direction of event based things (and of beasts) to spirits. Dan. 3:58 - 81

[O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [...] O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Beasts and cattle do not praise their maker in themselves consciously, but their guardian angels do.]
Answered (in its first part) twice:
  • Akita538 α
  • Akita538 β
Akita538 α
Strange then that Newton's Laws of Motion do such a good job of predicting what the spirits will do next. Spirits with no will to do anything other than obey the laws of physics might just as well not exist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Newton's Laws of Motion do such a good job of predicting what the spirits will do next."

They do no such thing of course.

"Spirits with no will to do anything other than obey the laws of physics"

They do other things while the bodies they move obey the laws of physics. Note that a sun moved daily around earth (regularly) or a pen held in mid air (exceptionally) by an angel would not be "disobeying" any law of physics, just doing what they could not do on their own without action of angels.
Akita538 β
How do you mean 'clockwork'? Surely you don't believe it is possible to make anything that works? You appear to be entering the strange pre-Christian, animistic mental world of Michael Brown! Take care.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do believe it is possible to make things that work. On their own even.

But I do not believe the Universe relates primarily like that to God.

The world you call pre-Christian was not abolished by Christianity. Unless you call St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis of Assisi "pre-Christians" and Newton the first Christian.

... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:
tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
Answering my
God can have created the world any way He wanted to. etc.

600 years before Christ, the Bible stated: “In the time of those kings (Rome), the God of heaven will set up a kingdom... that will never be destroyed” it will “fill the whole earth." It will be built "not by human hands". Daniel 2:31-45

This Kingdom of God began in Rome in 33 AD with the resurrection of the Messiah and FILLED THE EARTH. 2005 Christians (millions): Europe 560, Latin America 480, Africa 360, Asia 313, North America: 260. Total: 1/3 of mankind
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, I agree.

But it was not exactly on subject.

If you have heard some kind of rumour I am no Christian or that I am a Jew or something, that rumour is wrong.

I was right now writing about cosmology, about the way God created the universe - like I believe He put the Earth in the middle and immobile.
Alex Romanov
Geocentrism? seriously?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If not - why?

What is your refutation of Sungenis?

I suppose you know the Saignac effect and Mitchelson Morley (was that the name?) as well as he does?

What is your explanation?
[first a debate with an earlier answer, then back to Alex' answer]
Wiki : Foucault pendulum
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, my explanation as a geocentric to that is that the pendulum is influenced by some kind of forces (say gravitational or similar) from the universe orbitting Earth.

Now, what was your explanation to the Saignac and Mitchelson experiments, again?
pwahh. You have zero understanding of the requisite physics. Pulling suggestions like that out of your ass is not how science is done. How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at billions of times the speed of light. Do you even realize this is required by your geocentric conjecture?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at ..." (more than speed of light).

Omnipotence of God.

Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover.

"Do you even realize this is required by your geocentric conjecture?"

Not billions of times unless I accept the distances.

Which I do not.

But faster than speed of light. Yes. Possibly (have heard it would be about Neptune which would be speed of light limit each day around earth).

Geocentrism is not a conjecture as much as an observation.

And your take on speed of Sirius around earth each day depends on denying it and treating "parallax" as parallax and as a basis for trigonometry.
do you think the earth is 6000 years?? Take a look at this...

infidels. org/library/modern/dave_matson­/young-earth/additional_topics­/supernova . html

This page shows proof that sn1987a is about 170,000 light-years from us.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did. [i e remove spaces]

Here is the assumption:

"Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring."

Assumption - we "have" distance between nova and ring. We do not, the distance can be much smaller than assumed.
Do you live in a universe where the sped of light is changing by any significant amount? The time between the nova and the illumination of the ring tells us how far away the ring was. What part of that do you not understand?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That assumes that the nova and the ring were related by precisely the speed of light.
Yes, it does. You are right. It could very well be the ring is not much bigger than the star, just one year closer to us than the star and lined up exactly between us and the star such that the and facing head on toward us so that it only by the freakiest chance gives the impression that it's a circumstellar ring.

I don't know why I bother.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Or it could be the ring came into existence one year after the nova?

At unknown distance?
To this of me above:
Now, what was your explanation to the Saignac and Mitchelson experiments, again?
(first answered by) ExtantFrodo2

This page shows why you obtain a null result from a Saignac interferometer about a rotating center.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The page cannot be found


New page about Sagnac:

mathpages . com/rr/s2-07/2-07 . htm

Quote from page about Sagnac:

"Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory."

And both are consistent with ballistic and naïve ether theory if Geocentrism is true.

That is Sungenis' point (I have that one from him, creds where due).

Thank you for mathpages!
To this of me above:
"How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at ..." (more than speed of light).

Omnipotence of God.

Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover.
So you invoke magic to explain why the physics fits your notion of being contrary to all experiments. Get out!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not invoking magic, you are abusing words.

Anyone who believes in God would have to agree (if he is logical) that this is possible.

Anyone not believing in God has the problem of an at least somewhat anti-intuitive contrast between universe as it is and universe as it is seen.

Also, none of this explanation is "contrary to all experiments".

They can say man could never turn the universe around the Earth, they cannot say that of God and as far as I know they are not saying it.

One is saying that God is doing it: what we see with our eyes every day and especially corroborated by inner ears telling confirming Earth is stable.
Sure, with an omnipotent god type thing - anything is possible. So why talk about science? If you choose to invalidate every science that is contrary to your whimsy, then just don't bother trying to talk in scientific terms at all because you have thrown that out the window.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are not dealing with a Universe which according to the most basic OBSERVATIONS is Geocentric while you believe it is really the opposite, like an Earth rotating and orbitting a sun which orbits a galactic centre, which orbits perhaps centre of universe - and all that.

With God I can believe the Universe is what it looks like. From here, from our senses, not from an Atheist's conclusions.

I am not throwing science out of the window.

I am saying science will not work without an omnipotent God.

Just as a doctor in Lourdes seeing a miraculous cure (like sudden cure of tubercular peritonitis before antibiotics could cure those and with complete restoration of already damaged tissue) is acknowledging an Omnipotent God precisely because he does believe the medical science.

A miracle does not equal "nothing can be excluded" but "all just natural causes are excluded".
To which I got two answers
  • ExtantFrodo2 α
  • ExtantFrodo2 β (which is shorter and will be given first)
ExtantFrodo2 β
You see lots of crutches at Lourdes, but oddly no artificial legs.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Malchus got his ear back, when St Peter had severed it by a sword.

St Lucy got her eyes back.

Lourdes has nothing similar, but the Church of Sts Cosmas and Damien (in Constantinople, I think) has.

A man with one leg got out with the leg of a dead negro who needed it no longer (in centuries when such technology was not humanly possible, in case it would be so now).
ExtantFrodo2 α
Yes you are. When you say "the natural explanation can be superseded by god performing a miracle" you have basically thrown science out the window. You now pick and choose at your whim which thing you will explain by miracle or not. No rhyme or reason. Pure folly.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I lift a pen I am not saying that is a miracle.

