Friday, September 19, 2014

... in Response to Evolution and Pop Culture (CMI Creation Station)

Evolution and pop culture (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-19)

Older batch of comments

a) Your first problem is assuming it is the FICTION that makes for good fiction.

In reality, it is REALITY that makes for good fantasy.

That is why Silmarillion is better fiction than Star Trek : it draws on Christian realities.

The reason why evolution is so omnipresent in pop culture is that its producers got an education that usually included it.

b) Pekka-Erik Hauvinen [Spelling mistake indicates someone was probably abusing excommunications against me] ... Breivik ...

Maybe you can relate to a creationist eventually having to get out of one of those countries. Sure, if I had only been creationist, but otherwise protestant, but when on top of that I was Catholic and in the end (before leaving) Geocentric ... you get the idea.

Agora has (at least by artistic implication) a deity who looks down on the mob tearing apart Hypatia and all is like small insects. I believe that the huge sun is carried by an angel who is obedient to a God almighty who cares about even every sparrow, so much more every human being!

Guess why I had to leave Sweden in the end? OK, to make it somewhat clearer, the people like Lawrence Krauss are definitely more common than the Breiviks. Did you hear his debate with Craig? The guy misses a few points by not being creationist, the poor modernist ... but Krauss is what Sweden is on a certain social level

[corrected spelling mistakes here only indicated I was hurrying to comment before end of internet session.]

c) Speaking of that game [spore]... a friend of mine had one called Civilisation (Civilisation III, I think), which went stone age to world empire.

Now, cultural evolution is an older concept than evolution as such.

Atheists in Greece could not imagine a world without gods unless it was eternal. Steady state universe ... but why recalling [only] such a short history? Oh, of course, catastrophic reductions of culture to nothing and then a slow rise to over valued civilisation again. Over and over and over. Cicero accepted it too.

The original for Cuvier's catastrophism, perhaps? Definitely for the scenario of Conan the Barbarian. A bit less stupid than the evolutionary one for Ayla of the Clan of the Cave Bears.

New batch of comments

a) Little correction on genre.

"For science fiction you've got to have other worlds, other planets."

* cough, cough *

For SPACE OPERA you've got to have other worlds, other planets.

The Time Machine by H G Wells [which they mention later] is set on Earth only, only in a far off future. Unlike works like Star Wars, Star Trek, Arzak, Agent Spatiotemporel Valérian and so forth, The Time Machine is not space opera. But it is still science fiction. Professor Ox' Experiment by Jules Verne is also Science Fiction, but not space opera. Etc. Space opera is a SUB-genre of science fiction. The best known to the general public perhaps (though well known Seks Misja was set exclusively on Earth and is thus no space opera), but not the only thing labelled science fiction.

b) 7:16 - Are you aware that, though Origin of the Species was not on RC Index of Forbidden books, the book by Erasmus Darwin was so and remained so until the last edition?

c) Since we are on theme of screenwriter for Star Trek.

By showing a far future (say a thousand years hence) setting in which chaplains are not at all needed on military vessels, he is of course preparing his viewers to regard religion as a thing which in a more progressive future, when other galaxies shall supposedly have been reached (have you heard the meme "if it hadn't been for Christianity, we would already be on Mars"?) there shall be no need for religion.

BUT there is another point to specifically space opera.

By showing Scotty or Valérian or Han Solo navigate between planets circling different suns/stars, he is also giving a substitute version of Vasco da Gama and Columbus.

The mightiest argument for Earth being round, though Eratosthenes was not unknown in Middle Ages, was of course the one given in Renaissance voyage.

That is why I have reminded that modern culture has been manufactured, through space opera, and that Han Solo, unlike Vasco da Gama, is not a real person.

d) 18:36 "if evolution was true, which is what I was being taught"

If Calvin Smith's culture was so tainted in the matter of evolution, how can we trust he has a correct historical assessment of the Reformation?

In English speaking countries history teachers WILL say things implying that when Luther came around the Catholic Church "was corrupt", I think I even heard the exact phrase from my history teacher at 10th grade preparatory year for IB. And he was a Welshman. So he represents "English speaking countries" as far as popular cultural consensus is concerned. He was also an atheist, so it is hardly likely that he was being biassed as a devout Protestant - except insofar as Atheism, Darwinism, Socialism / Marxism are all no-longer-Christian forms of Protestantism.

e) Just before 19:00 "some people being superior to others, because they are more evolved".

