Monday, October 27, 2014

... against Two Protestants on Protestantism, Specifically Baptism and Waldensians, and on Inquisition

1) ... against Two Protestants on Protestantism, Specifically Baptism and Waldensians, and on Inquisition, 2) ... continued against Protestant/Waldensian "Apostolic Succession"

Fr. Robert Barron on Protestantism and Authority
Fr. Robert Barron

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Biblical History was already in everyone's hands. Historia Scholastica was translted into vernacs

As said, Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor was translated into several vernaculars and this with the full blessing of the Church.

No Flemish Inquisition was burning the Rijmbijbel, which was a Flemish translation of Historia Scholastica. And obviously Petrus Comestor with his Flemish translator (and his colleagues for other vernaculars) took Genesis 1-11 as very literal history.

So, on Genesis 1-11 (except perhaps the question of freewill in ch 4 and precise nature of fall ch 3) Catholics and Luther were totally agreed. Not Petrus Canisius, not Pius V, not Cajetan, not Francis of Sales, nor any other Catholic found any fault with Luther for taking these chapters literally.

Number of Protestantisms ... if Catholic Church and Orthodox Curch together are so close to each other and so far from the Protestantisms properly so called, that would make about 5th or 6th major kind of Protestantism. Or perhaps 7th.

Lutherans and Anglicans are an Episcopalian one with Methodists.

Then there is the Presbyterian one, Calvinists and Arminians.

Then there is the Baptist or Congregationalist Protestantism (with free will baptists and calvinist baptists and pentecostals).

Then there is Restored Magisterium Protestantism (Watchtower Society and Mormons, also Apostolic Church).

Then there is Anabaptist type - Amish, Mennonites, Quakers and Shakers.

Then there are Apostates totally, like Unitarians, Transcendentals, Atheists.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wrong on this one Hans, Then there is the Baptist or Congregationalist Protestantism (with free will baptists and calvinist baptists and Pentecostals. Baptist have NOTHING to do with the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, but there do exist Calvinist Baptists in Wales and Pentecostals are a branchoff of Baptism. Actually up to 19th C. there were two rival Baptist Sects, the Particular Baptists (or Calvinist Baptists) and the General Baptists (or Arminian ones). Each was founded by coupling one branch of Presbyterian's doctrine on Grace and Freewill with the Baptismal practise of Anabaptist sect.

Not my fault if you are unfamiliar with the history of Baptism.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wrong again, You can sit thee all day long saying things you know nothing about but the fact remains Baptist NEVER were nor are part of any Pentecostals churches or doctrine.That goes for Calvinist as well. They have entirely two different doctrines. The pages you googled haven't a clue. To say Presbyterian is part of Baptist, more trash. Baptist have ALWAYS been separate of any religion. The pages you used to support your claim are just plain bogus. It is not you I am attacking,it's the pages you use to support your claim.Oh they must be true, I found it on the inter net.

[I missed the idiocy of his claiming to attack internet pages I was using, when I wasn't using any. If I had written a blog post giving the details of my knowledge of the Baptist Diverse Sects' history, I might have linked to it and he would still be claiming to attack the pages I was using and "not me" - in reality I have the knowledge from printed encyclopedias I was reading years before I even knew there was such a thing as internet.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) I did not say Baptists were part of Pentecostals. I am classifying Pentecostals as a kind of Baptists.

  • 2) Freewill Baptists are obviously not Calvinists Baptists and Calvinist Baptists are not Freewill Baptists.

  • 3) I never said Baptists were Presbyterians. I said that the two branches of Presbyterians were mirrored in the two Baptists Sects as to Q of Grace and Freewill - AND that their take on Baptism was taken from Anabaptists.

In other words, the Baptists start out twice as a crossover between Anabaptist and Presbyterian types of Protestantism.

[This also I have from those printed encyclopedias. Not from an internet page, supposing that were somehow suspect.]

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not accurate on baptist. The actual baptist started with John the baptist. Then your description of sects is not how they are defined. There are some splits also. Its a long, long history. You cant form a denomination off of baptist. You may start a denomination but it will have nothing to do with baptist. And yes a church can have the name baptist and not be baptist. And while we are discussing it...baptist is not a name...its a belief. We have been called by many names.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St John the Baptist did not baptise "in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" yet. He died while the OT was still ongoing.

Now, up to YOU to trace, century by century each population of Christians, great or small, from St John the Baptist to those sects of Baptists that we also historically acknowledge and which we believe started off, one ("particular Baptists") as a mixture of Mennonite and Calvinist beliefs, and one ("general Baptists") as a mixture of Mennonite and Arminian beliefs.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I didnt say he did. I said the baptist church started with John. Which is not a name. I could just as easily say Jesus's church started with John.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except the Christian Church is supposed to start with Jesus Christ - who took over some of his disciples.

John is a name, he is called "the Baptist" because there was another St John, namely "the Evangelist", and that is not a name either.

So, you have still given no credible tracing of survival of Baptists beside Catholics over the centuries. I do not recommend your trying to pull in Albigensians.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Thats what you think. And there is nothing wrong with the albegenses or vaudois. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nothing wrong with Albigenses?

Of the beginning of the Bible they believed perhaps as much as "in the beginning God created Heaven" and there it stops, because they believed Satan had created Earth.

As to Vaudois, there is something wrong about popping out of the earth like a mushroom, when Christ had promised to be with His Church every day unto the end of all time.

Besides, their take on vows and military service was not Christian, at least not if Christ meant his words in telling Apostles to convert all nations. Note : not make disciples out of some select few men from every nation, as Watchtower Society Bibles mistranslate, but of all nations. Kingdoms were meant to convert and did that. And as they had armies and as their soldiers took vows, Christendom had armies and knights taking feudal vows.

You are still behind in presenting a case there were Baptist believers from the days of St John the Baptist to now.

Here is the Catholic comment on the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ which the Valdenses abused:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
ST. MATTHEW - Chapter 5

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Ther is nothing on the early waldenses except what there enemies wrote. We dont even know there real name. Because they followed Jesus they didnt have one. Just like us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is nothing on them except what their opponents wrote, i e us Catholics?

OK, you can pretend Inquisitors were liars and invented heresies for their victims.

But that does not equal your having a historic trace of Waldenses reaching back in unbroken line to St John the Baptist or to Jesus Christ - and that is what I was challenging you about.

Btw, I do not believe the Inquisitors were liars, I do believe if they said /wrote so and so had confessed to beliving Satan or An Imperfect Principle or whatever creating material things, I am quite willing to believe Albigenses thought that. And when they say the accused believed Christ had forbid us even to take oaths in court, when testifying, I am quite willing to believe that is what the Waldenses had been believing.

Btw, so and so is an ex-Waldensian or an ex-Albigensian who has been reconciled with the Catholic Church through the Inquisition (lots more of those than of the burned ones). He hears the Inquisition accuses his former sect of believing what he had never believed while being a member of it. Wouldn't you in such a position have stepped out and said "that is not what we believed"?

Even assuming someone doing that might have risked being burnt as a relapsed heretic, wouldn't someone even so have risked it, and wouldn't we have heard of it because he got burnt?

For the Knights Templar there is a dispute. I do not believe they were innocent. But there were people who stepped up and said they had never committed sodomy and there were people who stpped up and said they had never trod on the Cross. For St Joan of Arc, she repudiated her own former false confession, and she got rehabilitated in a second trial - after her death. For Savonarola also there was himself contesting his innocence and one St Philippo Neri beliving he was innocent. Our present form of Hail Mary actually dates from Savonarola. In the time of St Thomas Aquinas, the last word of the prayer was "Jesus". Savonarola attached the remaining words, which among Orthodox count as another and separate prayer as compared to the Angelioc Greeting. But for Waldenses the only claims of innocence have come from people professing similar doctrines to those they were accused of. For Albigenses I think the claims come from people basically taking Albigenses for just a variation on Waldenses.

I am not quite correct in saying only claims of Waldensians being innocent come from people who are Protestants. For one thing, Louis XI of France (not Saint Louis but one Valois, I think) considered Waldensians "orthodox" and refused to persecute them. Was he a Protestant? No. But he seems to have been a bit more thickskinned about orthodoxy than Inquisitors. He seems to have thought differences the Inquisitors thought of as difference between faith and heresy as differences of opinion. Plus Wladyslaw Jagiello, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, seems to have called in Jerome of Prague, or someone, a disciple of John Hus, to order Academic life in Poland or Lithuania. But then he was a recent convert. He was baptised just before marrying Queen Hedwig of Poland.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
We have a 1600 book from them about the wars with the catholics and the attrocities the catholics committed. No one knows exactly how far back they go. Some early writers say to the days of constantine or earlier. Others say they were established by the apostles.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
And the catholics say they flew around on broomsticks.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"We have a 1600 book from them about the wars with the catholics and the attrocities the catholics committed."

A book from 1600 - sure.

In it they gave their version of the wars, and some Catholics had committed atrocities in them - sure.

They may get back to Constantine or even the Apostles? How do you document that from a book from 1600? That is just plain idiocy, as far as historiography is concerned.