When a pen I am not lifting is falling or lying on something, I do not say that is a miracle.

When a natural explanation accounts for all and contradicts nothing known, I stick with a natural explanation.
No you don't look how you invoke angels to explain natural phenomena. You don't, so stop lying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
But an angel is created.

A pen moving because it is held by a hand and a pen moving because it falls to the ground are equally natural explanations.

And an angel holding a star is a more natural explanation than the two forces of inertia and gravitation evening out in circle after circle four and a half billion times.

Remember water drops in video? Fifteen times before they got onto knitting needle with electric charge. Not five billion times.
remember the difference in scale? Billions of times larger. I guess that means nothing to you.

HTF is "an angel holding a star" = "a natural explanation". You can't just make up definitions for words as you please just like you make up explanations by invoking an omnipotent being or his unobserved minions.
To which I answer twice:
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl A
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl B

Hans-Georg Lundahl A
The difference in scale makes BOTH attraction AND intertial momentum so much greater.

But the problem was not whether it was a small momentum balancing a small attraction or a big momentum balancing a big attraction, the problem is that momentum balancing attraction in the small scale works out as very unstable orbits.

Why should greater scale make the orbits so much more stable? It is still two forces balancing each other, not one movement without acceleration.
Hans-Georg Lundahl B
An angel holding a star is no more unnatural or supernatural than a man holding a pen.

Those are capabilities that go with the roles.

Angels are not unobserved, and if an omnipotent being exists and is true explanation of some things (like immediate explanation of day and night through rotation of universe), your methodology is likely to land you with a false one.

And no, God turning the Universe around us is is perfectly supernatural to me. God is not created. Unlike angels.
On earlier answer
with observation saying Earth is Geocentric:
Yeah, I've heard what your observations consist of "rotation of the earth is not detected by the inner ear". Of course not. It isn't fast enough. We could put you in a sealed windowless house on a turnstile that rotates once every 24 hours to show you that your inner ear wouldn't clue you into it actually moving. It works through inertia and momentum of the fluid there trying to remain in place as the sensory follicles rotate around it they are dragged out of position. What's the threshold rate?

Second, if the head experiences sustained accelerations on the order of 10 – 20 seconds, the hair follicles return to the “zero” or vertical position and the brain interprets this as the acceleration ceasing. Additionally, there is a lower acceleration threshold of about 2 degrees per second that the brain cannot perceive. In other words, slow and gradual enough motion below the threshold will not affect the vestibular system.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are explanations for Earth seeming still even if it were both rotating and orbitting the Sun.

This does not preclude that if I believe Geocentrism I am believing that the Earth is as it seems to be.

I was not challenging you for direct proof from senses, but, if I had, explaining the lack of proof would not be a proof.
(second answered by) Akita538
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would rather say your explanation of Saignac and Michelson experiments are non-extant than weak, so far.

Unless you agree with somewhat more farfetched explanation of the paper linked to.
[Back to Alex' answer]
Alex Romanov
buy a telescope.

observe a cephid star and the Sun's position relative to it, and your own.

I hope being able to visibly observe the Earth's rotation is proof enough.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are abusing the word "observe" for "observe inverse of and therefore conclude".

You do not observe Earth's supposed rotation by that.

You do not observe, though you might conclude (in my not so humble opinion wrongly) Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun from that.

I am not exactly into what a Cephid is. I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails. And on a Christian view, they can.

Pagans like Aristotle agreed but alas identified that with Pagan gods. (And this was before parallax became an issue).
Alex Romanov
"You do not observe Earth's supposed rotation by that."

"I am not exactly into what a Cephid is"

Okay. "if angels can account for stellar movements" You make this claim on the basis of?

Anyway, if you don't quite know what a cephid is, how exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that observing it, doesn't unequivocally prove the earth's rotation?

". And on a Christian view" Any evidence of the validity of this view? what separates it from saying, Malak can do so and so, in the Islamic view?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not saying observing it would not unequivocally prove Earth's rotation, but I add that.

I was saying observing it is not observing Earth as rotating.

I do not know what Malak is in an Islamic view, and I do not know if there is on this simple metaphysical level any difference between Christianity and Islam. There are obvious ones on Theological levels.

Okay. "if angels can account for stellar movements" You make this claim on the basis of?

"if angels can account for stellar movements" is not a claim. Here is the claim I did make:

I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails.

I base it on logic. If A or B account for C, C cannot conclusively prove either of them unless the other is excluded somehow.
This was answered thrice:
  • Alex Romanov (i)
  • Alex Romanov (ij)
  • ExtantFrodo (iij)
Alex Romanov (i)
"observing it is not observing Earth as rotating"

Again, I'll repeat my question if you aren't aware of what it is, how can you confidently state what it's observation doesn't imply?

Interesting point on Islam and Christianity, since both Muhammad and Jesus claimed to be exclusive paths to their own respective gods, and widely differed on religious precepts eg: In Islam drinking alcohol is a cardinal sin, The christian claim that Jesus is the son of god is rejected, which version do you prefer?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
I am a Christian.

Muslims being wrong on Christology and on Morals does not mean they are wrong on a simple thing in metaphysics like what angels can do.

My words:

observing it is not observing Earth as rotating

Your words:

How can you confidently state what it's observation doesn't *imply*?

Do you agree you did a misnomer in using "observe x" when you meant "observe y which implies x"?
Alex Romanov (i, second round)
"Muslims being wrong on Christology and on Morals"

How do you assume it's them that's wrong, and not you?

"Do you agree you did a misnomer"

If you insist on breaking down an unequivocal conclusion sure? by that logic, you can't say you observe your computer screen, the light excites your retinal cells, which implies there is a source of light, which based on it's consistency implies words, which also "seem" to be a computer screen
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i, second round)
I insist that between observing Cepheids and concluding Earth either rotates or orbits there is no "unequivocal" or rather no compelling conclusion.

Unless you start by ruling out God.

And I can take the discussion on what Theology is correct another time, here is about Metaphysics where we and Muslims are equally right.
This was followed up
by some filibustering:
Alex Romanov
Also, if the geocentric theory is true, why do the crop circles left by alien visitors always feature the largest sphere as the center? would you say the Earth is the largest object in existence?
Hahaha, how appropriate. Genius.
Alex Romanov just gotta give the irrational a taste of their own medicine. lol
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you tried to be irrational (as if I were so and you were giving me my own medicine)?

Explains why your answer made no sense.
The filibustering was just one part ...
Alex Romanov (i - 1)
" insist that between observing Cepheids and concluding Earth either rotates or orbits there is no "unequivocal" or rather no compelling conclusion"

I noticed that, but what I'm genuinely curious is as to what led you to that conclusion when you're unaware of what Cepheids are?