My point about even evolutionist atheists not really denying the Five Ways of St Thomas as far as they get in Prima Pars, Q 2, A 3, corpus or article.

STh I, Q 2, A 3 [courtesy of Newadvent] "Whether God exists?"

1) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. ... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Except modern atheism which understands it to be "forces" or "energy".

2) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. ... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Except modern atheism which as first efficient cause for everything in one moment accept the whole universe or as much as is relevant of it (for each chain if simultaneous causation and effectiveness) in the immediately previous moment.

3) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. ... Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Except modern atheism which speaks of it as matter an energy.

4) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. ... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

And the modern atheist makes evolution its God in this sense : most evolved = best, the rule and measure of goodness in anything else. Modern atheism only fails to consider "most evolved" as the ontological cause of goodness in other things, and then that is because it also refuses a real ontological status to the quality or qualification "good".

5) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. ... Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Except that modern atheists consider "the failure of inferior options" - and the systematic such over time - to be governing the world. They have made death and destruction the "god of fifth way".

Of course, St Thomas gives good refutation of them, but that is beyond Q 2.

Auvinen seems to have the atheist theology in two ways : by identifying the "most evolved" with the cause of goodness being attributed to anything AND by identifying failure of inferior options with the "intelligent government" of the world.

f) 20:01 "he thought he was more advanced as an atheist than people who believe in God"

Oh, that is more like how atheists around him feel. He thought he was more advanced than other atheists, because they aren't evolved and godlike and altruistic enough.

He was probably more likely to feel "more advanced as a vegan than meat eaters" than "more advanced as an atheist than people who believe in God" per se. But he shared that outlook too, probably. However, unlike Klebold, he was not targetting according to "do you believe in God?" + a shot at Cassie. There were certainly in Finland far less persons reminding him of Cassie around.

g) 20:18 Now, Dawkins, yes, he clearly believes per se he is more advanced than Christians (or Muslims). But he is far likelier to recommend mental hospitals for Christians than to go on shooting sprees.

However, that might in the end provoke sth like a shooting spree from a Christian.

h) As you mentioned creator of spore cites SETI, and comment "explores life in outer space where we don't have any" ... you do mean we don't have any non-angelic life in outer space?

You are not, I hope, restricting angels to:

  • earth where souls are being saved and damned
  • a supposed "other dimension" in which good angels and saved souls enjoy God or in which demons and damned men suffer absense of God and pain of senses?

Because that is not the Classical Christian view of the matter! Angels are anywhere from the throne of God outside/above the stars to earth, demons are anywhere from earth down to centre of earth, where Hell is.

i) 26:35 "When you think you know what they are doing, they do something different."

Well, an Australian may say that about the platypus - but an astronomer could say the same about the stars.

Astronomy has, since Heliocentrism was introduced, been the story of one system after another needing "further correction" - because the observations do not match predictions made on mechanistic premises.

What if ...
* stars are a kind of angels?
* stars are moved by a class of angels?

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

... on Tara Maya's advice, and on missing her list

Five People Who Don't Want You to Write Your Novel...And One (Who Will Surprize You) Who Does
Tara Maya

11:51 my educated guess on who wnats me to write ....

  • myself? No, too obvious, you said it would be a surprise.
  • my reader.

Now, let's hear the rest of the rant and see if I was wrong.

18:30 I am beginning to suspect the one who wants me to succeed is ... you? As running the workshop?

AH ... my first guess was right!

21:25 speaking of readers ... hope you told KC the story doesn't end just because she turns the last page. She or he can always read it again. And again. And again. And .... I used to read LotR at least 10 times in English, forgotten exact number of times I read the Narnia stories, and guess where I learnt English more than just at school (I am Swedish)?

Hoping to regain the peace of circumstances and mind in which I can reread LotR. Meanwhile, though not really full time novelling at all, I am a full time essay writer.

23:34 LOTS of books written centuries ago are no longer read and loved. Many of those that are, are not shown in original shape. Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe has had cloath and cloathes modernised to cloth and clothes, Enid Blyton has suffered new editions when older ones are not PC any more. Tolkien gave a terrible review of a 16th C. novel about Pigwiggen, and I have no intention of breaking the trend.

