Friday, April 22, 2016

... on Theology and Evolution, Logic and Geocentrism

Video commented on:
Evolution: The Religion of the Anti-Christ
Sensus Fidelium

Wade Tripp
This is so wrong, if theology is above the other sciences, then the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Wade Tripp what if this is actually so?

Epic Michael
+Wade Tripp yes what if it does...that'll blow your mind

Wade Tripp
+Epic Michael Not sure what do you mean "What if it does... that'll blow your mind" What if something illogical is true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What is "illogical" about Earth staying in centre of universe and Sun moving around it?

Wade Tripp
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Because it is not. The center of mass for the solar system is the Sun. The center of the Milky Way Galaxy is not the center of the Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The center of mass for the solar system is the Sun."

How do we know "center of mass" is relevant as geometric centre for movements?

In other words, how do we know gravitation is the relevant and even the only relevant mechanism?

In general, a thing "not being so" does not equal same thing "being illogical if it were so". Lots of logical possibilities are not realised, and a thing actually not being true does not preclude its being a logical possibility.

After which
I added a notification to this post.

Epic Michael
the earth is the center of mass for the entire universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The CENTRE, certainly.

Of Mass? Possibly, and if so, it is in, not identic to centre of Mass. That is the Sungenis position, but it is not a necessary one in order to maintain that Earth is the geometric centre of all major motion in the entire universe, foremost the daily one.*

* Originally read: That is the Sungenis position, but it is not necessary to maintain that Earth is the geometric centre of all major motion in the entire universe, foremost the daily one.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

... details on Nod

Where did Cain find his wife?

1:33 "you have got three boys, Cain, Abel and Seth, then Abel is killed and you have got two" ... er, no.

Two (alone or among others), Cain and Abel. Abel is killed. THEN Seth is born and appointed to replace Abel. Abel and Seth are, like Isaac and Jacob and Joseph and King David given the "right of the first born" before their older brothers.


  • 1) If Seth was born when Adam was 230 years as per LXX, Cain was presumably also sth like 229 years old then, and 228 when killing Abel (who might have been 227?) ... this gives some time for Adam and Eve to have already grandchildren and greatgrandchildren*;

  • 2) In order to found a city you don't need many people to start. Rome was two brothers playing around with city walls (and Romulus did a Cain like gesture, if you know what I mean), then only one. It was still the city which later grew, and it counted its foundation from when Romulus and Remus were alone there. Only later do you need many people for the city to remain a city and not to sink to a hamlet by comparison with other cities that do grow great.

In general about Nod ... do you think it could have been in India somewhere?

  • 1) Cain has a land called NoD;

  • 2) In it he has a son and builds a city called HeNoch;

  • 3) HeNoch and NoD nicely give a portmeanteau word HeNoD, which could become HeND, then HiND .... India;

  • 4) Mahabharata tells of a hero called Bharat, whose name is also a name of India, and whose carreer is a combination of two Henochs - the Cainite Henoch and the Sethite Henoch, the King and the Raptured Saint.

If the hero (and obviously not god!) Krishna's** name in original pre-Flood Hebrew was Kush**, if he was father in law to Ham, if India was peopled by Regma, son of Kush, son of Ham, it could very well be that Mahabharata retells (in new probably first Dravidian and then only Classic Sanskrit) some pre-Flood family traditions and Regma could have been seeking out the land of Nod on purpose.

* By their other children. Not adding this in comment there, since after I wrote it and resumed listening, they explicitly made the point.

** It seems Krishna and Kush both mean "the black one" or "the swarty one".

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

... on Mahomet and Mahometans and Freedom of Speech

Robert Spencer: How islam killed free speech in 30 years
Vlad Tepes

Listened up to 19:01. Not yet knowing all rest of content.

9:38 I was not aware of Rushdie basing the story of his novel on a story from Islamic tradition.

I am not very pro-Islamic, being from a family with some relation to brewery, I find it a VERY bad light when Muslims themselves tell the story of Mohammed answering a question "yes, earlier al-sharab was allowed" and then answering the request "ok, you may drink, but you may not" giving three interdictions, two of which were against stealing and against lechery with a woman not married to him, not sure if first was less serious or instead last was more serious, before the evening the man had done that, and pleaded "drink made me do it" and then Mohammed concluded or everyone concluded for him that drink was indeed henceforward forbidden.

  • 1) Denies miracle of Cana.
  • 2) Denies counsel of St Paul.
  • 3) Denies the wisdom of Noah in allowing moderate drink after he had accidentally become drunk by immoderation beyond limits he was beforehand unaware of.
  • 4) Blasphemes the Eucharist.
  • 5) Shows how either Mohammed or some demon manipulating him into being a manipulator was VERY manipulative.