"here is about Metaphysics where we and Muslims are equally right."

So are the muslims only correct when they agree with you? or are there cases where they have it right and you don't?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you want my take on Muslims, invite me to debate against a Muslim video inviting Christians to debate. If you merely want to make the point we both think each other right only where we don't think each other wrong, that goes for you in relation to either of us too.

As to the serious question: a tiny observation of far off stars cannot in itself overrule a daily observation of what Earth shows itself like and what skies look like over Earth.
Alex Romanov (i - 2)
Also, I see you didn't quite explain how if geocentrism is the correct model, the gravity assist technique, which is wholly reliant on a heliocentric model, that too a very specific one, works?

Or the moon mission? which also based their calculations on a heliocentric solar system?

Also, what if all humans moved to another planet, and abandoned Earth, would the universe continue to rotate around it, or would it rotate around the new planet?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Moon mission only needed accuracy about relative movements of Moon and Earth. And either way you calculate you get the relative movements correct.

Humans will not move to "another" planet, since Sun, Mercury, Venus are too hot, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn too cold. Plus all except Moon moving too fast.

As to gravity assist technique, explanation is wanted before I answer. I am no prophet.
Alex Romanov (ij)
Also, were the sun revolving around the Earth, why is according to you, that the background observations do not remain constant? if the Earth is not rotating, but is fixed why are all cosmological entities eg: star's pulsar and nebulae viewable from any point on Earth, at recurring equal intervals? are all of them rotating around the Earth as well in your theory or do you have another explanation for why your night sky is what the other side see's 12 hours later and vice versa?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij)
All heaven is rotating around earth, and only God has the power to make it do so, which is why this observed fact - unless you can prove the observation to be illusion - is prima facie a proof of God.
Answered twice
  • Alex Romanov (ij, second round)
  • shayne g
Alex Romanov (ij, second round)
I see, so you feel the entire observable universe, all the galaxies, stars planets etc are rotating around Earth then? just to be clear? Everything out there is rotating around our planet?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij, second round)
Everything is rotating around Earth somewhat faster outside than one circle per 24 h. Suns lags behind and makes one circle in exactly 24 h.

That is Classical Geocentric Cosmology. Has been believed and taught as fact for longer than your Heliocentric stuff.

Planet is for earth a misnomer.
Alex Romanov
I see, so, everything, regardless of distance from Earth, is moving at a speed around the earth, such that it appears to make a little over one circle per 24 hours?
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Stars move considerably faster. One circle 23 h and some 50-ish minutes.

Sun moves exactly one circle 24 h.

Moon moves slower 24 h and 50 minutes.

Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc which have retrogrades move erratically.
Answering (as said)
All heaven is rotating around earth ... etc.
shayne g
So how do you explain retrograde motion lol! I think you will need to look it up you may not have heard about it ?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all, it is only relatively retrograde.

If you abstract away the overall westward movement of all heavens each day there is one such. But if you look at it concretely, each planet is going westward along with the sky. Retrogrades mean a slowing down of that.

I explain them exactly as Tycho Brahe did. Sun moves directly around the Earth westward each day and along the Zodiak eastward each year. Venus & Mars and the rest move around it and move as fast, or faster or slower on the whole.

So much for the geometric and temporal, i e properly astronomical explanation of retrogrades.

As to the physical, it is not a problem for angels to achieve this. If their powers given by God are adequate for the task.
Coolguy Canuck
Evasive waffle. Mars appears to go backwards against the celestial background.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Supposing it to stand still.

As it rotates around Earth, Mars is concretely rotating with it but at certain times slowing down and lagging seriously behind.

And this is due to the fact Mars rotates around the Sun and its double movement, the daily westward and the yearly eastward (i e the Sun lags behind the daily movemnt of the stars).

Precisely as I was saying in the comment you found evasive.
shayne g
Retrograde means going backwards .... I told you to look it up! You could have found a grown up to help you if you had trouble! Saying Mars is slowing down or going backwards a little bit, is like saying your crackpot theory is only a little bit dead ....Dead is dead, thanks for the laugh!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And I told you retrograde is only what it is if abstraction is made from the daily movement of the universe, i e if it is regarded as not occurring.

You could have looked that up (you might have needed a better source than wiki, though).

During retrogrades each night such and such a planet will be behind what it was the night before. But there is not a moment, as far as I know, when it will stop still and turn eastward.
shayne g
Well as i told you you need to look it up! You say that as far as you know there isnt a moment in time that it will stop still and turn eastward well i am informing you that there is a time it does. It and i am not getting my info from wiki. I observed it myself in 2007 by going outside and watching it over a few months just as you can do next time it happens.You may even find the dates when it will happen again on wiki lol!
Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe you (until I check). I was wrong.

Slight modification of my explanation, this means that the orbit of Mars around the Sun is sometimes so much faster than the daily orbit of Sun around Earth that Mars not just slows down but really moves backwards.

Nevertheless, that also is within the possibilities of angels guiding the heavenly bodies.

No need to abandon Geocentrism just for Retrogrades.

Wait ... you said "over a few months" ... I thought you went out and saw an hour when it stopped going westward and turned eastward same night?
shayne g
Don't you think angels have better things to do? The much simpler explanation is the bible and koran are completely wrong!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think the angels have above all one thing to do: adore God.

In Church, during Mass, there are servants whose specific task it is to carry candles. But like the others, they adore God.

The angels that carry stars are like the servants that carry candles.

Did not find any answer about whether Mars was turning east on a specific night when the rest of the sky continued west - or whether the specific orbit of Mars eastward from day to day at one point turned westward and then turned back east after a few nights or weeks or months.

Did you concretely at a specific moment see it turn?
(To the part about servants in Mass)
shayne g
Churches are funny!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In that case, maybe so is the universe.
ExtantFrodo2 (iij)
I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails.

Wrong. Try this...

If angels can account for stellar movements, AND angels exist, then argument from parallax fails.

See what a big fucking "if" that is?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If they did not exist they could not account for stellar movements (including "parallax").

I was just reading in anglo-saxon about the one who stayed Abraham's arm.

If God had not existed, how come every trait of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (including Isaac saved / Jesus resurrected) was reapeated about Christ?

Or if angels had not existed, why did a car run over a child without harming it and the child saw a man lift the wheel which no other person saw that man?
tina webber
......... because that [...] never happened
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is of course the atheist's option.

Never mind if it makes sense about what we otherwise know about the texts and their background.

Genesis and Gospels are not novels by a modern fantasy writer. They were from the first believed as true history by communities concerned.

[Forgot to refer her to Mother Basilea Schlink's collection of Guardian Angel stories where I got the child under the car wheel from. Not a collection of fantasy stories either, but if not genuine it would be deliberate deceit. Which I find less probable in this case, not being an atheist.]
Do they run degree courses in Retardation somewhere, or do you just happen to be, you know, naturally retarded?