It is not like taking Genesis as history despite Moses living millennia after Adam, because in the case of an AD 1600 book about Waldensians we do have very credible Christian historiography for the centuries past Peter Waldo back and they conflict with the Waldensian account. For which we have no historiography going back beyond Peter Waldo, or not much, if you count La Noble Leçon as older than him, and if you count it as Waldensian.

"And the catholics say they flew around on broomsticks."

What Catholics said that about whom?

The Catholics in the 1600 book about the Waldensian martyrs in the 1600 book?

How do I know for certain no Waldensian had for real been found guilty of witchcraft?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You might want to skip that history lesson. It really portrays your church in a bad light. And the history is from historians not the christians. I didnt look at who did the painting of them on broomsticks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, I do not want to skip history lessons.

A man who gets his basic information on where the Church of Christ was in AD 600, perferring a book from 1600 to either books from 600, portraying the Christianity of 600 (that would be a bit after Boethius, but we might be talking of Gregory Bishop of Tours or Fredegar Bishop of Tours, and a bit beyond that we have material from St Bede and from King Alfred, just to mention things relevant for England and France, or material from St John of Damascus), or books taking into account those written in or around 600, that is a man like you, is someone with whom I prefer to leave the privilege of skipping history lessons.

As I had said, when as you said Catholics considered Waldensians guilty of witchcraft and then burnt them, was that by any chance in the book from 1600?

And might this book from 1600 by any chance be the infamous Book of Martyrs by Foxe?

Because, if Foxe may be relatively good on Lollard "martyrs" in England the century before and up to the Coventry "martyrs", as historical facts go, I consider he is totally useless for facts about any persecuted non-Catholics on the Continent and two centuries or more before his book. Or pretty nearly so.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No its for sale right now on ebay.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl 1621 Waldensian Chronicle. There is an english translation in pdf it. with a little searching.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And you can discount what you want but Foxe's book is quite good. It includes bibliography. So you must know it goes way earlier than his book. And the witchcraft thing with catholics is recorded numerous times in history in many places.

[Actually three comments, I only saw the last one at first.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, Foxe's book includes a bibliography.


The books that Foxe mentioned as earlier ones, have they survived independently from Foxe, and if so where are they?

Or shall I trust the good judgement of Foxe when it comes to deciding if they were genuine?

Witches were burnt. That much is true and certain.

The point I was challenging you on was, can you prove that Waldensians who were innocent of witchcraft were nevertheless accused of witchcraft and burnt of witches because they were Waldensians?

While burning Waldensians was a bit huge - because they were in the bad company of the much worse Albigensians, i e it calmed down once Albigensian heresy was gone - being Waldensian as such plus refusing pertinaciously to become a Catholic as per one's baptism again could land one on the stake without any accusation of witchcraft added.

Perhaps Foxe confused matters, since the much earlier Priscillians in Spain were accused of witchcraft. They were also not executed by the Church as such, but by the state. St Martin of Tours regretted having sat beside a bishop who approved of executing Priscillians, but some churchmen approving it does not make the Church the active part in their execution.

The Priscillians were neither Albigensians nor Waldensians.

What Priscillianists belived is apparent from how I Council of Toledo condemned them:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo

The Spanish and Latin texts are copied from a source I link to, the English translation is my own.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Like I said before ...I dont have to prove anything. And I dont argue with internet/wiki scholars. Scholars know the difinitive sources. We dont need your help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh ... you don't?

Why have you been arguing with me for 26 comments then?

[actually Tommy. had been arguing earlier on]

Could it possibly be your scholarship just came off as VERY shoddy - over the internet?

Could it be you despise (or pretend to despise, but some of you pretend so well you succeed in actually despising too) internet scholars and wiki scholars just because internet and wiki gives air to people knowing history better than you do and expose you too much to that air?

And as to you not having to prove anything, as a Catholic I am proud of not taking that aloof attitude!

"Scholars know the difinitive sources."

By scholars, I hope you do not mean Craig A. Lampe?

Btw, due to how comments show, I missed your reference to Waldensian Chronicle from 1621.

By then they had already joined the Calvinists, so it is hardly even a very good reference for earliest stages of historically known Waldensianism - let alone for older supposed parts of supposed para-Catholic Christianity reaching all the way from Our Lord or St John the Baptist to Baptists of our times.

Does the Waldensian Chronicle modify your earlier statement that there is nothing on the early Waldensians except what their enemies wrote?
+Hans-Georg Lundahl No...The waldenses are thought to go back to the apostles. They are alluded to in some very early writings 300'sAD. And presumed could go back farther. One writer called them ancient. If you mean before 1200Ad which there is documentation on then no there is nothing from them only other writers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The waldenses are thought to go back to the apostles."

Thought to - certainly. By Waldenses. By Protestants. But DO they in fact?

"They are alluded to in some very early writings 300's AD."

I have already taken out Vigilantius as a possible Waldensian. He was not. Btw, he was around 400.

So, who exactly do you mean and what exact writings do you mean in 300's AD?

"And presumed could go back farther."

For the Catholic Church we do not rely on presumed to but on did, as documented. No generation from the Apostles on is missing.

"One writer called them ancient."

Maybe they were by the time he wrote.

Maybe he wrote around their beginning and was mistaken.

"If you mean before 1200 AD which there is documentation on then no there is nothing from them only other writers."

According to some, you underestimate your case. Nobla leçon is diversely attributed to 1100 and to 1400. Now, 1100 is before 1200.

Also, some count Petrobrussians around Peter de Bruys and Henricians around one Henry of Lausanne as Waldensians before Peter Waldo. I agree they had similar doctrines, but to me they are three starting points for the sect, not three members of an already existing community.

As to Paulicians and Cathari, and Bogumils, clearly existing before 1100, these are not early Waldensians or Protestants, but early Albigensians. St Thomas counted them as Manichaeans, because of identity of doctrine, but I am not certain they had a continuity between their false prophet Manes and the time they appeared as Bogumils, Paulicians, Cathari, etc. And if I were a Protestant, I would definitely not hanker back to them. In fact I was once kind of a Protestant - a Lutheran - read about them and then decided my prejudices against the Inquisition were wrong, the Catholics had a right to wipe them out. Vile doctrines, vile practical consequences. Read - if you like - a book called The Night's Dark Shade by the Catholic author Elena Maria Vidal (it's her pen name).

[in new comment:] Continued from previous comment: I said I had taken out Vigilantius, but I forgot to link, here is my take on Richard Bennet's evaluation of Vigilantius as an early Waldensian:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Between Vigilantius and the Waldensians

Here is a link to The Night's Dark Shade too. Note, the subject is not Waldensians, but Albigensians.

Amazon : The Night's Dark Shade: A Novel of the Cathars – May 14, 2010
by Elena Maria Vidal (Author)

Friday, October 24, 2014

... on "Evolution - Evidence and 'Gaps' " (Cristina Rad)

Evolution - Evidence and "Gaps"
Cristina Rad

I 1:30
- what traits will be passed on to the next generation ... characteristics ... over a very long period ...

DNA is not a computer game where you can wysiwig desired traits.

Someone has a blue eyed mutation. That someone gets married. Will the next generation be blue eyed? If both parents are blue eyed, yes. If other one is pure brown eyed, no, none in next generation will be blue eyed. It is not the trait that is passed on. It's the gene. And that gene is recessive and will not show until it gets into a genome where the other chromosome also has the blue eyed gene.

In other cases, certain genes are linked to more than one trait, and certain traits are dependent on a combination of genes.

No, even sexual selection is not chosing what traits will be passed on, not directly. It is making a move in the dark towards it, but not actually effectuating it directly.
II 2:34

OK, what about similar structures in very different organisms or which for quite another reason have no possibility of having a common ancestor.

Coffee and tea and Maté and Chocolate all produce caffeine. They are not related.

Or - according to Evolutionists - as far off as potatoes and grapes.
III 3:35
some of the ancestral traits in embryos are not so.

"Gills" of human embryos are not gills, they do develop into something else.
IV 4:38
and put them in very precise periods of time?

Well, depends on what method you use. If Triassic biotope type once was world wide, then world wide succeeded by Jurassic type, then world wide succeeded by Cretaceous type of biotopes ... and Cretaceous by extinction event and extinction event by Palaeocene ... all these world wide ... sure, then the strata one on top of the other would be telling a story of succession of biotope types.

I wrote a letter to a mayor in Roumania. I was asking whether the Cretaceous there was purely a Cretaceous find - or sth else below and above. I have gotten no answer, but I do not think there were Permian fossils straight below or Palaeocene fossils straight above.

The evidence of the fossil record is compatible with another type of precise dating: Cretaceous etc. biotopes all come from the time when Noah was in the Ark, and are not different because they were globally successive stages of life, but because they were globally varied biotopes of life.
Reptilian features of Archaeopteryx - also explainable by misguided fetal development, perhaps in genetic or similar experimentation done by Nephelim or Nodian experts in sinning against the kinds that God created (in our day known as Transgenics.)
VI 5:46
- a More detailed discussion of Tiktaalik:

CMI : Is the famous fish-fossil finished?
Tiktaalik, the transitional star, faces an evolutionary dead-end
By Tas Walker
VII 6:28
while some of the traits are blended, many are not.

A one locus trait may have as many variations as there are alleles, plus if these are by identical alleles in both chromosomes, again as many as there are combinations of alleles for that locus.