Because otherwise it would have been very ill of providence to hand these men just that one example by sheer accident, unless it was to show Mohammed was very capable of hasty judgement, of panicking from a single case to an overheated principle.

But I think rather that man who did these things after drinking was either bewitched or an accomplice in a con game.*

When I heard of Rushdie's novel, I was ill at ease, I could not believe Muslims themselves had told a story of Satanic verses. To me it was as if he were insulting BOTH Muslims (in saying Mohammed had had a revelation from Satan on one occasion) AND Christians (in saying Mohammed had had his revelations from God the rest of the time, including presumably for Surah 5 which blasphemes Divinity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ).

However, I would like to have some precise reference to:

  • 1) story as existing previous to Rushdie - from Islamic sources;
  • 2) Surah and Ayah for "there is not a prophet that Satan doesn't interfere in his message". Or other reference if I misunderstood and it be a hadith.

I think Muslims like Mormons are wrong, but I like to be fair to Muslims like I like to be fair to Mormons.


The Christians killed after in the riots have more sympathy from me than Danish cartoonists. I tried to voice their exasperation over cartoonists provoking what targetted ultimately them. But occasion shows Muslims today very capable of extreme hasty judgement.

I mean, Denmark and Sweden are, with Norway (whose police was hasty enough in judgement to give first day news Breivik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" which he was NOT) as un-Christian as you get in the West. Unless UK and Netherlands have passed beyond.


I can mention one day the blog stats showed Saudi Arabia on my blogs.

I don't think they liked it.

Perhaps the abbreviation "nov9 blogg9" ticked off an association with "99 names" when final raised "9" (shape, not numeric symbolism) was a medieval way of writing "-us" (reads "novus bloggus").

Perhaps that other blog which compared Mohamed and Joseph Smith as not necessarily both con men but at best both deluded by demons (at least both would have considered other so and neither gave a better proof).

Or that third one, where I had linked to a video by what was his name Ahmed Deedat (or someone else's blog post) and actually gave Christian ANSWERS to what were made and meant as unanswerable rhetorical questions showing how Christianity is supposed to be absurd.

Some time later, the sack I carry as a homeless man was suddenly too large for entry at Georges Pompidou library to be allowed. And as a homeless man, I depend on libraries for blogging.

19:01 "no matter what I say or do"?

There are in fact provocations against which one is obliged to take action, unless one is going to be subjected to continuous harrassment.

Say a man starts pushing me about in corners, I can't get beside him, I can't turn and run, it is then NOT my fault if I for instance hit him or am rude to him, or if he is stronger than I even draw some kind of weapon. It is perhaps in a sense still my choice, but it is not my obligation to stand reacting "normally" in face of continued abnormal provocations.

Muslims abused the principle and "targetted" people totally disconnected with provocation, but the principle remains a true one.

* Bewitched pawn or willing accomplice, in other words. As Mohamed for Satan.

Friday, April 15, 2016

... on Tower of Babel and the Lingua Franca Phenomenon

Video commented on:
The Universal Language

As to Intro,
it seems the lecturer is taking Tower of Babel as a "myth" reflecting certain desires and ideals, among those the "ideal of a universal language".

Now, how come that in Swedish Universities (Sweden being Protestant and Fundamentalism being commonly thought to be a Protestant feature, right?) a lecturer cannot take Genesis 11 for historic fact?

AND, supposing it were not, even then one cannot deny that the first men who had a language had the same one. Evolutionist scenarios have a way of breaking down when analysed, particularly on issue of first men. But one can hardly deny that if this ideology were true, it would follow one certain mutation would have triggered humanisation and therefore the language capacity. One lineage would have been developing language. And therefore, even on an evolutionist scenario, one language would have been the original language of mankind.

Obviously even more so on the Creationist scenario, a k a Christian faith. Adam was not many men, and even if he mastered more than one language (which is no where directly indicated), one must have been his first one, the one in which he talked to God in Eden and in which his names for all animals were his contribution to vocabulary, his "cadeau à Larousse".

That Our Lord DID know Aramaic and Hebrew does not indicate that He did NOT know Greek.

The Syro-Phenician woman certainly may have been adressed in Aramaic, but what about the Centurions and Pilate? And were the years in Egypt spent where they mostly spoke Coptic - or in Alexandria, where the most known language was Greek?