The cap fits whether you actually believe all that crap, or whether you're just being a Poe.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, that kind of filibustering (and modern "education" seems to encourage it when it comes to YEC and Geocentrism) is a very good explanation why Heliocentric and Evolutionist paradigms suffer no more than they do from rational opposition.

What was it Dawkins said about a YEC (who was a scientist)? Holds ears and says "la la la" - fits your behaviour right now.
Poe it is then. Gotcha!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If it makes you feel any finer ... *grin*
I do like it when people of religion can actually give a good and solid argument without even bringing their religion into the argument at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you love when Dawkins can actually give a good and solid argument (if that ever happens) without bringing in his evolutionist beliefs?
Evolution is not a belief system.

It is a scientific theory* supported by numerous amounts of data.

*A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you claim that for things like common ancestor of cats and dogs, of mice and men, of mammals and birds, of frogs and fish, of animals and plants ... not to mention abiogenesis, well, then you are mistaking a belief system for a theory.
Evolution is a belief system in the same way that 'bald' is a hair style and 'Off' is a TV channel.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That one worked lots better with "atheism" instead of evolution.

I even granted it insofar as "atheism" per se does not specify whether you meant "evolutionary atheism" or "theravada buddhist atheism" or for that matter Demokritos' steady state eternal universe atheism.

But for any specific of the three, the case refuses to work.
Atheism is Atheism: Lack of, or disbelief, in a God or gods.

Everything else is separate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Which is why Evolutionism is not a mere negative as Atheism is.
Only creationists like the term 'Evolutionism', because they're trying to make it sound like a belief system.

Mainstream science doesn't use that term.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mainstream science in those fields does not use that term because it is infected by the thing.

Meaning that good science is a minority in the issues concerned.

Not that a field can be concerned without an issue being concerned. Biology is concerned as a field, but most issues in biology are not concerned.

But even supposing evolutionism were good science, it would still be a system of doctrine in which one believes rather than a lack of opinion.
It doesn't use the word because science isn't an '-ism'.

The scientific method makes an assertion based upon falsifiable testing.

If it is a validresearch, other scientists should be able to perform the same experiment.

If the same conclusions are not met, then it is called into question.

An example is Dr Andrew Wakefield's assertion that MMR can cause autism.

The study was called into question and have be proven incorrect.

Evolution hasn't been called into question in 150+ years
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure. Being infected by Evolutionism you accept it as science.

Even if you were right, it would not be a non-opinion or an opinion just against a thesis like atheism considered in itself. It would be a system of doctrine.

Evolution is being called into question time after time by Creation Science. On proofs and on explanations.

And "fish developed eyes from photosensory spots tied to cirkadian system" is not testable as Ohm's law in electronics is.
Answered twice
  • john clewes i
  • Cliffjumper24 ij
john clewes i
LMFAO. Creationist science???? The two terms are totally incompatible,hence there's no such fucking thing.!!!! In case you hadn't noticed, EVOLUTION is firmly established as a proven peer reviewed scientific FACT,accepted even by your own pervert ridden cult,and like it or not,the subject IS being taught in schools the world over,which with any luck should mean the next generation WILL avoid the indignity of becoming a universal laughing stock.!!!! EVOLUTION is,so get used to it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Creation_science

"In case you hadn't noticed, EVOLUTION is firmly established as a proven peer reviewed scientific FACT"

I did notice "mainstream science" is largely infected by "evolutionism". Your wording adds nothing about that social acceptance except that unlike me you accept it as the due to that idea while I do not.

"EVOLUTION is [...] accepted even by your own pervert ridden cult"

The pervert ridden part are the psychiatry accepting part, since traditionally perverts were not sent to shrinks but defrocked. They are also much of the evolution accepting part.

"the subject IS being taught in schools the world over,which with any luck should mean the next generation WILL avoid the indignity of becoming a universal laughing stock.!!!!"

Universal laughing stock before whom? If it were not taught there would be no "universal" consensus (and there still is none such) before which creationists could be a laughing stock.

"EVOLUTION is,so get used to it."

"We are the Borg. You ... will ... be ... assimilated."

Oh yeah?
Cliffjumper24 ij
There is no such thing as 'Creation Science', because it isn't 'science' at all.

Science can only test empirical, natural claims..... and creationism is giving 'supernatural' reasons that can't be tested.

Creationism is taking the bible, replacing the cover to one with a science book, and putting it in a library in the science section.

It's done in an attempt to unconstitutionally sneak christianity into US schools.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[1] If Creation Science were not testable, that would make it no worse than Evolutionism.

Science can test claims about what we observe.

It can sometimes test claims about explanations of what we observe.

Therefore it can conclude that certain things we do observe do not have natural explanations, because those offered are tested and found faulty.

Therefore it can conclude for supernatural explanations.

[2] The Constitution does not say the Bible cannot be taught in schools belonging to the States.

As far as I know none belong to the Union (below University level).

Even there the Bible is not a specific religion in the sense the Constitution was originally understood by its earliest citizens. Unlike for instance a Trentine or Belgic Catechism (Catholic respectively Calvinist).
First part answered twice
  • Michael Brown (to the first part)
  • Cliffjumper24 (also to the first part)
Michael Brown (to the first part)
Atheist concluded that science = everything ought to be explained atheistically.

Evolutionists are investing nature with a creative power thus the concept of mother natures having presided over an atheistic evolutionary process.

Nature or the creatures being invested with an evolutionary dynamism is traceable to ancient paganism. Darwin has only repackaged and served the myth under the cover of science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
True enough.

If Darwin cannot be said to have done so consciously, it is very true for the Darwin reception.

Before Charles went on board the Beagle, he was not a Young Earth Creationist, but already an Old Earth non-Biblical philosopher. And therefore Evolution became his solution to the supposedly successive faunas of Lyell.
Michael Brown
The scriptures are not referring to the earth being young.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The passage in itself does not specify how long that lasted.

But Mark 10:6 makes it clear it cannot have been any larger portion of history.

From the BEGINNING of creation ... (or of the world)...
Michael Brown
The earth had already been there when God started his creation.

You are just underestimating the power of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent creator God. If He were to withdraw his Spirit all life would be annihilated. Naturalism is investing nature with miraculous creative power moulding new species through a tedious evolutionary process like turning apes into men, land mammals into whales or turkeys into penguins..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not underestimating the power of God.

I am affirming his veracity.

You lied.

"The earth had already been there when God started his creation."


In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. Creation was already around when Earth got there.
Michael Brown
In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.

The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

If that stage had taken long time (or been preceded by long time) Adam's and Eve's subsequent creation would not have been, as it was, in "the beginning of creation" from which "God created them man and woman."
Cliffjumper24 (also to the first part)
Creationism takes data and twists it to meet the presumed facts that it wants to find in the first place.