A two locus trait - with a different chromosome pair involved - or perhaps even a three locus trait ... I think that is how skin colour works.

But the fact remains, even if a gene may very well surface later identically, it also may very well dive down into recessive position, favouring expression of dominant allele in other chromosome, before recombining with itself and expressing itself.

This also means that a mutant never has the new trait in a double chromosome form.

It cannot even show how the gene will express when it recombines with itself, by offspring inheriting it mating or [in the case of man] marrying.
Genetics explain how the new traits appear.

Well, what genetics shows is: Rearranging, Removing, Ruining any genetic information is very easy. Creating new has not been shown unequivocally.

CMI argues that resistant to antibiotics bacteria actually have less genetic information, they have a ruined digestion system and cannot take in antibiotics fast enough to get killed.
IX 9:13
Not one piece of evidence found that contradicts evolution?

Here again, chromosome numbers of mammals:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

[wonder how much of debate under PZM's post that I linked to also is visible now ...?]

["again"? where is the other comment I had made before this one, and where I had mentioned it? XII? ]
You referred to Richard Dawkins calling creationists history deniers?

Well, he made kind of a challenge on knowing the past, I answered it and tried to forward to him, but have neard nothing, zilch, nada from him about it.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past
XI 55:3 5:53
Seeing picture.

I see a clear rupture between E and F. A less clear one between C and D.

That's maybe just my impression, but I think anything from Homo ergaster on to Homo sapiens modern is same kind. So, F to L are all descendants of Adam and of Eve, whatever the case be with D and E.

I was actually a little expert on development of man acc. to Darwinism before giving up the "evolution" part of it.

I am not denying the skulls. I am very definitely denying their purported ages.
XII 7:24
telomeres and centromeres are hardly genetic markers, are they?

They do have a function in chromosome structure.

It seems the more people have looked into the evidence the less evidence and more gaps is there with the human chromosome 2.

Reputed telomere region is not telomeres and contains genes.

Disactivated centromere cannot be proven to have been a centromere.

More details in these articles on CMI: [= CMI : The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins
] [= CMI : The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
With debate:

XIII 1:53
a microbe with resistance.

You might want to check this one up with Carl Wieland - a medical doctor who is now a Creationist writer and speaker at CMI - their url is

While we are on microbes, some strands have been breeding by now for tens of thousands of generations. A new generation per 30 minutes, you know.

Escherichia coli has been breeding the longest.

It has in one change approached itself a bit to Salmonella - two microbes pretty close [to start with].

But it remains a coccus type bacterium, it has not shown signs of becoming a bacillus type or a spirillus type bacterium, nor of turning into an amoeba, nor of inventing a new type.

So much for the "adding up to very dramatic changes".

Adding up to Salmonella or to resistance against antibiotics is of course medically dramatic, but it is not at all typologically dramatic. It means one has to change the treatment, but hardly the label in a microbe zoo, a k a test tubes with nutritive solutions.

Robert Buck
Hans-Georg Lundahl, I viewed your suggested site, Carl Wieland - a medical doctor should have his medical license suspended. I've WITNESSED MUTATIONS (EVOLUTION) in a laboratory setting. If the doctor refuses to accept empirical data, don't let him operate on you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Robert Buck, nowhere on his site does he suggest bacteria do not mutate.

Besides, he is no longer a practitioner.

However, if you are in medicine, I hope you stay out of psychiatry.

Misrepresenting Carl Wieland is fair game in a debate. Misrepresenting a patient is malpractise (one too often committed).

[not "fair game" as honest or fair play, but "fair game" as non-criminal]

Here is what Carl Wieland is actually saying about microbes on site:

CMI : Superbugs not super after all
by Carl Wieland
XIV 8:55
Each new discovery is supporting evolution?

Each new discovery is formulated and interpreted so as to support evolution - or hushed down. Alternative interpretations are also hushed down.

Hush, Hans.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ha, trying to be funny.
XV 3:07
common ancestor OR creator
Aaron Watson
Yeah, unless that creator intended to decieve us in the most despicable of ways
Hans-Georg Lundahl
foreseeing how a certain scientific community with a certain ideology would interpret things (wrongly) does not amount to deceiving all men that way.
XVI 3:50
why do we have a muscle to move a tail, if we don't have a tail?

You might want to check that one with doctors who have seen this muscle harmed, and how easy it is to sit after that.

Doktor Antitheist [previously a k a Sweeney Todd, I think]
You do realize that your argument is obviously against "intelligent design", right?

Why would a "designer/creator" make us with the musculature to move a tail, if we don't have one?

On the one hand we can think that god fucked up (which, if we believe in the god of the bible, it isn't that far of a stretch to believe because, well, the bible is filled with his fuck-ups).

Or, on the other hand, we can think of the muscles as vestigial, left over from evolution.

Occam's Razor, my friend. Occam's Razor.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I cited her argument before refuting it. Here is, once again, my refutation:

You might want to check that one with doctors who have seen this muscle harmed, and how easy it is to sit after that.
Doktor Antitheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ok, so.... show us this medical evidence, please.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what the biologists have told him about this useless ‘rudiment."

Ref: Shute, Evan, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press 1961, page 40; cited in Ref. 7, page 34

Ref 7 = Bergman, J. and Howe, G., “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional, pages 32–34, Creation Research Society Books, 1990

CMI / UK Store : Product not found!

"Product not found!"

First quote and all references via:

CMI : Human tails and fairy tales Have there really been people with functioning tails, and if so, are they vestigial? Feedback archive → Feedback 2007

Doktor Antitheist
For future reference, sir, when someone asks you to provide evidence they mean from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

Furthermore, this journal has to be reputable, i.e.: accepted by the scientific community.

Creationist website do not count (this goes for the other thread re: chickens with teeth), neither does scripture or any "doctor" who earned their "degree" from a degree mill (i.e.: people like "Dr. Dino").

No one will ever take you seriously in a scientific debate when you rely wholly on creation science shit.

Once again, for the record, good day, sir.

[chickens with teeth see below]

[Yep, it's Sweeney Todd, he spells creation science with a strike through: creation science - btw, sorry for not reproducing his emphases meticulously by remaking them in html, but it becomes a bit tiring to me. I have at least copied all the words.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Dr Carl Wieland was a Dr med, not a Ph D, and he was a prectising physician.

Your demand is as if I were discussing the Bible with a Russellian and they demanded I had to support any interpretation of a passage where we agree on the text but differ on the interpretation by a reference from Watchtower or Awake!
XVII 4:12
- first of all, occur is not pronounced like ohcure. More like uh-kerr.

Then, if the reason is "ancestral" gene being "still" present, this means the gene in question has a function in the organism, other than the supposed ancestral one.

Remember what Dawkins said about DNA not being a "blue print" but a "recipe"?

Any genome for multicellular animals is like a recipy that bakes itself. This means something which is in one of the "recipes" meant to be final may in another one be meant to be a preparation.

Teeth in chicken embryos are a preparation for the ridge in the beak.

Doktor Antitheist
The fact that you saw fit to correct her pronunciation of one word here is pathetic.

Way to go, you put a non-native speaker of English in her place. Well done!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am a non native speaker. I am also a Grammar Nazi. One favourite kind of Nazi with me. Hope she doesn't mind. Btw, it was the only grammar fault she made in all of the video.

However, the fact that you only complained about my grammar fascism suggests you had little to say against my argument as such.
Doktor Antitheist
I didn't see an argument so much as an assertion. Yes, DNA can be described as a "recipe", a set of instructions on how to build an organism, but even then, unless one is a molecular biologist, that is a very layman's way of putting it.

I would opine that the teeth in chicken embryos, which research suggest are due to a lethal recessive gene, are simply remnants of their reptilian past millions of years ago. Birds are more closely related to reptiles than mammals, and evolutionary lineage suggest they are (to put it very simply) modern-day dinosaur descendants.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Evolutionary lineage" presupposes that Evolution is a proven fact. As it is not, the lineage is not a fact either.

Your opinion on chicken embryonic teeth for one thing is indebted - heavily - to your ideology, and for another is simply side-stepping the fact that embryonic development of chicken is a harmonic whole leading to a biologically harmonic creature, fully fit as it is for life.
Doktor Antitheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually, we know for fact that the gene which causes teeth to form is lethal, because chicken embryos with this recessive gene activated do not survive the hatching phase.

Evolution does not presuppose anything, it's a scientific theory which is supported by all evidence gathered independently. Are you even sure that you know what evolutionary theory is?

But it's good to see that you don't seem to have an argument for the vast evidence which supports the fact that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. Congratulations, you just accepted evolutionary lineage.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Have a good day, sir. Will be muting this thread.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, I did not.

Your claim that chicken "with the gene activated" do not survive hatching might be wrong. There was one fifty years ago born with lots of malformations, and supposedly also teeth AS LATE AS hatching. But that might be due to disactivation of other gene levelling out earlier teeth to a ridge. Hence my reference to "recipé". OR, one can take the approach of Dr Wieland, chickens were created so as to have teeth or not with a certain adaptability which was alter lost by natural selection:

CMI : Chickens with teeth
Carl Wieland
25 July 2006
Doktor Antitheist
For future reference, sir, when someone asks you to provide evidence they mean from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

Furthermore, this journal has to be reputable, i.e.: accepted by the scientific community.

Creationist website do not count (this goes for the other thread re: human tail bones), neither does scripture or any "doctor" who earned their "degree" from a degree mill (i.e.: people like "Dr. Dino").

No one will ever take you seriously in a scientific debate when you rely wholly on creation science shit.

Once again, for the record, good day, sir.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you did publish that comment identically under two threads!

Now, as I said under the other one, you are compareable to someone in a Theological debate requiring that any argument from non-members of their sect be backed up by articles in Watchtower or Awake!
XVIII 8:50
4.5 billions of years is plenty of time? Well, how do you prove that kind of time scale?

Doktor Antitheist
How do you prove an hour?

How do you prove a century?

See how ridiculous your question is?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not at all.

I prove a century easiest. Days and years are experienced and recollected by lots of PEOPLE who keep record. That is proof enough for me.

An hour is less easy to prove. Easiest way is day time and clear weather, at equinox, with a sundial calibrated so that first and last line do coincide with solar positions at sunrise and sunset - or rather not coincide with them, but oppose to them and coincide with shadow of the standing fixed pointer. Then the dial itself must also be divided into twelve equal parts. When the sunshadow has passed from one such line to the next, an hour is proven to have passed.

In less ideal conditions, I settle for watches and note that a man waking up each morning can see the clocks at same hour, there is no decalation so the 24 hours do not match the solar nychthemeron ("day and night" or "night and day" in Classical Greek).

Due to that very certain calibration, made through PEOPLE being in place when sunshadow strikes first and last lines at sundial, or due to PEOPLE verifying watches basically match the 24 hours for the astronomic phenomena of day and night, sundials at equinox and watches are valid proof of hours passing.

What about sundials outside equinox?

In Classical times, an hour was the twelfth subdivision of a DAY, from sunrise to sunset. Outside equatorial and polar regions this means hours vary in length because days do so. This means at winter solstice one had to take another calibration with a shorter arc subdivided, and at summer solstice yet another, with a longer arc subdivided. Meaning, if you looked at wrong calibration (fortunately they tended to be distinct also through length of shadows) you might, outside midday, get the wrong hour. Also, a sundial must be made for local divergence of hours and is useless at other latitudes (did I get it right), and even bad at right latitude if set at wrong angle.

In Late Antiquity or early Middle Ages, monastic rules implied a need to measure hours also at night. Methods were invented that measured equinoctial hours outside sundials used at equinox day time. Some had been used earlier in courts to give each side equal speaking time.

[Btw, I read a book preview from "Seven lies about the Middle Ages" about a class teacher making Middle Ages look goofy by referring to no time except sundials - book author objects to inaccuracy, so do I, but on top of that, a man not knowing the exact time because he lived in a society without watches was hardly goofy. He lived under conditions where it was irrelevant. I live under conditions where it is so seldom relevant, except when obvious - the breakfast shelter for the homeless closes at 8:30 and that is when the University Library where I access computers opens a few stations away - for which I am thankful. When it is needed without it being obvious, I can often ask.]

Another way is to do an activity which takes an hour. I used to say the Rosary slower and make 15 mysteries last 45 minutes.

In clear nights, if a constellation you recognise (even I can spot Orion) moves at an angle of 15° (24*15=360), you know an hour has gone. Or actually a bit less. Stars circle earth not "once every 24 hours" but "once every 23 h 55 minutes" (or something). But that bit less is irrelevant for the measuring of "one hour". How do you get 15°? Stretch out your arm towards the two items (like where Orion was last time and where it is), measure with spread out hand - cannot recall exactly how much spread out, but think it was really spread out.

That is how you prove a century and an hour. Your turn.
Doktor Antitheist
So then, I don't see what the problem is for not being able to understand how scientists can prove (science doesn't prove anything, proofs move into the realm of mathematics) support the claim with evidence that the Earth is between 4.4 Ga and 4.6 Ga, or how we know that the universe is ~13.77 Ga.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If science gives us any fact, it is either through direct observation (in largest sense, including introspective experience of ourselves) or through proof.

Those are the only ways in which knowledge of fact can be had.

I was not claiming "I cannot understand how science could know, etc." But I was asking HOW exactly, so as to get to grips with the flaws in your arguments. You studiously avoid to be as detailed about that as I was about century or hour.

However, the short answer is, the supposed date of 4 point 4 Giga-annum ago or 13 point 7 Giga-annum ago are dates for which no people are supposed to have been around, able to check the factors relevant for calibration of the supposed "clocks" giving those supposed dates. For both hour and century the proving of a certain timespan was related to observation by people, that is why I capitalised the word.

Try again.
Doktor Antitheist
Once again, science doesn't prove anything, proofs are reserved for mathematics and courts of law. The highest order achievable in science is theory; theories are substantiated based on evidences which support hypotheses.

So you're using the "how do you know, were you there" argument flaunted so idiotically by the likes of Ken Ham and Eric Hovind, I see?

If that's correct, then I can neither provide you with evidence supporting science's dating methods nor expect you to change your views.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
More ranting about generalities too broad to argue interestingly about, plus more ideology.

Well, let someone else take up my gauntlet then!

[I missed one point, as he will point out]
Doktor Antitheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I refuse to have an intelligent dialogue with someone who won't even admit or deny subscribing to the "How Do You Know, Were You There" ideology.

Do you subscribe to such thinking?


One reason I refuse to do it, is because we need to establish an epistemology within which we can work. If your epistemological structure is creationism, then I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the vast scientific evidence supporting dating methods, or anything else for that matter.

(Let this then refer to all threads in which you and I have been going back and forth).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
But yes, "how do you know, where you there, or was any other human there whose acocunt we have?" is a pretty appropriate question about ANY claims to knowledge of ANY past.

It can be bypassed by divine revelation (no human being there yet on day four), but not by science interpreting the evidence material as a certain ideology sees fit.

Proof is available in science, for instance that bacteria reproduce asexually is a proven fact.

Universe 13.5 billion years old is not. Fact or fiction, it lacks proof.
Doktor Antitheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, then, sir, I can neither educate nor sway you.

Once again, science does not deal in PROOFS. That realm is left to MATHEMATICS. Science's realm is in supporting or refuting hypotheses (christ on a cross, why is that so hard for you to understand? Elementary school children learn that in science class), which can be done based on performing experiments, gathering evidence, etc.

HYPOTHESES and THEORIES are in science. That's it.

"Divine revelation", scripture, whatever you want to call it, has no place in science. Nowhere in the history of science has divine revelation been used as evidence. As hypothesis, yes, but not as evidence.

Creationists assume the conclusion. Not scientists.

I refuse to continue a dialogue with someone who simply cannot understand this basic concept. Perhaps someone else who is better than me can (I admit my flaw of being impatient and intolerant of stupidity and willful ignorance, which are traits you, sir, exhibit fully).

Good bye.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Science's realm is in supporting or refuting hypotheses"

I have heard that theory of science before. BUT refutation is a kind of proof AND refuting an A may often involve proving a very specific non-A.

Evidence is the kind of evident (hence name)starting points that are used for proof and it is sometimes or pretty often ambiguous.

Saying "there is evidence for B" means "the evidence can (with correct principles of logic) be constructed so as to prove B."

In other words, divorced from all concept of logical proof, evidence neither supports or refutes anything.

Your specific theory of science is that of Bacon and Popper. One doesn't have to agree with them to discuss science.
Wasn't there ...
a discussion on C14 somewhere here? Has it vanished or was it somewhere else?
N Campbell
Radiometric dating, using Uranium 238.

"Atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable and decay over time by shooting off particles at a fixed rate, transmuting the material into a more stable substance. For instance, half the mass of carbon-14, an unstable isotope of carbon, will decay into nitrogen-14 over a period of 5,730 years. The unswerving regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials -- such as remains of Paleolithic campfires -- with a fair degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, which has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.

Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have attempted to influence the rate of radioactive decay by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay."

Science Daily : Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows
Date: September 18, 2010
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Uranium - lead method presupposes that the lead of a certain isotope present beside Uranium is decayed Uranium. There is no way to know how much Uranium there was to start with without tha assumption.

I will give two more links here.

One is concerned with a theoretical difficulty of even measuring half lives as long as that of Uranium 238.

Other one is concerned with epistemology in general.

I do not have a "creationist epistemology" because I share my epistemology or parts of it with creationists. There is no such thing as a "creationist epistemology", if we are to discuss these matters between creationists and evolutionists. There is such a thing as a common sense epistemology. No man was there to measure Uranium content 4.5 billion years ago is a common sense objection, not a specifically creationist one.

Evolutionists may be dividing people into creationists and their own devout flock when trying to answer it, but nevertheless the question as such will come up outside their own devout flock and not just among the devout flocks of Ken Ham.

So here are the links, epistemology being Thomist is first:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : St Thomas' Theory of Our Knowledge of Things - Q 84 in a Nutshell

And next is difficulty of accurate measures of very long half lives:

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term

Monday, October 20, 2014

... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument

1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly, 5) ... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

Was the Catholic Church the Builder of Civilization?
first episode of three about Catholicism as foudner of Western Science.

I 28:25

Wisdom 11:21 ... second half "but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight."