And obviously, Rahan presumes that whether the tribe of Crao spoke French or sth else, they spoke a universal stone age language ... sth more probable in French Colonial Empire than in usual stone age scenario of archaeology.

I object to that remark very strongly ... except for Schliemann, except for Grimm, and except for Dietrich von Hildebrand ... whose heyday was after 1933.

Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx basically suck, and I am no big fan of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer either. There was a decent racial biologist whom Hitler admired, but oh boy what his admirers DID with his classifications (by the way, you don't look very East Baltic, more as Nordic as a Romanoff).

Oh, forgot, as you mentioned US : Felix Salzer, disciple of Heinrich Schenker is not bad either! And that goes for the GOOD Marx too:

HOLD ON ... Alcuin and Erasmus can hardly be blamed for what a Swedish cinema producer suffered from his Latin teacher, or supposedly so, to judge from "Hets" where the Latin teacher is nicknamed Caligula!

Since you are finished with topic of this lecture, how about my tentative identification of PIE with a recorded language. Nesili. Not Hattili or Hattic, which might be Fenno-Ugrian, but Nesili or Hittite. Language of the armies that conquered and first destroyed Hattusha.

Creation vs. Evolution : Was Proto-Indo-European a Historic Language, like ... Hittite, Imperial Language relevant for Greece and Linear A Crete?

Answering others:

الضاحك الباحث
Why does this lecturer have to shoot indirect negative disdainful comments at the Arabic language? I mean he could be a bit respectful even if he criticizes old opinions, it only diminishes from his objectivity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+‫الضاحك الباحث‬‎ what exactly was disdainful about it?

Fulop Hilda
to LExman00, American English has so many words of other origin, there is no such thing as one language 

Frank Maclow
you're right, no language is 100% original. French is my first language which is a mix of Latin, Greek and other dialects spoken at the time.

James van der Hoorn
+Frank Maclow French is hardly a mix of Latin and Greek. It's a fairly direct descendant of Latin.

Frank Maclow
+James van der Hoorn
you're right, even if we use few Greek words, there is no direct link between our respective languages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+James van der Hoorn Actually, French has a smattering of Gaulish words too.

I wrote a dialogue where a Roman nobleman from Corsica, serving as prefect in Lyons, hmm Ludgdunum, or perhaps just visiting it, complains about the local take on Latin.

"Fui Lugduni proh dolor!"

"Quare proh dolor? Ut audivi optimas habent salsas carnes!"

"Et vina. Sed linguilla! Non est nominillum quod non diminuunt!"

"Ah, ideo illud 'amicille'!"

"Ideo, ut dicis."

"Bone Jacobe Villari, quae alia dicenda sunt de lingua Lugdunensium?"

"Barbarica verba! Romae dicunt: 'avis habet rostrum exiguum', nonne?"

"Mihi videtur illud et recte quidem! Et Lugduni?"

"Lugduni? 'Avicellus habet beccum finum'!"

Avicellus is remade Latin, habet is Latin, but "beccum finum" is Gaulish.

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Dialogus Temporibus Romanis

+James van der Hoorn The most obvious Greek contribution to French (well, Greek, Hebrew or Arabic) is definite article. Latin, like Russian and Polish and Lithuanian, also like Finnish I think, but not Hungarian lacked a definite article. Greek had one. French hasn't the Greek one, but it has reused some demonstrative pronouns of Latin to make room for a Greek category of sentence building.

James van der Hoorn
+Hans-Georg Lundahl No. What we see in many Indo-European languages is that demonstrative pronouns develop into definite articles. This happened in Greek (in Homeric Greek the definitive article is still more a demonstrative) It happened in the Germanic languages (in Old English we see the transitional stage, just as in Greek; in German the definite articles der, die, das are still demonstratives as well; in Afrikaans the demonstrative die has become the definite article, using hierdie for this and daardie for this and that). It happened in all the Romance languages, the Latin demonstratives ille, illa, (with declined forms such as illos, illas) turned into definite articles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+James van der Hoorn, both the Romance and diverse Germanic "developments" of demonstratives to definite articles are occurring at same time, namely First Millennium AD, and it so happens that during this time, one started out with lots of Greek speakers in Western part of Roman Empire, so that they could influence what changes were made to Latin, and the Germanic tribes were living next door to the Empire or invading it, so they could have been getting the idea from Greek directly or from early Romance and hence indirectly from Greek.

One proviso, Arabic in Iberian Peninsula, South part of Italies, certain periods in Gaul/France even OR Hebrew of Jews living side by side and sometimes joining the majority by conversion may also have contributed.