And when proper scientists look at it, it has been found to be unscientific (not meeting the 'scientific method').

So... how old do you believe the Earth/universe is?

What are these things that "do not have natural explanations"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Evolutionism takes data and twists them to meet the presumed facts that it wants to find in the first place.

    And when Creation Scientists or even other Evolutionist Scientists look at it, it has been found false, according to either Evolutionist or any Scientific method.

  • 2) Earth and Universe were 7200 years a bit more than a decade ago.

    Christ was born Anno Mundi 5199.

  • 3) Three at least on a general level:

    • a) Biological life, its occurrence, its organs, its diversity (especially when considering mammalian chromosome numbers or the diversities that are hard to bridge in exterior fashions).

    • b) Mind.

    • c) Geocentrism (which is an observation that only atheism could disprove).

    • Add to that on more specific occasions:

      d) All the recorded miracles.
He answered
the three points separately
Cliffjumper24 1st point
Things that are supernatural cannot be tested... which means they are not falsifiable... and therefore means it is NOT 'SCIENCE'.

So there is no such thing as Creation Science... it just doesn't exist.

It's that simple.

Creationists have a conclusion, and try to find evidence to support it, and selectively leaving out evidence that doesn't support it.

That is the opposite the scientific method..

You didn't answer my question on how old you think the universe is anyway.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wrong, wrong.

I just explained how supernatural causes can be tested by their natural or miraculous but at least in-natural and observable, testable effects.
That's NOT SCIENCE... and as you admitted.... Creationism isn't science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The effect is science. The impossibility of an alleged natural explanation is science.

So the conclusion of a supernatural cause is scientifically concluded.

I was not admitting Creationism is not science, I was citing you to point out circularity of your reasoning in defense of Evolutionism.
Cliffjumper24 2nd point
Sorry, you did answer it...

The centre of our galaxy is 26,000 light years away.... the nearest visible galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away.

We can SEE these things, with telescopes.

If there universe was 7200ish years old, the light wouldn't have reached us yet!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We can see the stars with telescopes.

We cannot see "our galaxy" as a whole with our telescopes, as from the outside. Presuming it is there, we would be in its inside.

We cannot see the light years, they too are conclusions rather than observations with the telescope.

We cannot therefore conclude any light reaching us would not yet be reaching us if its source was only 7200 years old.
Yes, we can't see all of our galaxy because we're in it.... that's what the milky way is.

Since you have no understanding of the basic astronomy of THIS solar system, it would be a complete waste of my time trying to explain about the age of stars and wavelengths, and the speed of light.

By the way, if the speed of light wasn't a constant, and something real and testable.... there wouldn't be electricity, or computers.

That alone is proof the universe is more than 7200 years old.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not denying the speed of light. I have reserves on that as for outer parts of universe where stars are rotating around us faster than the speed of light here, but I was saying we have no knowledge of any star being so many light years away.
Cliffjumper24 3rd point
a: Evolution explains it, and hasn't been disproven scientifically (creationism isn't science) yet, despite the data from comparative genome testing, which would probably have been the biggest threat to the theory if it was wrong.

b:This is the Argument from Consciousness.

We can see from observation that consciousness exists, but making the presumption that 'your god did it, rather than some other god (Vishnu, or Thor) pushes the burden of proof on you.

C: Astronomy, it's that simple!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
a) Evolution has not been disproven scientifically - Creationism is not science.

Oh ... any argument disproving evolution IS creationist. Ergo it is not SCIENCE. Ergo if evolution has been disproven it was NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ... duh.

Try again.

Besides, you forgot your usual distinction between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

b) "We can see from observation that consciousness exists, but making the presumption that 'your god did it, rather than some other god (Vishnu, or Thor) pushes the burden of proof on you."

This includes a complete refutation of materialistic atheism.

The anti-confessional point at the end bypasses that Christianity DOES take the burden of proof for its God being the true Creator and true giver of Mind. See point D, recorded miracles.

Those and that point are beyond mere creationism.

c)Astronomy has not disproven geocentrism.
Cliffjumper24 (on point a)
Creationism hasn't 'proven' anything... it hasn't submitted any papers that have withstood scientific scrutiny, primarily because it isn't objective due to a presumption of the facts it already has decided is correct.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The so called scrutiny Creationism's papers have not withstood (nor been demolished by, but which has in fact ignored its papers) is not objective due to a presumption of the facts that evolutionists have already decided are correct.
'Creation Science' is science in the same way that a 'fake gun' is a gun.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We know some Catholics are so much more enthusiastic for Evolutionary so called science than Pius XII allowed in Humani Generis ... he allowed precisely teaching the controversy.

Now, what we do not know is that such Catholics are still Catholic.
Cliffjumper24 (on point b)
Gravity isn't materialist.... but it exists.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And gravity does not explain the mind.
Akita538 (on point c)
In the same sense that "everything was created last Thursday" hasn't been disproved. Like millions of other propositions that have *nothing* to recommend them. Geocentrism is just one of those millions, along with stacks of invisible turtles supporting the earth while resting on nothing in particular (or possibly a pink unicorn.)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, not at all in the same sense.

Astronomy and geography have both proven that Earth is round. Astronomy has proven that Jupiter has Moons. Astronomy has proven that at least some planets - or rather all but one body, which we have reason to identify with Earth - circle the Sun.

But Astronomy has not proven and cannot prove that Earth circles Sun rather than other way round. Has not proven and cannot prove that Earth rotates rather than Universe around it.

Geocentrism is observed.

If anything is a pointless assumption it is precisely denying our eyes and inner ears telling us Earth is still and denying our eyes saying Sun and Moon move (in relation to Earth, yes, but to an Earth which eyes and inner ears tell us is still).

Only atheism could "prove" that pointless assumption, by making the obvious Geocentric alternative physically impossible.

St Thomas Aquinas was not amusing himself with pointless assumptions, I share Geocentrism with him.
Cliffjumper24 (also on point c)
It absolutely has.

Not only is the pole star not perfectly at the pole, not only is the tilt related to the seasons, but the order of the planets is NOT:





The Sun



Saturn... etc
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for order of planets, Earth is Earth and therefore not a planet.

Venus and Mercury and Sun align either way from Earth. And sometimes Sun is also between them.

I do not see in these things any disproof of Geocentrism.

Explain one of the points as a proof against Geocentrism if you can.
Answered twice
  • Cliffjumper24 A
Cliffjumper24 A
It took a few moments to type this reply because I was laughing so much that I had to double check I hadn't left a puddle on the chair!!

It's only because your completely uneducated ideas are classed as 'Religion' that you can say the nonsense you do without being subjected to mental health treatment.