Writing a novel that is read after you die is a piece of mastership - what in the guilds of material crafts they call masterpieces - and it is also a piece of luck.

Two poets prophecied correctly their poem would last for ever. Horace with exegi monumentum aere perennius. The other one may have not been speaking of his poem, but of the Hail Mary it was a masked version of:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Sonnet 18 - Shakspear's Hail Mary (or one of them)

Random publicity for one of her novels (not yet read it myself): : STRAT (a military science fiction novel) [Kindle Edition]
Tara Maya (Author)

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Comments on Steve Cioccolanti's Overview of Nephelim Presence in Modern Culture

Nephilim Among Us - The Gods of Greek, Roman, Norse Mythology, and Astronomy
timmy o

Ethiopian or Coptic Church? [Steve hesitated about where Book of Henoch was canonic]

The Ethiopian Church is Coptic. The Bishops of Ethiopia may have one local highest bishop in Ethiopia itself, but their overall highest bishop is the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, residing in Cairo I think.*

Church Latin does not name days on Roman gods, and Icelanding not on Nordic ones.

1 Prima Feria / Dominicus DiesSunnudagurDomingoΚυριακή (Lord's Day, as in Latin)
2 Secunda FeriaMánudagur (first two follow classical system)Segunda-feiraΔευτέρα
3 Tertia FeriaThridjudagurTerça-feiraΤρίτη
4 Quarta FeriaMidvikudagurQuarta-feiraΤετάρτη
5 Quinta FeriaFimmtudagurQuinta-feiraΠέμπτη
6 Sexta FeriaFöstudagur (Fasting Day)Sexta-feiraΠαρασκευή (Day of Preparation, as First Good Friday)
7 Sabbatum / Sabbata / (Feria)Laugardagur (Washing/Bathing Day, to be clean on Sunday)SábadoΣάββατο

28:37 As you mentioned Julius Caesar being a real person ... he was still a Pagan god. So was Augustus. So was Nero. So was Woden too - even if he corresponds to Mercury (whom I would consider a magician rather than necessarily a nephelim per se) he lived lots later. His stepgrandson Fjölner was drowned in a vat of mead/hydromel in the time of Augustus. That was why Fjölner and the rest of the Ynglings were not divinised. Good job, mead vat! The dynasty of Caesar and following dynasties were divinised far later in Rome, up to 313, with some cases of madness as a consequence, Caligula and Heliogabalus being perhaps the most ominous ones.

28:51 Why September is seventh month (etc up to December = 10)?

Why there was a Quinctilis and Sextilis before they were renamed after two early Caesars?

In fact, very early, March was the first month. Winter after December had no months up to March. A bit like nights having in some contexts, unlike twelve hours of day, not twelve hours but four watches. January and February were added, before March, but the last months kept their names.

29:57 Greek Helios like Latin Sol can refer to "son of Hyperion, nephew of Kronos, cousin of Zeus" and would thus be a Nephelim. BUT the primary meaning is actually simply Sun. That is not Genesis 6, that is Genesis 1, Day 4.

30:43 Selene - same comment as for Helios. Daughter of Hyperion - or a Luminary created on Day Four, so a misclaim for any Nephelim posing as such.

30:46 Thor - nephelim? As divinised, Thor was equated with Jupiter or Hercules (because of thunderbolt or because of strength). But he was a son of Odin, stepbrother of Yngwe Frey, step-uncle of above mentioned (or here on comments below mentioned) Fjölner, the guy who drowned in the mead vat.

My hope is the poor guy was not quite ok with his father Odin's charade of posing like a god.

31:00 As to TITAN, by the time of early Church Fathers there was another spelling: TEITAN. Guess what the letter sum in Greek letters is?**

33:14 Iapetus ... anyone consider that Iapheth may have made it unmerited to the renowned men collection of the Nephelim? I think that could be the brother of Shem and Ham.

34:04These guys had help ... ok, spiritual help from demons is one possibility. ANOTHER one is help from memories of pre-flood and even more pre-Babel technology. Transmitted by human tradition. Or reconstructed by human ingenuity.