Note two things:

  • 1) Protestants have started getting onto this train. But Wisdom is a Catholic Bible book outside their 66 book "canon".

  • 2) It has inspired the thought that natural law must be expressible in quantifiable terms. I have seen this brought to extremes, like people asking, against Thomistic Metaphysics, how one quantifies the influence of spirit on matter, whether it be human mind chosing which letter to write or angelic spirit guiding a star. But the verse has a context:

[16] But for the foolish devices of their iniquity, because some being deceived worshipped dumb serpents and worthless beasts, thou didst send upon them a multitude of dumb beasts for vengeance. [17] That they might know that by what things a man sinneth, by the same also he is tormented. [18] For thy almighty hand, which made the world of matter without form, was not unable to send upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions, [19] Or unknown beasts of a new kind, full of rage: either breathing out a fiery vapour, or sending forth a stinking smoke, or shooting horrible sparks out of their eyes: [20] Whereof not only the hurt might be able to destroy them, but also the very sight might kill them through fear. [21] Yea and without these, they might have been slain with one blast, persecuted by their own deeds, and scattered by the breath of thy power: but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight. [22] For great power always belonged to thee alone: and who shall resist the strength of thy arm?

I have even been asked by atheists to quantify God's possibility of turning the Universe around the Earth each day. Here is Wisdom 11:23

[23] For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon the earth:

I recall Juliana of Norwich (Saint?) seeing Our Lord holding all he had created in His hand "and it was no greater than a hazelnut" ... or "than a nut".

And verses 24 seq:

[24] But thou hast mercy upon all, because thou canst do all things, and overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance. [25] For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it.

Just in case som idiot should think my attributing all this strength to God makes me anxious.

II 33:48

Babylonians and modern science ... I have heard Newton described as "the last Sumerian".

Babylonians did not per se believe the Universe was orderly, but they had Mages engaged in - essentially, not unlike Pythagoras - finding order under the chaos, and that to the end of making predictions. Astrology was Babylonian, Pythagorean and in some ways also Medieval. The same Bradwardine who saw there was something logarithmic about movement, like distance and speed or time and speed, and thus gave an impetus to later development of logarithmic tables, was named a bishop by one of the Avignon Popes - and he believed in Astrology.

III 34:01

"that does not mean the Universe is so orderly that God can't make miracles"

Actually this was one error that showed up its ugly head in scholastic surroundings.

"Quod sine agente proprio, ut patre et homine, etiam a deo non posset fieri homo."

This was proposition 35 on the list of 219 propositions condemned by Bishop Tempier in Laetare Sunday of what to them was "still 1276" (since 1277 would start only 25 of March) but to us is "already 1277".

Here is the list of errors about God or the first cause:

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum ... Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo
[on blog En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones]

And here is the index of all the chapters:

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes

The footnotes are my work, the text in that form was given as an appendix in the recent book by D. Piché - his own major contribution was translating the propositions in order into French and giving an introduction about them.

IV "34"

- proposition 34 of the condemned ones is what I like to call the "Narnia clause":

"Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere."

V 35:29

"the functioning of the universe is one of those promises"

Indeed. But it is NOT in that promise that for instance day and night shall be explainable in principle as continuations of something previous merely inherent in creation rather than as a new but identical to previous act of God each time.

St Thomas saw the turning of the Universe around Earth as a proof for God's existence. Less clear as Prima Via in I-Q2-A3, more clear as its parallel in Contra Gentes and as St Thomas refers to Prima Via when later in Pars I (Q11, I think?) proving that God is one from fact that the turning of the Universe around the one axis where earth is proves there is exactly one first mover. Riccioli considers this point as superfluous, and prefers the Ontological argument (the most noble thing cannot lack the perfection of existing) because he saw Lucretius and Epicure unconvinced of God and attributing the daily rotation of Universe (which they admitted too, they were not Heliocentrics) to mere chance.

Also it is NOT in that promise that the movement of celestial bodies must be as motorically explicable as the movement of falling objects, doing without for instance angelic movers (which both St Thomas and Riccioli agreed on).

Day and night proclaim God's glory. God calls out to the stars and they answer "here I am". That is also very much in Scripture.

VI 37:01

"what looks like a law to you may be one of Allah's habits which he can discontinue at any time"

This is not in conflict with Christianity (unless we involve moral law, God is never immoral), and it is not against Catholic Christianity.

Chesterton had expressed it in Orthodoxy while he was an Anglican, and far from being asked to revoke it when converting, Orthodoxy is still on his bibliography. The Minim Friar Mersenne was an Occasionalist - and he founded the science of Acoustics. So, it is not against science either.

Malebranche and Guélingx (if that is the right spelling of that Belgian) were both Occasionalists, and only one of them is on the Index.

I am sorry, but Dom Stanley Jaki is wrong on this one.

VII a personal note here too:

I have precisely on these points been accused of having a basically not just erroneous, but actually anti-Catholic concept of God's relation to the universe. And that despite the fact I was actually agreeing with Scholastics like notably St Thomas Aquinas, and despite the fact of not being an Occasionalist even. If fire burns flax, indeed, God can discontinue that at any time, but it is also an inbuilt working of the universe, God has wanted this to be the normal order. Even when God does miracles, He does not take away the natural properties involved in normal causalities. Water wasn't weightless when Jordan was cut in two or when the Red Sea was parted in two. Fire wasn't deprived of its burning power when presumably the angel of that fire in the furnace (I speak with St Hippolytus here) seeing Christ - God the Son - as the fourth young man respected God's will it should not burn the three young men.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth

1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly, 5) ... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

Was the Catholic Church the Builder of Civilization?
up to end of intro episode of video at about 24 - 25 minutes.

I 16:41

I am not saying EVERYBODY believed in a flat Earth, but some did.

St Augustine posed on looking at the Northern axis around which stars circle every day the question whether there was a similar one to the South. I e, he considerd it at least thinkable that Earth was either flat or only semispherical - though he favoured the spherical model.

Pope St Zachary on hearing one bishop Virgil believed in a round Earth posed some questions about how he considered possible Antipodes. Virgil was thus suspect of believing in non-Adamite Antipodes, which the Pope of course condemned. And Virgil was of course innocent. But if a spherical Earth had been entirely universal, Virgil would hardly have been suspect in the first place.

II 16:58

Lactantius having no influence on anybody is of course wrong. He was a great writer. Otherwise, not being a saint, his writing would hardly have survived.

His speaking allegorically in the text as a whole does not mean every detail in it is supposed to be true in allegory only, and sth he did not literally believe in. Our Lord did not literally disbelieve what he allegorically considered credible, that fathers get happy when lost sons turn up or that housewives get happy when finding coins they had lost.

III 17:07

Yes, I have heard ALL about Cosmas and his opponent John Philoponus!

When I studied Greek there was the lady Baptist pastor (I was in love with her daughter at the time and wanted to convert her to Catholicism) who was doing her theses on these guys. OK, ALL is exaggerated but all she would say in my presence and Cosmas being such a prohibitive example for fundies I have heard.

Besides, you underestimate Greek literacy of Latin West.

I am pretty sureone could find references to Cosmas Indicopleustes and John Philoponus in St Thomas Aquinas - at least the commentary on Aristotle.

IV 19:57

[why does the flat earth myth continues] "it fits the Englightenment stereotype"

Not only with Secularists, but also with Fundamentalists, since they essentially hanker back to Locke. CMI - Creation Ministries International - is not supporting the flat Earth stereotype, but they are whenever it is brought up supporting a story in which Catholic Church had mixed up its teaching with Pagan Aristotelic Geocentrism and Biblically they had no leg to stand on against Galileo.

On the other hand Secularists may more than once repeat typically Protestant stereotypes like "Catholic Church can't be the Church of Christ since it is idolatrous" (referring to iconodulia and honouring of the BVM and the Saints who have been canonised) or even "since it sold indulgences" (repeating a lie about selling involved and a Protestant stereotype about indulgences as such being anti-Biblical).

V 20:34

[If one invented something about what a known person said or thought:] "it would last about three seconds"


  • CSL never admitted he was philosophically defeated after the Anscombe debate, only he had been stumped on a point (he reworked a chapter of Miracles) and he felt he was over and done with as specifically a philosopher.

  • Pacelli never endorsed Nazi ideology, he penned what Pius XI signed as Mit brennender Sorge. Still, he is pretty often portrayed as Hitler's Pope (when he became Pius XII), because he was a Nuntio while the concordate was signed.

  • Alojzije Stepinac never endorsed Ustashi persecution of Serbs or other non-Croats. He is said to have told Nikolaj Velimorivc of some Serbian see he was not wanted, but that might have been an attempt to save Velimirovic. Yet Stepinac is pointed out as having given his blessing to killing of Serbs in Jasenovac.

  • For my own part, I have readers of my blogs in more than one country. I have been pointed out as endorsing specifically racialist excuses for Southron slavery, when I have simply said slavery is - unlike slave hunt - sometimes permitted. Freeing a bought person from slavery is fitting to a Christian buyer, but not a natural due to the person bought (and that the black man bought had often enough been sold by black slave hunting kings in Africa). I have been pointed out as endorsing total submission of wife to husband, when I said they have to submit to each other in bed, and wives have to submit if disagreeing on decisions concerning the family (two persons cannot decide by majority vote, and marriage must survive disagreements). I have been pointed out as wanting to lower the life expectancy because I want to get certain aspects back to Middle Ages - and because I insist life expectancy was not really low then.

But, in these cases too, the lies have served a purpose.

VI 24:19

Before going on to "next time", one other guess about persistence of "Flat Earth was believed in Middle Ages" myth.

18th C everyone really knew the Earth was a sphere. By 19th C. everyone all over Europe expluding Eastern Europe and Spain was also learning it in near compulsory schools.

So, a 19th C scholar finds even one Patristic or Medieval author saying Earth was flat, he is so used to the theme being culturally a one option theme he imagines that was the case in Middle Ages and that then the one option was flatness.

Moreover, 19th C starts getting an interest in Norse Paganism. One side issue would be "pagan origins" attacks on Christmas, imagining Midwinter was celebrated at winter solstice (which was not the case, it would seem, and which would have brought the feast into Advent rather than Christmas - at one point Winter Solstice was feast of St Lucy, before the Ember Days) and that this was the origin not just of many Northern European Christmas customs, but of Christmas celebration itself. But another side issue thereof would be, since Pagan cosmology of Odinists placed Middangeard/Midgárd as a disc under the disc of Ásgárd and above the broader disc of Utgárd, when were the people supposed to have transited to a spheric Earth position? There is no trace of this being any kind of big issue during Christianisation. My guess is Swedes, Danes, Norsemen adopted spheric Earth cosmology very gradually as more and more of them came back from Sorbonne as clergymen.

You mentioned "educated" Europeans. Presumably you think, as I, a lot of farmers or peasants still thought the Earth flat up to geographic discoveries. But non-farmers did not all have same education.

Clergymen had a scholastic or monastic education (not quite same thing) and at least the scholastic one clearly thought a spheric Earth. Noblemen had for long time little letters beyond poetry and novels. Or perhaps that is a 19th C stereotype. Anyway, it is a condition ending about 1400. Up to Camoes poetry/epic was not quite spheric Earth oriented. Burghers tended to enjoy vulgarised versions of both clerical, specifically scholastic, and noble culture. They would know the Earth was not flat, by at least 1300, or so. But Spain was not typical, it had recently been liberated from Moors. If I heard any evidence from relevant epoch (like Christopher's diaries) that his sailors worried about falling off the edge, or one of them, I wouldn't throw it out.

However, I think main objection was that, just as equatorial zone would be too hot (wrong) a Western zone would be too stormy to pass (wrong again). Besides, Columbus really did calculate diameter of Earth erroneously, since he thought he was a few miles off East Asia. So, the "Earth is too big" objection had something going for it.

VII a personal note

I have been accused more than once of holding to a flat earth myself, when that also is simply not true.

I do believe there are "four corners" and that you can fall off them - but then it is into the sea you fall. The four corners do not imply a "strictly Euclidic" - i e flat, two dimensional - surface between them. The four corners might for instance be considered as being those of the then known landmass, i e of Eurasia and Africa or of "Old World". Roughly UK would be NW corner, Sachalin-Koreas-Japan NE corner, Singapore-New Gunea-Australia the SE corner and the SW corner would be Cape of Good Hope.

Of course, Euclid would not deny you can take an apple or a spheric Earth globe and choose 4 points and draw lines between them, he would just not have called that a square or a rectangle (or their Greek counterparts), since he had reserved those words for other, flatter, usages./HGL

Friday, October 17, 2014

Rhétorique anti-droite ....

[Excuse the French, this belongs to another blog, see down below]




La source: Phosphore, Mai 2007

Eh, bien? Et l'anti-droite n'est pas un ciment que fédère les gauches et les néolibéraux (autrement très divisés entre eux) contre, comme ennémi commun, les ultra-traditionnalistes Catholiques (qui ne sont pas très divisés du refusants de la République, certains y sont, d'autres acceptent la République, mais les Monarchistes aussi) et l'extrême droite?


Tout ce qui se rapporte à une des 5 thèmes appartient donc à une idéologie unique, et par là aux autres quatre, qui y appartiennet également?

Il y a mieux, quand on constate comment les 5 "racines" sont présentées ...

"1 Le refus de la démocratie et de la république"
Qui a lu Maurras (mais qui l'a?) sait qu'il rejetait la république à l'échelle du pays précisement en faveur des républiques à l'échelle de la ville. Il acceptait la monarchie à l'échelle du pays, pour que le monarche laisse en paix ces petits républiques, ce que ne peuvent pas les parlamentaires, car ils ont besoin d'être réélus ... et donc c'intéresser à tout le monde.
"2 Le rejet de l'immigration"
"5 L'antisémitisme"
Qui a lu Maurras sait qu'il n'y avait pas d'immigration à repousser hors les frontières du pays ou à accueillir dedans à l'époque.

[Je peux m'être trompé, j'avais lu son livre Mes Idées Politiques, mais pas son œuvre comme journaliste]

Juifs et métèques (il cite le cas d'un commerçant portugais), pour lui c'étaient deux groupes qui n'avaient tout simplement pas les mêmes intérets culturellement dessinés que les autres Français, tout à fait comme les maçons et les huguenots. Il analysait ces quatre groupes comme formant des dynasties du pouvoir parmi les habituellement élus. Ils ne leur montrait pas d'agressivité, sauf en tant qu'en pouvoir en France au lieu des Français ... et, par Paris au lieu de par chaque localité.
"3 Le nationalisme"
Le nationalisme insiste sur la dimension ethnique et exclusive de la nation. Mais il a raison. Je n'ai pas l'honneur d'être, ni Français, ni Provençal/Occitan, et la langue basque m'échappe largement aussi, tout comme le Breton. Bonne raison de ne pas me mêler excessivement dans les affaires de ces groupes, hein ..?

C'est précisément pour ça qu'en France, malgré mes sympathies pour Maurras, je n'ai pas parlé de monarchie. Je me suis borné aux thèmes qui sont internationaux et par conséquent compréhensibles, même aux dimensions émotionnels (à certain degré), pour quelqu'un du dehors.

Ce que Maurras reprochait aux Juifs, Franc-Maçons, Huguenots et Métèques, ce que les nationalistes d'aujourd'hui reprochent au musulmans immigrés et à Bruxelles (vous voyez, les ennemis ne sont pas les mêmes), c'est de faire la politique selon leur cœur (ou parfois sans cœur) pour un peuple qui en a un autre.
"4 L'ordre moral"
Phosphore cite le politologue Jean-Yves Camus: "On retrouve cette thématique sous le régime de Vichy ..." (sous-entendu: alors c'est une thématique de meurtriers, d'immoralistes ... comme si tout le régime de Vichy était enthousiastes pour les déportations: en fait Pétain a sacrifié son pouvoir en refusant de continuer les déportations en 1942, il était alors remplacé par Lavalle - ou était-ce Lasalle? Je confonds toujours ces deux noms!) "et sa politique rétrograde en matière de mœurs, contre l'avortement, contre le régime laïc, etc"

Et c'est ça que les anti-droites veulent défendre, ne fût-ce qu'au prix du bon sens, ne fût-ce qu'au prix de la ... précisément: morale.

Qui veut savoir mon avis sur la moralité de l'avortement, ça suffit de consulter le menu à gauche:

[J'ai dû copier les essais et les mettre sur un autre site, entre-temps:]

Sorry, posted this to wrong blog, will repost on right one too. Here : MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : Rhétorique antidroite

... on Historical Capacity of Understanding

1) ... on Historical Capacity of Understanding, 2) ... Some Notes on Dr Thomas Woods' Debunking of Flat Earth Myth, 3) ... Some Notes on Thomas Woods' Orderly Universe Argument, 4) ... to Thomas Woods on the School of Chartres, Mainly, 5) ... following Thomas E. Woods Jr. from Bacon to Boscovich

The Simple Story of Evolution

I totally agree on this point.

I am a former Swedish Lutheran, and the idiotic idea you cited has some history among Modernists of that communion or sect ... one early application was this:

Jesus miraculously cured mental diseases. He knew there was no such thing as demons, and least of all demonic possession (so their argument goes), but he worded his words to make the miracle in adaptation to what people could understand at the time.

There was another Jesus earlier on, son of Nun or of Nave, who ordered the Sun and Moon to stand still.

What do you say about the theory that he knew it was Earth that had to stop rotating, but he worded it so that Israelites could grasp it, because they could never have grasped Heliocentrism (even if I grasped it at age three)?

[Added next day:]

No takers on Joshua?

[No takers today, another day later, either.]

...on necessity and authority of Catholic Church

Quoth tomcat:

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church."
My answer
It is. It was solemnly defined by a council of the Church, to wit the council of Florence, the decree for the Armenians.

[Was not adressed to all of the council/all of the Church and not signed by all of the council.]
Quoth rose_beverly:
"What if I believe that the Catholic Church has lost the moral authority to lead and to teach and that Christians must seek Christ among true believers who have not been so tainted by scandal?"

[Note, what we are discussing is Catholic Church, not Vatican II Sect.]
My answer
Idiocy, since the public teaching authority of the Catholic Church is NOT immediately dependent on the kind of moral authority that a saint or a virtuous pagan philosopher has. St Peter did not lose Papacy on scandalising by association with judaisers, nor by the flight on Via Appia. His successor Alexander VI did not lose papacy by having a concubine.


Hans Georg Lundahl
@ rose_beverly ...
"What if I believe that the Catholic Church has lost the moral authority to lead and to teach and that Christians must seek Christ among true believers who have not been so tainted by scandal?"
dhux wrote on claim of Catholic Church to be the Apostolic Church:
"The Reformation did not happen without such causes. No one rationally argues that God allows such an institution to represent his will on Earth or maintain accurate beliefs."
My answer
I am reminded of a retort by Terence Hill, when challenged that nobody could oppose this or that crook and get away with it: "My name is nobody." (Nobody = no one)

I do rationally argue so.

God cannot make a Church of only Saints without taking away free-will and the possibility for people who lapse into sin to recuperate their righteousness. Therefore official authority in His Church cannot depend immediately and totally on being for the moment a righteous person. It cannot be the same as a merely moral authority, like the authority of a Saint or a righteous pagan philosopher as a model for others. Official authority rather implies that authority be obeyed irrespectively of whether the person wielding it be righteous or sinful. Just as the right to property implies that property be owned irrespectively of whjether the owner be righteous or sinful. The parallel is not totally flippant. The Valdensians, Petrobrussians and Lollards denied precisely both tenets by the subterfuge that this or that right be lost as soon as a man be sinful. The logic correlate would be that a sinner looses ALL right. Which is of course idiotic. Barbaric. Catholicism means that a sinner retains his rights at least in the external forum and when no heresy be involved until otherwise be judged by Church or State. Which in its turn means that sinners who are powerful are not always judged and condemned to lose their rights of public authority in Church or State or of property, even when such loss is an adequate punishment for the sin in question.

If you call this defense irrational, dhux, you are a mad fanatic.
Quoth Phil_Mtooth:
"Is it reasonable to represent a Church as the One True Church when that has effort has already failed?"
My answer
What do you mean "as effort has already failed"? Qué? You mean effort of persuading everyone? The Church has NOT the duty to succeed in persuading everyone, only the duty to teach every nation. If no nation had ever listened, but the Church done as much anyway (a practical impossibility, as well as a theological one, but assuming it for arguments sake) the Church had done its duty and would be reasonable in continuing this claim.

As a matter of fact LOTS of nations have listened - including the English, though most of it apostasised by Reformation by the time of the Gun-powder plot or the unrighteous hangings in CHarles II's time (against his conscience, as he was a secret Catholic)
Quoth Phil_Mtooth:
"The logic of the Church was not sufficient to forstall heresy........"
My answer
Wrong. The goodwill of some was not sufficient to make them see perfectly logical explanations to their difficulties - or answers to their outright blasphemies.

It is not truth and logic, only fable and prejudice, which forestalls heresy, and that by evading the very question of truth and exact definition.

[Grammatical clarification "which forestalls" = zeugmatic for "which forestalls or fails to forestall"]

On Netscape Boards (?) and Yahoo Boards: 2003-03-12 (March 12 Two thousand three) 20:27, 20:29, 20:36, 20:38, 20:39
On Antimodernism : 10/20/2003 6:13 PM, 6:24 PM, 6:26 PM, 6:27 PM

...on Ash Wednesday

"Your reply said that it was about mourning, When someone dies and you are in mourning do you use ashes??????"

Not that kind of mourning, but public mourning over sins: clothing oneself in sackcloth and ashes to avert the ire of God is certainly a Biblical expression!

As it was up to the Kings of Judah to proclaim such fasting in OT times, in New Testament times it is up to Christ and his Vicar, the Pope. And The Popes over past millennia have proclaimed such mourning in respect of the purpose of the 40 day fast before Easter.

On Antimodernism : 2003-03-12 20:40
On Yahoo Boards : 10/20/2003 6:29 PM

...on OT prophecy and Judaism

"There is no prediction in the Jewish Bible of Jesus. Ask any Jewish scholar, or any reputable historical of textual critic."

quoth dhux02

  • well: first of all, the Jewish "Bible" is an INCOMPLETE Old Testament.
  • Second, the Old Testament includes more than onehundred clear prophecies on Christ Jesus - including the parts accepted even by Jews.
  • Third: the Jews make bad excuses for prophecy after prophecy.
  • Fourth: the "reputable" historicals (does he mean scholars?) of textual criticism (or is it a typo for: historical or textual critic) go the Jews' errands in this matter.
  • Fifth: what does he mean by historical critics? The kind of men who are scholarly enough to find out an apparent contradiction but unscholarly enough not to find the solution? Sounds like it...

(NB dhux appears to be a woman, but I did not know it then)

2003-03-12 20:42on [Netscape Boards or] Yahoo Boards, 10/20/2003 6:31 PM on my then MSN Group Antimodernism

Friday, October 10, 2014

... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa), 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?, 3) Challenge for Fellow Young Earth Creationists, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on AronRa's very poetic An Archaeological Moment in Time (plus something on "credentialism")

Video commented on
An Archaeological Moment in Time
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"To each of these societies thriving around the globe so long ago, the world of their grandfathers' grandfathers was already ancient, just as Ecclesiastes described it to be. And on this particular day, Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC., no one alive would have believed that this was the first day, or that the Earth had just been created that morning."

Two points from a Catholic YEC:

1) you have of course misdated all of these societies, unless one of them was pre-Flood (Christ was born 5199 after Creation, and the pre-Flood world lasted longer than 1200 years).

[inserting other combox of mine here, where it fits, as point 1 b:]

From your video, other inaccuracy:

"that the first day of Creation (the day God rested) was Sunday etc."

Actually it was the seventh day of Creation when God rested. And Sunday being first day implies Saturday of ensuing week to be the day when God rested.

The first day was not when He rested, but when He created light, and separated light from darkness and called them night and day.

2) Precisely as societies around the world could not be persuaded Creation had happened this morning (a point you make correctly but misrefer to contemporary with actual creation of the world which again you misdate the Biblical and true version of ... see previous), a society that has been around for one hundred years will not easily believe it has been founded the same morning - refounded is another thing, but not founded.

And one founded this morning will not easily believe it has already been around for a hundred years.

Christians in year 133 obviously believed Christianity had been founded a century earlier, what do you make of that?

[That last question has so far not been answered by AronRa]
Archaeology Excavations : 9,500-Year-Old City Found Underwater Off India

I do believe that that is all that needs to be said about your entire post.

Unless of course you have degrees in History, Physics, and Chemistry, with which to attempt to dispute the facts put forth in that article.

[It is not degrees that dispute, but arguments that do.]
Relevant quote from article (not yet cited in the debate, while writing this):
Debris recovered from the site — including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture, and human bones and teeth — has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old (BBC article). [No indication any other dating technique was used on that find to corroborate the date.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I believe the city was found. I do not believe it is "9500 year old".
Sweeny Todd
Then corroborate your "two points" with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Earn a fucking Nobel PRIZE for this evidence, and change history.

Or, be content providing armchair commentary on videos like this.

GTFO of here with your YEC bullshit, your Christian Catholic bullshit, and your theology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you overestimate two items in reality:

  • how sensational my two points are
  • how open the relevant community is to hearing me.

Nobel Prize committee and "peer reviewed journals" (when we talk prepublication peer review) have about your attitude to what you call bullshit. Meaning if the blockade ceased, I would not even be sensational.

My one claim of being so on this item is not making the points, but doing it HERE, so you get a chance of peer reviewing me (when we talk post-publication peer review).
Sweeny Todd
Your entire blabbering literally made no sense.

Do you have scientific evidence to counter the claims made in the video (i.e.: to support your two counter points), yes or no?

If YES, then submit it for peer-review and (quite possibly) earn some recognition.

If NO, then GTFO. Claims made as fact require evidence, not mere assertion.

Any other comments that do not start with YES or NO will require me to mute the post and report you as spam. Furthermore, I'll just block you because you literally are making no sense, like English wasn't your first language.

[English is not my first language, but I am not grammatically faulty. I am old fashioned, at least by a few decades, since that is where some of my favourite English authors are from – but his real problem is with what I am saying, not a linguistic one, I would say.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My point is that AronRa LACKS scientific evidence for the claims HE makes. He is getting fame and recognition by a community which will not give me that, because I am to honest about Carbon 14.

Here is anyway Tas Walker - a scientist as in a geologist (trained by old age believers, as he was himself) and converted to young earth, and using his knowledge that way - without getting recognition from the community you implied either:

BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
Sweeny Todd
+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Evidence" from a biblical blog?

That's about as credible as a pedophile listing Michael Jackson as a reference to corroborate that he's a good person (if he were still alive).

Your utter lack of scientific understanding is not only astounding, but pathetic. What is there to be "honest" about with regard to C14? Here, allow me to provide scientific evidence showing that C14 is only supposed to be used on organic compounds, namely vegetation:

Welcome to the K12 section of the Radiocarbon WEBinfo site

With regard to creation scientists retards using this dating method for rocks and non organic samples:

"Samples of rock are not able to be dated using radiocarbon, because rocks contain no organic carbon from living organisms that are of recent enough age."

Specifically, read the section titled " How do you know that radiocarbon really works? ".

More resources to educate your scientific-illiterate mind:

howstuffworks : How Carbon-14 Dating Works by Marshall Brain

University of Oxford : Radiocarbon Web-Info : Radiocarbon Calibration

(and quite possibly the one that blows all creation scientist retard objections out of the water)

NCSE : Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
[the one I was then quoting]

Read up and digest this knowledge (should take no more than two or three days), then reply back.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is also GEOLOGICAL, before answering the rest. (The blog I mean)

Where exactly did you get it from that Tas Walker, a trained geologian and well read up on fossil / archaeological issues too ever tried to date NON-organic material with radio-carbon?

Some rocks are in principle datable by radio-carbon by the fact of containing recisely organic material. Not just vegetables, but also bones.

The article is about glaciation, and from it we do not only have moraines, but also human bones and artefacts.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Carbon dating items without carbon in them would be precisely as useful as using a can of gasoline to start a nuclear reactor.

That's why Radiometric Dating uses dozens of other isotopes to determine it's results.

[Missed this while answering "Sweeney Todd"]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
From one of your [Sweeney Todd’s] links [the one he recommended as nec plus ultra]:

Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. ... [I stop right there.]

How reliable is the sequence of bristle-cone pines? Are there any bottle-necks with very few overlapping?

Here is one link to my musings on the matter:

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

I think there might still somewhere be another one with a link to a bottle-neck of very few and even very bad overlaps.
Sweeny Todd
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So, you admit to stopping once your cognitive dissonance kicks in? Great! This proves that you have no appreciation for science or the scientific method.

And I refuse to read your "musings", unless you have the credentials to make them in the first place (i.e.: you have a doctorate in some STEM field from an accredited university, or you've lectured and debated extensively in public on the matter, and are reputable).

Unless you can show those credentials, I have no more reason to read your blog than a creation science retard blog.

Again, actually READ and DIGEST the information I've provided, and do your own scholarly research, which should take now about a WEEK at least a couple of days to do, then get back.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So, you admit to stopping once your cognitive dissonance kicks in?"

I did not stop reading. I stopped quoting.

"And I refuse to read your "musings", unless you have the credentials to make them in the first place"

You are reading my musings on these comments.

One needs no credentials to muse. One only needs them to lecture, and to do certain official kinds of debate, like that when someone getting his credentials is debated with and debating to show his mettle in that area. Beyond that (but lecturing is a great bread winning avenue, so it is big enough just for that) one does not need credentials to be doing science.

I am however not taking any "read and digest before you answer" from you.

I read the whole relevant passage before quoting part of it. I digested it in five seconds, that the real point is whether C14 calibration has been confirmed by bristle-cone remanants sufficiently surely dated with treerings.

What I have read about treerings is there are certain bottlenecks and there are very imperfect overlaps - and I read it in the kind of sources which you consider as having credentials. Not in creationist ones, though often enough these writers also have the kind of credentials you ask for.

Btw, AronRa hasn't a Ph. D., his credentials are - at least this was the case last time I heard of it - on a student level.

"Carbon dating items without carbon in them would be precisely as useful as using a can of gasoline to start a nuclear reactor."

Sure, dude! WHO exactly denied that?

Someone accused either me or Tas Walker of having done so and without checking, you believe that accusation.

I did not deny carbon atoms are needed to do carbon 14. Tas Walker did not deny it either.

"That's why Radiometric Dating uses dozens of other isotopes to determine it's results."

Not on same tested items.

A piece of lava may be very useful for potassium argon dating (but it is quite another question whether potassium argon dating is even half as useful as even flawed carbon 14), but it cannot be used for carbon 14.

A bone is useful for carbon 14, but totally useless for potassium argon dating - fortunately that means nothing, since potassium argon dating - as tested! - is worthless anyway.

As corroborated by the New Zealand volcano example:

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
by Robert Doolan

That means, if a bone has too much carbon 14 in it to be from earlier than 40.000 years ago, but has above it lava with a potassium argon date for 2 million years ago, normally one should give the carbon 14 date precedence, and the alternative calibration curve by Tas Walker as linked to above would be very interesting BUT if the evolutionist/uniformitarian community starts doing the potassium argon test, they will conclude there is no reason to test the bone for carbon 14 and so they will miss the test.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
LOL, Creation dot com. Why don't you just pull your facts out of your own ass, instead of digging for them in the asses of scientifically illiterate buffoons like those, who's ONLY truth is " Send us money so we can lie to you some more".

Sorry, I'm done with you. If that's where you get your "facts", you're not worth my time, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Scientifically illiterate is just not true.

You seem to be if instead of giving some back up for potassium argon against this attack you make an ad hominem.

As it happens, the CMI article knows how to cite (look up the footnotes before doubting the facts):

Ian McDougall, H. A. Polach and J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.33. 1969, pp. 1485-1520.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You might want to research those references just slightly. The article referred to was published in 1969.

Ian McDougall, H. A. Polach and J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from the Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.33. 1969, pp. 1485-1520.

You do understand that these sciences were barely in their infancy at that point? You do get how 45 year old, and long proven wrong, science is NOT a reliable source, right?

This is why Creation Dot Com is a site no one in the scientific community really pays any attention to.

Reply or not, I don't care. Goodbye.
Sweeny Todd
+ajs1031 Good call, bro. I think +Hans-Georg Lundahl is just a narrow-minded creationist troll.

While I do not advocate "giving up" the dialogue with such people, I personally have neither the time nor the inclination to explain or show the vast scientific evidence--which is freely available, albeit not without a bit of work--in support of not only the validity of C-14 dating, but also other dating methods (no, I do not mean eHarmony either). If these methods were not valid, the scientific community WOULD HAVE ABANDONED THEM LONG AGO. Until someone, be it a creation advocate or real scientist, provides valid, scientific, peer-reviewable evidence showing that all known radiometric dating methods are invalid for each and every thing for which they are respectively intended to be used, then science will continue to use them. Period. End of story. No further debate is needed on these matters. I suggest that +Hans-Georg Lundahl find such evidence, submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and earn a fucking Nobel Prize for his findings. It would literally change the world.

Furthermore, quote mining or otherwise blatantly misrepresenting the facts (a tactic well known to be used by creation scientists retards suffering from cognitive dissonance) is dishonest and has no place in true science. Such people who regurgitate these things are not innocent because they are blindly accepting the misinformation as correct instead of doing the research for themselves.

So, in short, I, too, will be leaving this thread.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
+ajs1031 "You do get how 45 year old, and long proven wrong, science is NOT a reliable source, right?"

  • 45 year old science is not reliable?
  • science proven long is not reliable?
  • a science in its infancy is not reliable?

If a piece of science from today won't be reliable in 45 years, why bother?

Science proven wrong is not reliable, but the problem is it is precisely the potassium argon science that was proven wrong.

Plus, if the science quoted had been proven wrong, why did you not offer what had been since proven right? Do you have a calibration of potassium argon datings that is reliable in relation to known historic eruptions and lava known to come from latest eruption, for instance?

Tas Walker seems to think that is not so. Before calling him a fraud how about showing the scientist and articles in that particular field (reliability of potassium argon as tested on datable eruptions) that are not frauds in your book?

And a science in its infancy is not reliable? No, not if it starts out wrong, no.

Arithmetic in its infancy presumably got 2+2=4, exactly as we do now. Metallurgy presumably discovered that forming metals involved either beating or heating or both in combination, and that pretty fast. I have trouble imagining earliest weavers did not get that a thread being inserted must be over some and under some, over some and under some, and not over and under same threads every time it is insterted. It seems it is only modern pseudoscience that has a science in its infancy is unreliable.

But if it was in its infancy 45 years ago, why should we presume it is mature now?

+Sweeny Todd "If these methods were not valid, the scientific community WOULD HAVE ABANDONED THEM LONG AGO."

Carbon 14 has a limited validity, due to later times getting a carbon 14 level in atmosphere close to the present one.

This has been recognised by the creationist community.

Potassium Argon has not been recognised by the creation scientists. And evolutionists have a very steady interest in keeping up belief in it.

"that all known radiometric dating methods are invalid for each and every thing for which they are respectively intended to be used"

This is not what we are saying of carbon 14. But Tas Walker provides another calibration curve for it than you use.

As for potassium argon, I do not know one example where it is known to be valid. You can say it is not meant to be used on recent eruptions. But even if not, you could hardly expect these to give so high ages if it was valid every time it gave so high ages, like Laetoli in some layers between footprints and surface.

"No further debate is needed on these matters."

Or even very welcome, from your side, I might presume? I am providing it, with or without your thanks.

"I suggest that +Hans-Georg Lundahl find such evidence, submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and earn a fucking Nobel Prize for his findings. It would literally change the world."

My finding it is very banal. I only have to be broadminded enough to read creationist material.

But changing the world takes more than my finding it. Or even submitting it. It also takes the reputable peer reviewed journal being not too narrowminded like you are!

This here could have changed the word if published broadly, and I did submit it to the relevant sub-set of Nature:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Was it published? No. Who did the pre-publishing review? If it went any way, beyond a narrowminded evolutionist in office, I woldn't be surprised it went to P. Z. Myers, whom I had refuted. That is how your community and your media work.