Update on Monday 18/IV

James van der Hoorn
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Mere speculation. In Old English for instance the change occurred after the Romans had left Britannia and the Anglo-Saxons were still pagans and Latin was not yet the language of learning. Do you know of any serious linguistic studies arguing your view?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"In Old English for instance the change occurred after the Romans had left Britannia and the Anglo-Saxons were still pagans and Latin was not yet the language of learning."

A very good point if AS had eradicated all and any Britons using Latin for Christian purposes.

But in England and Ireland, we have the Old Irish (and probably influenced Old Welsh) cognate of the modern definite Celtic articles.

I don't know if they had been turned into definite articles per se yet or not, I do know that English thus has another influence.

Germanic languages have different articles, der, die, das corresponding to modern English "the", while Dutch mingles it with "het" = Norse hinn, hitt = definite article endings, while one Danish dialect, Jutish, has æ, while OE /AS had se, seo in masculine and feminine (same stem as German sie, for both, and also used as personal pronouns), while only neutre that = German dass (and Norse non-article "det"). And Gothic, as far as I recall had no article at all.

If AS in England had been completely cut off BOTH from continental Franks and Frisians developing articles under possibly Greek influence and from Celts where Irish or Greek article (and Irish monks knew Greek at least in some measure), you would have had a very great point.

But that scenario for post-conquest England is very unlikely.

"Do you know of any serious linguistic studies arguing your view?"

If by serious you mean "backed up by academic and related media", yes, I do.

I read and reread that book about the emergence of modern European languages under first Millennium AD, and I found it in Swedish, not sure if it is a Swedish original or a translation from some other language.

It DID stress more than once the shift from "synthetic" to "analytic" occurring during this time. That statement is however vaguer.

However, you may not be considering this a serious reference for the moment, as long as I have not gotten author and title back to memory.

"Mere speculation."

If by mere speculation you mean not backed up by documented facts telling same story in so many words, well, most historic linguistics beyond cataloguing of old languages is so.

If by mere speculation you mean not back up by facts telling what may be reasonably considered "other parts of same story" (though not actually proven such), I think I just countered the claim.

Tentative (very much so, probably wrong) reference about the Greek or Arabic influence on articles: Europas tungomål I/II by S.A. I. Steve Lando.

But I will keep looking, I think this one may be a more modern one than the one I read.

Monday, April 11, 2016

... mainly on C14 level "still rising"

Earth is 6,000 Years Old

I disagree on two things.
Earth is not 6000 years old, but more like 7200 years old.
C14 is NOT still rising in athmosphere.

At least if it is, it is not very far from equilibrium. If it were, the last two thousand years would NOT get dates corresponding between C14 and history dated by narratives and monuments and so on. It does. I made a model of what would happen if C14 were rising from Flood to as long as it takes JUST by yearly adding of same C14 by cosmic radiation and loss of C14 by degradation.

Supposing Flood had level C14 about 4-5% of equilibrial level, we would by now be on about 45% of equilibrial level. This would have some drastic effects on the datings we do. Here is where I modelised this hypothesis:

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près

"2957 (avant Jésus-Christ) 3/64 (du taux présent de C14)"
2957 BC, 3/64 of "present" = equilibrial level
"2013 0.457..." (omitting a lot of decimals)
2013 (AD) 0.457 of ... let's call it equilibrial here, since here it is not present.

First approximation of what the effects would be on C14 dates: let us JUST suppose the 46% were taken for 100% of present/equilibrial AND original level (that thing evolutionist carbon daters do).

282 *0.96646
282 0.929364531259652450088590100005022843149512519472911392009186919
610 1733 AD daté comme 1405 AD

212 *0.97468
212 0.9467320871198128728590521296381450203088796308680502975950524788
450 1803 AD daté comme 1565 AD

142 *0.98297
142 0.964253370629014065767652641890833420143924410013229453602481915
300 1873 AD daté comme 1715 AD

72 *0.99133
72 0.9819291057645781592074430726754123371514624500061884233135315857
150 1943 AD daté comme 1865 AD

2013 1
2 *0.99976
2 0.99976
0 2013 AD daté comme 2015 AD

Dating 2013 as 2015, big deal. But when you go back, you date things from 1943 (like boot leather from El Alamein battle) as if they were from Gettisburgh. 1873 is about a decade after Gettisburgh, but boot leather from Ashanti War (GB vs Ashanti) would be dated to 1715, like the First Jacobite Rising. Before 13 colonies broke off. If we go to 1803, it would be dated like Second Anglo-Marathi war getting misdated to 1565, like Conquistadors. 1733, a little after First Jacobite Rising, but before Second one, or when Oglethorpe founded a Penitential Colony in Georgia (ah yes, the English Gulags, like New South Wales, later!), would be dated 1405, like pre-Columbian times.