"We cannot even build a house that lasts ten years"

Not true of our collected technlogical knowhow. We have Churches, some of which have lasted a thousand years or nearly, and we know how they were built. Some palaces and forts have also been longlived. Krak of the Crusaders still stands in place.

The "impossibility" of building to last ten years is partly accidental failures to use knowhow available, but even more so Capitalism - an economy which gives primes on cheap building (also true for the state capitalism called Communism).

35:25 Ramayana - do you consider it as pre-Flood or post-Flood?

For my part I am pretty sure Mahabharata reflects pre-Flood conditions. In somewhat twisted ways, but if you consider its a war between cousin sibling groups, and remember the Kainite dynasty. Lamech would have killed Tubal-Kain after he had caused him to accidentally kill Kain in a hunting accident. (Referring to Sephar haYashar, supposing it might be correct there) That left Jabal and Jubal. If their sons were at war ...?

And Krishna as described in Mahabharata (with exceptions tending to ascribe him godhood) is a human - or a nephelim. His name, like Kush, means black. I find it possible he could have been in the ancestry of Ham's wife.

*I think he resides in Cairo, I know he is considered as highest bishop of all Copts, including Ethiopian ones.

** See 13:18 of Apocalypse, most manuscripts. A k a 18*37, etc.

Monday, September 1, 2014

Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

52:43 Eph. 3:18 "heighth and depth" may simply be opposite directions of one dimension? No?

Here is at least what Haydock [i e Bishop Witham cited in Father Haydock's comment:] has to say:

Ver. 18. What is the breadth, &c. It is not expressed to what must be referred these metaphorical words of breadth, length, &c. Some expound them of the charity which in our hearts we ought to have for one another; others, of the love which Christ shewed towards mankind, in coming to redeem all. (Witham)

What, &c. This thought seems borrowed from Job xi: "Peradventure thou wilt comprehend the steps of God, and wilt find out the Almighty perfectly." The inspired writer then shews us how the Almighty is incomprehensible; for, says he, "God is higher than the heavens; and what wilt thou do? he is deeper than hell; and how wilt thou know? The measure of him is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." The apostle, alluding to these words, prays that the Ephesians may have faith and charity sufficient to enable them to comprehend all that is comprehensible of God; as St. Dionysius explains it. But we are not hence to conclude, that there exists such a thing as dimension or size with regard to God, for he is a pure Spirit: but these expressions are merely metaphorical. For by breadth we are to understand his virtue and wisdom, which extend over all his creatures: (Ecclesiasticus i.) "he poured out wisdom upon all his works." By length is meant his eternal duration: (Psalm ci.) "but thou, O Lord, remainest for ever." By height we are taught the infinite superiority of his nature over ours: (Psalm cxii.) "The Lord is high above all nations." And by depth we are shewn the incomprehensibility of his wisdom: (Ecclesiastes) "Wisdom is a great depth; who shall find it out?" Hence it appears that the end of faith and charity is, that we may arrive at a perfect faith; which may know, as far as it is intelligible, the greatness of his wisdom, his eternal duration, &c. (St. Thomas Aquinas, in Eph.)

Ver. 19. That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God; i.e. that as God is full of love and charity for all, so may you in an inferior degree, according as you are capable, be filled with charity. (Witham)

55:48 Astronomers make hypotheses that are not empirically based.

You can say that again!

Riccioli stated four theories as to why heavenly bodies move:

  • inherent causation of inanimate type (a bit like downward heading for stones or upward heading for flames)
  • they are living beings, have either rational souls, like we (but far more longlived) or at least vegetative and animal souls
  • they are each and every one of them moved directly by God, without any interpediate causation
  • they are moved by angels.

Now, he settled for the fourth theory, but before doing so, he said the matter was not empirically solvable.

Astronomers today settle for a slight variant of first theory - to the total exclusion of other theories, as if it were empirically solved, as if any other one was against Occam's Razor .... even if it means distorting the real empirical data (inverting the movements that make up day and night, winter and summer, into Earth moving, inverting the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri's observed motion into Earth moving) and inventing lots of auxiliary hypotheses for each, even to the point of flagrantly violating Occam's Razor (you mentioned Dark Matter and Dark Energy yourself).


Where they have nights that go for months is a bit further north than where auroras begin in Sweden and Norway.