I'm surprised you can eat foot with a fork without doing yourself a serious injury!!
Answered twice:
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl i
  • RFC3514 ij
Hans-Georg Lundahl i
It is because people like you can denigrate candour,and threaten with that kind of mistreatment, that your ideas flourish due to fear of being mistreated unless one shows oneself "understanding" ...
RFC3514 ij
"The Earth is not a planet"

You realise what this means, right? He's posting from almost 2000 years ago! Who knew they even had access to YouTube back then?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, my near countryman (or countryman of my ancestors), Tycho Brahe, lived about half a millennium ago.

So far his solution has not been disproven - unless you can show spacecraft did so ... somehow ... (watching Earth move from the Moon does not count, since Moon would be moving around Earth).
Are u stupid? If the Sun could orbit and make way through between Venus and Mercury, we would be literally toast, because of the proximity... I took less than 2 minutes to answer you, and I already debunked you.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl α
  • ExtantFrodo2 β
Hans-Georg Lundahl α
You thought you debunked me.

Where does the proximity come in?

I accept the distance calculated by taking angles to Sun, to Moon and to Sunlight refelcted on Moon.
ExtantFrodo2 β
Watch him say that angels make the sun as hot or cold as necessary depending on how close it is to the earth and call that "debunking you". LOL
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, if the Sun was closer back in Henoch's day, I suppose it was cooler too.
People never thought earth was flat, it was just said by the Church, and so they write about it. But every inteligent man back in medieval time knew earth was round. (sorry for my bad english, I am a French student on History and I wanted to add something about what he said).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"it was just said by the Church"?

"ce fut juste préconisé par l'église"?

No, the Church did not say the Earth was flat!

Throw Michelet out of your Historic library when it comes to Church and Middle Ages. He is a hack.

Every intellectual in the Middle Ages knew the Earth was round, but that was thanks to the Church.

Some non-intellectual but intelligent people thought it flat, because they did not use the schools of the Church but stayed at the farm or fishing boat.
Answered twice
  • elarios77 (i)
  • Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Nah actually it was because one important man of the Church told it was flat, and so the intellectual in the Middle Ages did the same to look more close to the Church. I may have told this the wrong way the first time my bad.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, but you are wrong about history.

St Cyril said the Earth was flat, St Augustine said it was round, St Basil said he did not care.

St Augustine was more attended than the other two in this respect.

"and so the intellectual in the Middle Ages did the same to look more close to the Church"

Which ones of them?

Not St Thomas Aquinas. Not St Francis of Assisi. Not St Dominic of Guzmán. So, who?
Cliffjumper24 (ij)
The bible says the earth is flat, not the church.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neither the Church, nor the Bible.

The Bible says it has circles, but does not specify if they constitute a rim of a disk or a globe. It says "terra" has four corners but does not specify whether in context that means Earth as a whole or just the Mainland / Continent (which, as a matter of fact, had four corners until England and Ireland were cut off making it five and Australia was cut off making it six, two opposed to each of these islands).

Friday, October 25, 2013

... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:
tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
Most fiction incorporates the names of real places and people. Such correspondence is not evidence that the bible is not fiction. Sorry, but you are terribly wrong. The fossil record alone debunks creation. You should find all species at every level if creation was true. Denial of this amounts to nothing short of a desire to be dishonest and lie about reality. The global flood is impossible and completely without evidence.
Ever heard of this:

"The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[8] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection."

The Bible has never been shown to be wrong and then there is prophecy, truth in reporting, etc. Verification of the Bible has been made for hundreds of years.
Lantern Corps
The fact that the Cambrian Explosion happened a couple hundred million years ago pretty much already debunks the idea that God made the earth only a couple thousand years ago. Perhaps, next time, we not try to use evidence for the wrong argument?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all he was not at the moment arguing for a young earth but against evolutionist atheism.

Then again, the Cambrian explosion, so called, is not what happened some hundred million years ago but what has been dated as such.

Third, it is a conclusion of evolutionist and deep time geology thinking and as such relevant as reductio in absurdum of other parts of that ideology.
''First of all he was not at the moment arguing for a young earth but against evolutionist atheism.''

Exactly, so many people sticking up for 'science' seem pretty poor at identifying different but related questions, which is odd, because I'd thought that having a reductionist worldview would mean that they're very left-brained and so would be good at logic. I think some are jumping on the bandwagon that they think makes them look clever and others have got logical blindspots.
Because there is different stories about after life indicates there must be an after life, but only one can be true. So one must look at "all" the evidence in order to make this important decision.

But my reply was about my motivation to tell my belief. I already have my afterlife situated so it doesn't help me to change people's minds. It is to help others.
Lantern Corps
So, by your logic, if I made three different versions of the Harry Potter book series, that means that one of them must be a reality?

110% logical.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you made three versions of HP book series they would not be three stories believed by people as true.

His point is that popular notions with stories conflicting in detail but really believed point to some genuine experience.

Flood and man in first creation are of course stronger cases than after life. Since Adam had eyes to see with as soon as created. Since Flood was documented by Noah (main staple of what is writ in Genesis about it, though physical explanations can have been revealed).
Lantern Corps
By the way, there's another thing that I sort of view as a problem with Christianity: At first, the people were told to hold everything in the Bible as truth. Nowadays, if you asked one thousand Christians exactly what parts of the Bible we should hold true, and what parts should be identified as false, you would get thousands upon thousands of different combinations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And there would be a few who held fast to everything being truth in the Bible.
Answered twice
  • gerontodon (i)
  • Akita538 (ij)
gerontodon (i)
Well that's where I can sympathise with the atheists. I can't honestly hold fast to the bible being completely literally true, so I find it hard to imagine there's a moral obligation to do so.

I accept that it takes strength of character to have that belief, but I don't see that as a logical argument for it *in itself*, nor a reason to think that I'm logically inconsistent in being accepting of intelligent design, open to the possibility of special, or gap creationism, whilst not a christian.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I can't honestly hold fast to the bible being completely literally true"

Where is the problem?

"I accept that it takes strength of character to have that belief"

Just enough not to cave in for "peer pressure" even if repeated.

"whilst not a christian."

Well, then you have a general problem of disbelief, not just about Biblical literalism.
''Where is the problem?'' Well for one thing, I don't think that 10,000 is long enough for dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts to have come and gone. For another, the closest I feel I've come to understanding the concept of Christ's redemption of humanity is through gnostic explanations.

I have a 'general problem' if I'm wrong my disbelief is morally wrong-however I would dispute that I'ma spiritual shopper going along with peer pressure.

Intelligent design is not exactly trendy in Britain.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I don't think that 10,000 is long enough for dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts to have come and gone."

It is short for them to have evolved, but not to have been created. And since some hunting has helped extinction on its way. No problem there.

"For another, the closest I feel I've come to understanding the concept of Christ's redemption of humanity is through gnostic explanations."

That is a problem of unbelief or wrongbelief.

"Intelligent design is not exactly trendy in Britain."

But peer pressure from other Brits has nothing to do with your stance, right ...? Right ...?
Answered four times:
  • gerontodon 1 a
  • gerontodon 1 b
  • gerontodon 2
  • bluebottle99 B
    (while bluebottle99 A is for an earlier one)
gerontodon 1 a
If you're asking my opinion on that, then I think it's wrong, wrong.

It's possible that there's a box I'm unable to think outsided of, but I think that's unfalsifiable, and theoretically possible for everyone. I rarely meet anyone who doesn't belong to a world religion and is also radically skeptical of the academic consensus on abiogenesis or evolution, so peer pressure doesn't have much to do with it. It might have something to do with how long it took to arrive at some conclusions.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's possible that there's a box I'm unable to think outsided of, but I think that's unfalsifiable, and theoretically possible for everyone."

I do not think anyone is genuinely unable to think outside his box.

"I rarely meet anyone who doesn't belong to a world religion and is also radically skeptical of the academic consensus on abiogenesis or evolution"

And if "academic consensus" is another world religion?
I do accept that geocentrism is quite radical- that's not an argument in itself though.

I think it can effectively be, but you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that such scepticsim hs an irrational basis- exactly the opposite. I was denying that my position has much to do with peer pressure. If I was either an evolution sceptic *and* a Ch ristian, or an atheist, or a Christian who accepts neo-darwinism, and is practically a philosophical materialist (as contradictory as that is), then I would find a *lot* more people to agree with me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, ok.
gerontodon 1 b

Of course I meant that your insinuation that peer pressure *has* a lot to do with my stance is what's 'wrong wrong'.

Regarding your point that animals could have been created quickly-that wasn't really my point. I'm agnostic about common descent, I lena towards some kind of gap creationism, which would have been effectively instances of 'special creation', in that the new information could not have a natural source but could have also been developments in some way from what went before.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Point taken.
gerontodon 2

What I meant by saying that 10,000 years is not enough time for all those beasts to have come and gone is, that given we only know much about around 6,000-8,000 years of human history, I find it hard to believe that all that natural history could be either crammed into 2-4,000 years, or have been unrecorded.

I think a lot of history probably has been suppressed, but I don't think the coming and going of significantly different kinds of fauna over the last few thousand years could have been.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Most recorded history does not record natural history.

The demise of the Dodo bird is recorded because the English sailors who ate the last (or nearly last) were recorded.

Also, what if records took the form of heros fighting and killing dragons?
bluebottle99 A
Answering "Well, then you have a general problem of disbelief, not just about Biblical literalism."

What people 'believe' is irrelevant in the modern world.

Hanging on to superstitious stone-age beliefs in the 21st century is laughable and anyone who does so should be ridiculed and rightly so.

Denial of FACTS is a combination of both intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance.

Start getting yourself educated, you'll never look back, trust me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was once what you called "educated".

I started getting a Christian education at nine, and I have not looked back. Trust me.

What is relevant or irrelevant, laughable or serious to the Western World élite of 21 C. is irrelevant to my beliefs. Evidence is what counts, including Biblical not least.

"Denial of FACTS is a combination of both intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance."

We agree on that one. What does that say of you?
bluebottle99 B
Answering "And since some hunting has helped extinction on its way. No problem there."

What hunting?

You claim that T-rex was a vegetarian?

You were educated when you were 8? :D

Good one!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was an evolutionist geek at six, and at eight I knew the modern theories about galaxies and how stars are formed and the role played by gravitation.

Had to have something to do at eight when my (also geekish) grandpa passed away.

Point is, it is only since a little before nine that I am what you consider uneducated, i e a Bible believer.

I think my usage of the words is understandable, and justified by your own usage of them in previous comment.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hunting done by men to get rid of T Rex after they ceased to be vegetarian and started becoming a serious nuisance.
john clewes
LMFAO!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!! WAAAAAGH!!!! LMFAO!!! Congratulations bollockbrain,that is by far the funniest comment EVER posted on these pages,and rest assured a print off will appear on the notice board of a world famous natural history museum first thing in the morning for my esteemed colleagues general amusement. More of the same please,an appreciative audience eagerly awaits your next pearls of wisdom. lol
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Feel free to let them have a print out of the whole debate as far as I have had the time and energy to trace it then.

assortedretorts . blogspot . com/2013/10/to-unbalanced-anti­-yec-priest-and-his . html

assortedretorts . blogspot . com/2013/10/continuing-debate-­on-biblical-authority . html

It is (from my standpoint at least, cannot speak for all codebaters) made for printing, for republishing on paper.

Akita538 (ij)
Science doesn't make a lie of anything in the bible. It takes the literalism of 'creationists' to portray the bible as a book of lies.

If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works? The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible itself.

Unlike biblical interpretation, creation would exist even if no man ever had.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Science doesn't make a lie of anything in the Bible."

Science no, pseudo-science would if it were true.

"It takes the literalism of 'creationists' to portray the bible as a book of lies."

It takes old-earth scenarios and heliocentrism to portray it as a book of lies.

"If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works?"

Universe and Bible are both God's works.

Certain wrongful interpretations of the Universe are not.

"The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible itself."

Jesus took a recent creation and the genealogies literally enough in Mark 10:6, as even Hovind knows.

What is not in Bible is "Bible alone".
Akita538 (to first half)
Worthless assertions supported by nothng more than ignorant prejudice.

More of your usual, in fact!

You specialise in pointless assumptions with no more to support them than an infinite number of *other* pointless assumptions. Your droolings about geocentrism are an example of pseudoscience - unfalsifiable fictions designed to support a conclusion you started off with.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Geocentrism is not a conclusion. It is an observation.

It is Heliocentrism that is a conclusion, and one not supported by the observations as such, but only by observations filtered through your antitheist bias in the natural sciences.

Your "science" compromise with "non-literal Bible" or even calling Bible man's work is somewhat reminding of Galileo's writings to Foscari. It might have been very well for his life he did not publish those but was only tried for Dialogo and Saggiatore.

Under other video you claimed up to 480 AD no Christian had to take the Bible literally. Now that is a very pointless assumption. It is also a factoid you have not backed up with any reference from actual Church History.
Answered three times
  • Akita538 α
  • Akita538 β
  • Akita538 γ
Akita538 α
"you claimed up to 480 AD no Christian had to take the Bible literally"

No. I didn't say that.

I have pointed out that slavish literalism was clearly not obligatory in 480AD and that, in terms of placing value on facts, thinking was in some ways at a higher level than that found amongst modern day 'creationists'.

'Creationism' is a recent, shallow-rooted phenomenon based on hysterical denial of facts that people in earlier ages could not have known - wilful rather than innocent ignorance!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"that slavish literalism was clearly not obligatory in 480AD"

The fact please.

I mistrust your resumé of it.

Your take on creationism:

"based on hysterical denial of facts that people in earlier ages could not have known"

Could God have known them and is He the main author of the Bible over and above the hagiographers? Pope Leo XIII thought so.

Wait, 480 AD, are you referring to the St Augustine quote?

He was saying something about the flat earth theory. Or possibly about people reading the book of Henoch and concluding the natural solar year is (still) 364 days, as well.

He was himself a YEC as well as a Geocentric.

And he did not admit that flat earth was actually literally stated in Bible. He said "presumably".
His point was that Christians should be concerned with what is actually true, and that they shouldn't present ignorant opinions as being part of their faith.

There were no 'creationists' before it became clear that Genesis could not be 100% literal. Before then people accepted the Genesis account as the best explanation.

They didn't fear the truth, and felt no need to construct an elaborate web of lies to support their beliefs. So they were in no way 'creationists'.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
creavsevolu. blogspot. com/2013/10/was-st-augustine-a­gainst-literalism. html

On what St Augustine said and meant [the link].

"Before then people accepted the Genesis account as the best explanation."

As creationists still do.

"They didn't fear the truth, and felt no need to construct an elaborate web of lies to support their beliefs. So they were in no way 'creationists'."

That is a calumny about what creationists are.
Akita538 β
There is no "antitheist bias in the natural sciences". They confine themselves to what can be concluded from accurate observation of what can be observed.

Inevitably this means that the answer may be "we don't know", but it is never "God did it". Many scientists are Christians and would find your ignorant remark somewhat depressing.

Geocentrism was merely an ignorant assumption resulting from poor observation and a lack of thought.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you exclude explanation of daily rotation by saying explanation that God rotates Universe for us cannot be true, that constitutes an antitheist bias. Sometimes a k a atheistic methodology. Or "getting the natural explanation" even if it is not the correct one.

Dito for excluding angels as movers of stars (see St Thomas Aquinas' take on Day Four, Question 70).
No. It is adopting the economical explanation. The one where a tiny part of the universe rotates, rather than the vanity of assuming that everything else must revolve around the earth.

The one that fits with the (God-given?) laws of nature actually being consistent, and does not require God to practise an infantile deception on a massive scale to fake the appearance of heliocentrism.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Both fit the laws of nature.

Earth being still in the centre is not vanity but modesty. It is the periphery which is closer to God's both action and splendour.

No deception is involved in Geocentrism except letting those who wish to deceive themselves.

Parallax is not among the first impressions everyone gets about the Universe and it is not only the parallactic explanation of it which is logical.

If there is "backward parallax" it is even illogical.

Two corrections:

To myself: Both fit the laws of nature. - Well, at least the Geocentric model does assuming there is a God. Who can turn everything around us.

To you: "the vanity of assuming that everything else must revolve around the earth."

You should rather say the honesty of observing that whether it has to or not, it actually does.

At least till that is proven wrong, which only atheism could.
All you have is lies.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have at least plenty of prejudice.

Here is some on negative parallax:

realityreviewed. com/Negative%20parallax. htm
Akita538 γ
There is no doubt that the bible is man's work. You would have to be demented to think otherwise. Four gospels? Possibly a clue?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I acknowledge the Bible includes the work of MEN.

This does not mean it is per se the work of MAN (as opposed to God).
john clewes
Icannot believe in this day and age how any sane logically thinking person can support the ludicrous content of an absurd collection of farcical fairy stories concocted by superstitious bronze age nomads,let alone claim the content has some mystical conection with an invisible supernatural god monster.Even modern day church leaders dismiss the OT as allegorical parables, devoid of one shred of truth,and yet religio-creatards still maintain every word is factual. Man created gods,not vice-vresa.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"in this day and age" vs "superstitious bronze age nomads"

Sounds like you idolise the time you live in and diabolise not only a specific other time abut anyone living in it plus specifically nomads living in it. That is not my deal.

"church leaders dismiss the OT as allegorical parables, devoid of one shred of truth"

Not any leader of my Church. The so called priest in the video is an Anglican and even he might balk at what you say. Excepting the first chapters of Genesis. (Might ...)
john clewes
Try the archishops of York,Westminster and Canterbury for size,or don't they count on your list of pro creatard clergy?? Lets not mince words,your entire rather pathetic argument attempts to undermine evolution and give credibility to the preposterous idea the earth is 6000 years old,but surely even you must realise there is no point whatsoever locking the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted, Like it or not EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact,taught in schools worldwide.OK?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"archishops of York,Westminster and Canterbury"

Sounds like Anglicans, sham continuations of the Catholic Clergy before the so called Reformation.

They are as said not leaders of my Church. I am Catholic.

"EVOLUTION is ... taught in schools worldwide."

Sure. There are plenty of teachers who deserve hanging.

"even you must realise there is no point whatsoever locking the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted"

A world wide fad is something to argue against, however much world wide it were. A real fact one should never argue against, however few who believe it. Evolution gaining social support does not equal evolution gaining proof.
Answered twice
  • john clewes α
  • Magorax β
john clewes α
Sorry old chap,but in this case it most certainly does, How on earth can you{whoever or whatever you are} claim 95% of the worlds leading scientists are wrong,and evolution is a mere world wide fad??? You said it yourself birdbrain,one should never argue against a real fact,and as evolution falls into that category,why not learn to live with it?? Has the UK govt. been influenced by this so called fad when declaring evolution be iaught in all state schools as a recognised science subject? Def NOT
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Has the UK govt. been influenced by this so called fad when declaring evolution be iaught in all state schools as a recognised science subject?"

Yes, why not?

Since Nero and Herod, since Julian the Apostate and since Elisabeth and William of Orange, not to mention Lenin (who also introduced evolution in curriculum, remember) we Catholic Christians have a certain suspicion about rulers.
Magorax β
" Evolution gaining social support does not equal evolution gaining proof."

You have that a little backwards (Purposely, I'm quite sure). It's gaining social support precisely because it's gaining proof. Your personal incredulity amounts to nothing more than pissing into the wind.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A system may gain social support because it gains proof or for other reasons.

When Christianity gained social support, it gained new proof in each miracle.

When Evolution gained social support, it used things like modern indoctrination machines, like compulsory state scheduled school systems.
What's interesting is St Augustine wrote about evolution way back in the 5th and Pope Pius XII said believing in evolution is fine and Pope John Paul II said it is the most likely explanation known.

It seems to be mainly non denominationals and Pentecostals that have a problem with evolution because they believe in Biblical Literalism which is deemed a 19th century American heresy from Upstate New York
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What's interesting is St Augustine wrote about evolution way back in the 5th"

Well, no. He was a Young Earth Creationist.

"Pope Pius XII said believing in evolution is fine"

Well no, Humani Generis said the learned may debate the question and take both sides on whether Adam's body evolved from previous living matter or not.

It does not contain a word about actually as a faithful believing evolution.

"Biblical Literalism which is deemed a 19th century American heresy from Upstate New York"

How come that in that sense all Church Fathers (canonised such) were Biblical Literalists?