This misdating is NOT what we find. But suppose instead they adjusted the half life to get a bit more realistic dates, the half lives derived from comparing C14 content of objects and historic dates of same would widely disagree between older and newer ones, up to the present day. This is also not so.

So, no, C14 level "still rising" is NOT a realistic way to argue YEC. My model is, it was for some time rising very much faster.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

... against "A Scientist's Critique of Ben Stein's Expelled"

A Scientist's Critique of Ben Stein's Expelled

[After remarks about atheists believing we came from mud and Creationists believing that too:]

You just substitute lightning + millions and billions of years for God.

4:54 "you have to ignore so much evidence"?

Check it out. Have a blog, and have commented on LOTS of evolutionist evidence (among some lighter articles).

Creation vs. Evolution

See if I ignored sth, feel welcome to :

  • contact me over my "official" mail (dr does not mean I am a doctor, it means hgl @ mail . com was not available, and Nanterre University Library does not mean I am an employee, I am an "external reader" - my studies were by the way in Classics);

  • answer me here;


  • if I ignored a piece of evidence relevant to a particular article, comment under it there.

One thing, Distant Starlight I usually do not deal with on that blog, since my answer involves Geocentrism, and thus I answer on other blogs on that one.

5:34 "A creationist scientist doesn't exist, it's the same thing as an atheist priest."

  • Some people on your side come very close to being priests of atheism (Dawkins, Myers, Coyne ....)
  • Some Anglican and Lutheran (usually more often European than US versions) clergy are arguably very close to being atheist priests, that even happens (though less often) with Catholic clergy.
  • The wording is very close on admitting atheism is a religion with scientists for its priesthood, since you are making a remark about clergy stating creationists are religiously inappropriate for role as scientists.
  • And of course, you ignore that there are PhD Scientists who are using their scientific evidence to promote creationism. (You will perhaps be adressing that point in a minute?) (He didn’t.)

6:30 Hitler was not promoting atheism in an open way, but he was promoting Christianity getting updated to fit the régime (to fit the needs of the people, race etc, whatever the régime was about).

6:47 It would still be nothing compared to the damage caused by religion? Your saying crusade and showing inquisition seem to argue these two phenomena were somehow more of a death toll than Holocaust?

OK, if you are a revisionist and say 100,000 died in Holocaust, you may perhaps argue 200,000 died if you take Crusades, Inquisition together with Conquistadors. But some revisionists do place even Holocaust deaths at 200,000, and the Holocaust was more intense at that, since happening in 40-45.

If you go by the "six million" figure for Holocaust, you are heavily brainwashed by Protestants if you want to state Catholicism had a similar death toll in Crusades, Inquisition and Conquista taken together.

AND you are forgetting the Communist death toll in Soviet Russian 1917 to 1990 is probably superior to Holocaust (very conservative estimates of 1 million should be compared to revisionist figures like 100,000, and very large figures about Hitler, like 18 million including 6 for Holocaust + 6 for Germans and 6 for enemies of Germany or for non-Germans, should be compared to 90 million figure for Soviet Communism). It would be a very intriguing coincidence, which I don't believe in, if both the drastically low figure were correct for Communism and the drastically high one for Nazism. Even the opposite coincidence is likelier.

7:42 could it be he was trying to monitor the movie out of its intended direction? I mean, you embarass your employers or contractees, or what was it you said?

8:04 the image 5 in the comic is somewhat out of place ... as the one just before image nr 6. The comic leaves out LOTS of intervening scenes in which the atheists ARE denying in practise "that's your right". Also, it is out of place as after images 1 - 4, except 3, since there is a non-confessional case against abortion, sodomy and obscence art. Not sure it can hold together, but neither can most other non-confessional cases, including the one you are making.

8:23, you have not heard of fair use? "Ono’s lawsuit alleged the film used her husband’s song “Imagine” without permission, but a spokesman for Premise Media explained to WND that as a documentary, the movie is permitted to use a portion of the song without permission for commentary purposes under fair use laws." Expelled won the law suit.

Read more at 'Expelled' wins lawsuit over 'Imagine' song
Yoko Ono can't stop Ben Stein's intelligent design film from re-release
Published: 09/29/2008 at 6:00 PM
Drew Zahn

9:05, so, what you are saying is any film that argues anything must first of all be aware in advance of EVERY argument made by the one he's arguing against? Or that one cannot make ironic remarks (he might have heard of claims of speciation being observed and considered them as ridiculous compared to the point one is trying to make from them : like two populations of mosquitos, one of which in Underground, which no longer interbreed ... ri di cu lous)? Or are you imposing the academic standard of "knowing the status of the question" to a "question" as multifacetted as this one and to a film made for popular audience? Come ON! You are not proving producers of Expelled are dishonest, you are proving either you are or you are ignorant of general culture outside academia.

9:33 [Video quotes:

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish" / Jeffrey Kluger]

But a fishnet is not a valid argument. If fish could speak, they would consider it an argumentum baculinum - a fallacy.

9:46 "many of the holes Stein points out, evolution explains already"

THAT list would have been the matter of a really interesting video. THIS video isn't really interesting to myself, but some of my readers will be concerned.

One more thing : you made a point about Hovind at least supposedly quoting people and making their words mean the very opposite of what they were meaning.

For one thing, I am not sure you are very aware of logic. Logic is a system which allows the words of a man to have implications he was not aware of. If that is so, it is fair game for a man to quote his words and to point out certain implications.

However, you seem to be engaged in same thing. What you have to say about "evils of religion" was so taken from Chick Tracts and these from earlier 19th Century Anglicans or sth (the track may go back to Foxe via Voltaire), and yet, unlike Jack Chick, you do not mean one should get out of Catholicism in order to become a "born again Christian" type of Protestant or Evangelical, and neither he nor you is meaning what Foxe meant that one should get out of Roman Catholicism in order to become a Bible reading and bourgeois loyal to Elisabeth I (or Bess Boleyn) Anglican.

So, perhaps Chick was aware that Foxe might have been right about a thing while being wrong about its implications. And you that Chick might be right about a thing but wrong about its implications.

So, you are prepared to play the same game. In this case in the wrong place, because Chick and Foxe are wrong about Medieval Catholic history.

Even so, that makes you clearly inconsistent and possibly not honest in your denunciation of "word twistings" allegedly committed by Kent Hovind and others.

Monday, April 4, 2016

... against a "Catfish" on Evolution

Video commented on first half of
Why Don't Catholics Believe in Evolution?

Nice font. I enjoy blackletters too:

from: Creation vs. Evolution : URL in Blackletters

You said "Catholics" do believe in Evolution, that is a bit like saying "Holy Bible" condemns such and such a practise or doctrine of (traditional) Catholicism. That may be why precisely English is the language in which both CATHOLICS and HOLYBIBLE add up to .... let's see:

C 67 060 07 H 72 070 02 620
A 65 120 12 O 79 140 11 046
T 84 200 16 L 76 210 17 666
H 72 270 18 Y 89 290 26
O 79 340 27 B 66 350 32 610
L 76 410 33 I 73 420 35 056
I 73 480 36 B 66 480 41 666
C 67 540 43 L 76 550 47
S 83 620 46 E 69 610 56

Obviously, Sagrada Biblia and Católicos get other scores in ASCII Code. So do Heilige Bibel and Katholiken.

If the difference is in:
  • content type
    THEN that is from the character of the case. Genesis 1 is about origins before man, and that is a subject matter not much elaborated on in the rest of the Bible; or if it is in

  • amount of detail
    THEN that might be due to care of transmitting orally only the very leanest essentials of what one transmitted, so it could be learned by heart.

    Chapters 1-6, DRB, copied to a word document with 20 points typographic height gave 21 pages. On 7 pages, same height, I fit in five Greek Constantinopolitan Creeds. BUT the comparison is a bit lopsided, since Greek is shorter than English. So, even so, it means 2.5 creeds per chapter. Take into account that Hebrew, like Greek, is shorter than English, they will probably be less than 2.5 Greek creeds each. And even normal, post-Flood persons are able to learn the Creed by heart (Orthodox and presumably Byzantine rite uniates too use it instead of Apostolic creed). And if the difference is in:

  • poetry versus narrative style
    THEN I cry foul, your sophism has been duly debunked. By people who know Hebrew lost better than either you or I. At least what I presume for you, and what I know for me.

CMI : Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis
by Dr Don Batten, Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
Published: 30 November 2007(GMT+10)

See also this discussion:

Let’s ask opponents the question: just suppose, for the purposes of the argument, Genesis is history, how would you expect it to look? We can answer from the style of the undisputed historical books such as most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc.

Hebrew grammar experts have shown that historical narratives in the Old Testament have a very distinctive verb pattern. They start with a type of verb called a qatal (perfect) and continue with another type of verb called the waw (vav,8 ו) consecutives, or wayyiqtols.9 This verb type is frequent in the historical books of the Old Testament.

Apply this to Genesis 1, the first verb, ברא bārā’ (create), is qatal, while the subsequent verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (ויאמר wāyyō’mer (‘and … said’), ויהי wāyehi (‘and there was’), וירא wāyyāre (‘and … saw’). Thus this has just the pattern one would expect from a historical narrative.

Furthermore, Genesis 1–11 moves seamlessly on, with no change in style, to Genesis 12–50. No one doubts that the latter is intended to be read as history. Therefore any doubts with the former don’t stem from the grammar and style of the text itself. Rather, they come from considerations outside the text, such as long-age uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.

CMI : Genesis is history!
by Jonathan Sarfati

As said, someone who knows Hebrew better than either of us. At least than me.

"highly symbolic" is a highly ambiguous phrase. It can mean "rich in symbols" (for what is to come). If so, true. It seems in this context to mean "more likely to be true in symbolic than in historic ways and highly so". That is, if you meant that, false. Presence of factual historic truth is NOT at inverse ratio to presence of symbols. And God is, as St Thomas noted, able to adapt, rather than just an invented text (like Roman de la Rose or Psychomachia), a whole series of events that will be recorded in a text to symbolic truths as well.

"but not in a fundamentalist way"

Why exactly that?

Sorry, but Genesis 1 is a creation account, not a map. You cannot look closely at it like you can at a map, you may be able to look closely to descriptions. THAT involves that descriptions may correspond to what they suggest spontaneously OR be accurate in a less direct way, but accessible to those who know the details. The Flat Earth part is NOT directly stated in Genesis 1, while it is very directly stated in what Egyptians believe about Solar deities : half of the 24 hours these are NOT shining on Earth, which can only be true with a flat earth.

A little further on, you say something about "how we understand the world today".

Round Earth is not directly contradicted by any verse or any conclusion following logically from two or more verses.

Very unlike Pagan ancient Mid East religions where myths and holy texts all are considerably more direct about Flat Earth.

If we come to "and it was very good" you are correct that we correctly understand the world today to contain lots of evil. That is the result of sth that can be studied in Genesis 3:

GENESIS - Chapter 3
in Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Note very well how Haydock comment on Genesis 3 explains the "text" transmission from Adam to Moses.

Excepting the detail of adhering to Christmas chronology (Latin Mass and even Novus Ordo up to 1994) rather than Ussher and therefore not thinking Shem lived to the days of Abraham, therefore needing a few intermediates more on the "bare minimum" of continuous transmission he is talking about, I agree totally.

But by "how we understand the world today" you may also be referring to very dubious theories which all of us do not share even today, like Heliocentrism and Evolution.

These actually would contradict or compromise Genesis 1.

If Earth is regularily rotating around Sun, what was Earth rotating around the first three days before there was a Sun? If Earth was immobile days 1-3, why did it start moving around Sun on day 4?

One can patch that together. But accepting Geocentrism will do it too.

And according to Genesis all birds and fish (that would include all flying creatures or vertebrate creatures and all under water creatures not just "fish" but also invertebrate, mammalian and - erstwhile, before Flood - perhaps reptilian too) were created on day 5, all land vertebrates (and land invertebrates too) were created on day 6.

This contradicts evolutionary accounts when all vertebrate flying creatures (pterodactylian, bird or bat) are evolved from earlier land living forms.

So, yes, if you count evolution as true understanding of the world, you will be forced to ditch literal truth of Genesis. You shouldn't.

Unlike the physical evils of sickness and death and the moral evils of sin, of error, evolution is not in this sense a clear observation we can make now.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

... on Evolution and Catholic Church

1) Creation vs. Evolution: I don't think Mother Angelica ever found Darwin's God · 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... on Evolution and Catholic Church

Video commented under:
The Doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Theory of Evolution
Ian Catholic

[Not yet heard the video, bumpted in to a thread]

I, text about video:
Ajoutée le 8 juin 2013
[would in England probably show as "added June 8th 2013]

What is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on Adam and Eve?
Is it compatible with the Theory of Evolution?
Is Theistic Evolution the answer?
Who were Adam and Eve?
Listen to what Fr. Fehlner has to say.
This video shot over 15 year ago was lost and has just been found again.
The message is timeless.

Fr. Peter Damien Fehlner FI, STD is a professor of dogmatic theology. He taught in Seraphicum in Rome for many years; he wrote extensively on Franciscan and Marian themes. He was featured in Mother Angelica's EWTN several times.

[I found it while googling Mother Angelica Evolution, so far promising, she does not seem to have believed that evil stuff, at least I found no clear reference to her doing so, I will have to listen to an mp3 called Evolution And Other Things Host - Mother Angelica with guest Fr. Mitch Pacwa SJ]

II, thread:
in which I bump in quite some time after other ones.

Dan C.
I've yet to meet a friar or a priest that takes the Genesis account at face value. This friar is the first to insist the Roman church teaches a real Adam and Eve. Pope Francis, Benedict and John Paul II never, ever believed in a literal Adam and Eve.

[My emphasis - he is the first one, but he is one, he is there.]

Jamie Cole
+Dan C. Welcome to the infallible decree of the Council of Trent: If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

Dan C.
+Jamie Cole 'If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness'

This is talking about the fall. It mentions nothing about a literal 6 day creation or about God actually making man from dust and breathing into him life. What I have just mentioned is considered metaphor and not literal. The pope believes that the first man evolved from amoeba to ape like creature to man. Adam is the product of millions of years of evolution. A most reprehensible doctrine of devils.

'Welcome to the infallible decree of the Council of Trent'

Trent is not infallible, otherwise it would be part of canon scripture. Only the Word of God, the bible, is infallible. It is the only thing that the bible tells us 'stands forever' and it alone is a 'discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.'

[Bible is not just infallible - original and translations authorised by true Church being that - but inerrant at least in original and in at least one of the preserved versions on any given topic. Church is however only infallible on doctrine and morals, not inerrant in human opinion.]

Jamie Cole
+Dan C. Actually, for the Catholic Church, solemn decrees of ecumenical councils such as Trent are infallible. You make look it up. So, we know that Adam was the first man and that he dwelt in Paradise on earth. We also know about Eve. Here's Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." If Pope Francis believes Adam was the son of a wild beast, he has erred in his private judgment but he does not solemnly teach that the faithful must believe it. Popes may err unless they speak 'ex cathedra'- you may look up the doctrine of papal infallibility to clarify if needs be. By the way, the canon of the Bible is part of Catholic Tradition- the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected which books are divinely inspired. Again, I welcome you to look it up. 

Dan C.
+Jamie Cole "Actually, for the Catholic Church, solemn decrees of ecumenical councils such as Trent are infallible."

I believe you. What I'm trying to say is that that infallibility exists only in the mind of the Papacy. It exists no where in scripture.

"he does not solemnly teach that the faithful must believe it."
"Popes may err unless they speak 'ex cathedra'"

He has taught it, in fact he's gone on the record in front of all the world. Several have. The Pope does not have the luxury of erring in his judgment. Millions of people lean on every word he speaks.

'the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected which books are divinely inspired.'

Well, the Old testament had already been written and set apart. Christ referred to it many times as the 'scriptures'. As for the New Testament, the Apostles had already made it clear what was scripture. I won't deny that the Holy Spirit had a hand in helping the Roman church compile the books. God is zealous for His Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Dan C. Infallibility in Scripture:

Luke 10:16

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That said, I agree that with modern media, a real Pope does not have the luxury of erring in judgements millions will lean on (like "Pope Francis's" twitter account, which he somewhat "nepotistically" - or worse - indulgenced following).

Note, I have severe doubts on even possibility of Pius XII being Pope (his allocution in 1951 was worse than Humani Generis) and I am certain that Bergoglio is not Pope.

Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church works both ways.

Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church
Pope Francis was Pope in 2014
Pope Francis was infallible and could not make a false canonisation
Pope Francis canonised John Paul II
John Paul II is a saint;


Wojtyla/John Paul II was not a canonisable saint after Assisi meetings 1986 and 1993.
The canonisation of John Paul II is false.
But Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church
Therefore whoever was thought to be Pope and made that canonisation was not Pope
Pope Francis canonised John Paul II
Pope Francis is not Pope and you may call him Bergoglio.

I stick with the latter.

I was in doubt about "Pope Francis" from his "election" (in a sense a real election, but not a canonic election to real papacy, however that might be explained ... like with Pope Michael already being Pope and therefore conclave being schismatic, which is what I now think) up to that day in 2014.

I had even considered that BERGOGLIO adding up to 666 (in ASCII Code) MIGHT be a case of real Pope being prophetically named after his real adversary (like one Pius, VI or VII, was prophetically named "rapacious eagle" or aquila rapax in a prophecy of St Malachy, puublished well before his time, and which poointed to his being pope in the time of Napoleon Bonaparte who acted the part of a rapacious eagle). But since 2014 I am not in doubt, I consider him a proven non-Pope./HGL