I have been to Luleå and Gellivare in Sweden. Gellivare has a day that is a month around summer solstice and a night that is a month around winter solstice. Luleå has two hours real day at Christmas and two hours real night at St John's. Auroras go down even further south.

But they are around spring and autumn.

Nights being cold is however not exaggerated. And Birkeland might have gone further north in order to spot more of them.

There is a Swedish saying:

Det fins ingenting som heter fel väder, bara fel kläder.

Nothing like wrong weather, only wrong clothing.

Plus, he is certain to have had a hut or a tent.

Plus the best use Swedes make of strong liquor is like this:

  • put a penny in a cup
  • add hot coffee until it cannot be seen
  • add liquor until it can be seen again
  • add coffee to the top.

Once you know the cup and the levels, you don't need the penny any more.

Other good things to use are hot rosehip soup or hot blueberry soup.

And as Norwegians and Swedes are close, culturally, you bet Birkeland used part of this wisdom.


Birkeland, Alfvén ... I am a Swede and can spot a mistake in pronunciation, bear with this geek hereon:



Ryewd-bair-rry (approx)

Though that would rather be Rudberg, which is another Swedish name.

Ryd has the vowel of French u and German ü. Add a yod as offglide when long. Swedish long u starts nearly same, but has rather a waw offglide.

1:11:38 and previous say ten minutes.

It starts getting interesting.

You know Sungenis' theory of what keeps the Earth in its place, centre of Universe?

ALL mass in the Universe rotates around one spot which becomes gravitational centre, in which God put Earth, from which it cannot escape.

[Note, I misinterpreted this statement as meaning "all the mass of the stars and associated exo-planets, plus the masses of solar system", but I get informed that it involves matter not so accounted for, since that would be needed to make gravity work even under conventional theories.]

Now, he accepts conventional distances and sizes. One problem is that even so - I think you may have made the point about gravitation earlier - the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference.

[From stars ... see above.]

Now, as of lately, I do not accept conventional distances and sizes. Supposing the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri are an angel dancing with it (as per fourth theory of Riccioli) or as it (as per his second, rejected one, which was however accepted by St Jerome), alpha Centauri could be as close as a light day away.

And so on for all the other stars.

Would this make Sungenis' solution for Earth staying in place more plausible?

Not quite sure. Perhaps rather not. Gravitation would increase by the square as distances reduced, but as apparent size is an empiric given fact, and it relates to distance, this would, as I seem to comprehend, mean that the volume of alpha Centauri (and with it gravitation) would be decreasing by the cube as distance shortened.

However, if Earth was instead kept in place electrically? That or simple decree of God would be solutions.*

1:18:32 (Psalm "19" cited)

The Sun seems to be an actor.

Whether the Sun is an organism with a very long lifespan or an angel is holding it, as Riccioli and St Thomas prefer, the Sun seems to be acting.


1:19:00 (Where Sun is supposed to move through galaxy shown on map)

You are aware that the map of the galaxy is not an empirical map, but a reconstruction?

I think it makes more sense that the Sun actually circles around Earth each day and around Zodiak each year.

1:20:30 The observation on diameters and distances of Sun and Moon are the same on a Geocentric view. No disagreement there.

Before 1:27:04 - I had an alternative reading of Day 2.

Electrolysis happens and waters above firmament are hydrogen and hydrogen plasma, firmament is oxygen rich atmosphere.

In my theory, Sun and stars get their hydrogen from the waters above the firmament.

Had - I haven't given it up, btw.


* Sungenis' theory involving dark matter as much as conventional ones, might be a reason for scepticism - against both. Here is a statement by our common friend and his longstanding associate Rick DeLano:

There is absolutely no basis upon which to accept any claim that "the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference", since the stars make up far less than 5% of the mass required to explain observations even under conventional theories.

95.9% of the required mass to make gravity work under consensus cosmology assumptions is missing.

They have been looking for it for 70 years so far without success.

Perhaps a little plus for my theory. Celestial bodies move, moved by angels. Earth doesn't "hanged up upon nothing", i e having no angel to move it. Masses (in the non-sacred, Newtonian sense) do not rule those regions.

Except for the Lagrange points, perhaps ...?

The quote is taken from following thread, where Robert Sungenis proceeds to contradict Rick DeLano:

HGL's F.B. writings : New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis