Friday, November 25, 2016

... on Wiki (For Morons or Not Only?) (Featuring JPHolding)

Theologyweb : TektonTV Thread

On Theologyweb, the forum Tektonics is only accessible if you log in.

09-30-2014, 09:40 AM #270
Hi J.P. Something for you to possibly get your teeth into. Someone posted this in the Unbelievable Facebook group. Apparently, someone has now done some thorough research and has concluded that Jesus never existed:

09-30-2014, 03:38 PM #271
Nah, that's just the same old "Remsberg's List" argument I've already debunked. Maybe with some names added of people whose works are lost to us. I'll have a somewhat updated response to those ideas in the next e-book.

Yesterday, 04:17 PM #681*
As I didn't have access to original Remsberg list, I refuted the updated version. With lots of wiki quotes they will hardly deny.

Today, 04:11 PM #682
Today, 04:13 PM #683
Wiki quotes is for morons. Find the original source or shut your yap.

Wacko, get the hell out of this thread. I don't want you here wasting my time and that of others here with your insane fluff.

As originator of the thread, I am free and have the authority to order you out, and I hereby do so.**

I had been going to compliment JPHolding on his style of videos being influential, with these two examples:

Catholic Inquisition Myths Busted

"Pseudo-Traditionalism Is Free Falling"

One has a title reminiscent of "Myth Buster", another uses toon material (Wile E. Coyote, gravity lessons on the still) to bring home the point of "free fall" in its title.

However, since all of page 68 were my responses* and I stopped after first on page 69 (I was born 68, not 69!**), I'll spare him my deplored company.

I wonder if he meant what I wrote "wiki quotes" - that is quotes from wikipedian articles - or what is better known as "wikiquotes". Either way, his criterium is calculated, whether he knows so or not, to make writing on internet a hobby only for those having more time and leisure and definitelymore money than I do.

Obviously, I disagree. Most of the time, copying a work was a rather long chore and therefore much of the things we know are known via authors whose works function a bit like wiki articles, with earlier authors contributing, but these lost, and themselves then final (sometimes vandalising) redactors of a wiki. Except, this freedom (and its abuse) existed between works, not in copying of each.

* ##671-680 were also mine.

** I amenned the second post, the one not derogatory of wiki, but remininding of his freedoms.

where I adressed versions of Remsberg list:

somewhere else : 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category

And at least one or two more in same series (links within).

somewhere else : Silent Historians Argument Revisited :

1) Ten Extra-Biblical Writers or Sources on Reign of Tiberius

2) Two of These Quoted

Monday, November 21, 2016

... against Federal Ban on Fireplaces

Without watching first.

Will watch later:

Video to watch
Why Feds Are Banning Fireplaces And Wood Stoves
The Alex Jones Channel
Ajoutée le / added on the 19 nov. 2016

This means my own comment is not the best of the combox pick, as yet, but not totally bad either, I hope:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are FEDS banning them?

Nancy M
A woodburning stove saved my parents lives a couple years ago in Oregon... they had a blizzard and couldn't get out of their 40 acre home and the power was off for almost a week... fortunately my dad was well stocked on wood and kept the place warm... The are in their 80's...

Ohsaint p
That's why we voted Trump. To end all these rats from doing whatever they want.

Teresa Smith
Will you please make sure Trump is aware of this stupidity? I live in a area where the power goes out alot due to weather, snow making limbs fall. We have to have a alternative source of heat.

Kathy Florcruz
YOU make sure Trump knows. He works for us. Alex is doing his job of making you aware.

wolf shedler
We burn wood summer and winter We have gotten rid of all our propane appliances and its like a burden has been lifted. We have a 100 acres mostly wooded and our fuel grown on trees. We make our own electricity and grow our own food. We brew our own beer and still use on outside rootcellar. A bad batch of beer is distilled at home using a woodstove. We use a woodstove in our gazebo for cooking in the summertime or a solar powered hotplate. Life is good and i would never trade my freedom for all those city comforts that come at a huge price. Thanks Alex we watch you on our solar powered laptop

I said it before and all through this election this is a clash between rural and urban. I have said cities are prisons without bars. So I chose long ago to live outside the Maze . I now live semi-off grid. My total utilities a month are $20 at my place outside of a small country town. My place has a few acres and old growth forest. All the firewood I need Ginseng, sassarfras, blackberry,plums, produce, game and eggs too. My best old friend, Max, my German shepherd. Built my own bucksaw from pine. Get firewood with an old crosscut saw and axe. Brew my own dark beer and blackberry wine or whatever .Built my own cistrens and solar panels. I read alot,write, play guitar and listen to radio and cassettes. Most would say I'm below the poverty level. Hell I lived on about $155 a month for a few years till I got my SS. I was strong as an ox. Now its about $500. Still poverty level I suppose. And yet I'm doing fine. Wish my family stayed with me but you know the name of that tune. Anyhow, when I make bistcuts in, and brew coffee on my woodstove while sitting next to the open fire I feel like I'm the wealthiest man on earth . Oh, not of coin, but of living simply free of all the clutter that fogs mans quest to find the salt at his core, and once found, to take that sweet deep breath of Freedom. Tread thee Not!

Zero Quanta
Alex is RIGHT ON with this one. I have been noticing that the Regulations for Fire places have gotten RIDICULOUS. They do NOT want you to have a wood stove. Fist up, Fight for Truth.

Tens of DU
FACT: One year of volcanic activity on Earth produces more CO2 than all of human history combined.

source ? like thats a megapunch argument if i can get source

Katerina B
Here in Switzerland some people heat their giant homes by burning wood :/

Obvious Lee
They respect a man's privacy there. Particularly if he has a fortune.

Yes, but you didn't have a black liberal socialist president, so be happy and eat your chocolate. :)

The fact is, the craze about carbon dioxide started to corrupt environmentalism from a book by Ichtiaque Rasool.

And possibly from back up studies, but more probably from sloppy readers, who didn't note that he never proved or claimed to prove that Carbon Dioxide is a real climate bandit.

Here is my older study of that book, read on a homeless shelter with too much come and go during the night for me to sleep:

deretour : Ichtiaque Rasool, Système Terre - "pas terrible ..."

Sunday, November 13, 2016

... or rather remarks on vaticancatholic's video on KJV-Onlyism

Video commented on:
Is the King James Bible Infallible?

Just for the record, my online English Bible is DRB. And if I get hold of Father Ronald Knox, I'll take a look at that too, it has pre-Vatican II imprimatur, I think.

But SOME guys associate me with KJ-onlyists because I am generally a Biblical inerrantist - especially YEC and Geocentric.

My Biblical chronology is also LXX via St Jerome and Roman Martyrology for 25 of December. Christ born 5199 anno Mundi.

As a revert from Orthodox to Catholic, I note that some Catholic arguments for Papacy have similar problems.

  • a) Peter's office must have remained THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who uniquely holds it;
  • b) Peter episcopated effectively in Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome, THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who is unique successor of St Peter.

Note, for Jerusalem, St James the Brother of God counts as first bishop bearing that title, but before he was such, Peter and the Apostles were ruling which means (if St Peter was superior to them) that St Peter was in fact episcopating from Pentecost Day or even before up to when he left Jerusalem for Antioch.

For point one, or a), I have reverted as judging by the fruits, unable to dissolve the conundrum on my own, just theologically, for the second point or b) above, well, he died in Rome, so Rome was the final of the three places where he episcopated.

KJV-onlyists would similarily argue that of the three English authorised versions, The Great Bible and The Bishops' Bible were superseded with finality by King James' Bible.

They even would have had an argument, if English had historically been a very large language early on - as it is, it was small up to American colonies, and still very small up to 18th Century, when it was heading the apostasy in certain ways. And now with internet, we have no trouble getting DRB.

KJV-Onlyists would hardly argue that King James was inspired.

They would argue that he was providential, as providential an instrument as Orthodox argue for Emperor Constantine (here a Baptist would be really illogical for another reason : this "Protestant Constantine" was in fact burning Baptists on the stake according to the Parliamentary law De comburendis hereticis, 1401, originally directed at Lollards, misapplied via the bishop of Beauvais to St Joan of Arc).

ASCII Code for King James:


777777 = 42*10
668 = 20*10

5 3 08 01 04 05 07 09 03
5 8 16 17 21 26 33 42 45

620+45 = 665.

HOLYBIBLE (but not Heilige Bibel, heliga Bibeln, Sagrada Scriptura etc) has 666.

Obviously some are making Bible reading a substitute for the Eucharist and are therefore making, precisely among English speaking Bible readers, the Bible a kind of idol.

That much you are right in.

[Where they spoke of non-copyrighted KJV as contradicted by longstanding Royal Privilege for certain printers in England:]

And in Sweden the printing press for the first Lutheran tracts was stolen by royal confiscation from the Carthusians. They had printed a tract about the Holy Rosary first.

Obviously, Reformation monarchs were not into the free press.

One Orthodox argument which once appealed to me was "Papism was the first Protestantism" - I don't believe that any longer, but it takes some detailed knowledge of Russian and other heresies to know Orthodox countries were not immune to heresies.

Protestants have at least not been skoptsy.

Speaking of King James : he was very inconsistent about the Blessed Sacrament.

On the one hand, he forbade teaching transsubstantiation. On the other hand, he forbade not kneeling while receiving.

Could one consider his attitude as responding to the description some Protestants give of Catholicism?

31:40 or before.
A printer can as easily make a mistake as someone copying by hand. See the divergences between first two editions of 1611 - or the near-Bible work we are discussing. These versions were printed.

I'd say the original reading of each autograph is preserved, meaning or even word for word in at least ONE version extant today, not necessarily the same one. I place, for instance, LXX over Vulgate in age of Adam at birth of Seth, since that seems warranted by Roman Martyrology.

God promised to preserve His words - since these include the words He inspired hagiographers to write, the original meaning of each passage must have a correctly rendered version at least somewhere.

I wonder if there aren't canonists who are trying to explain with some sweat that Trent didn't define all the correct readings to be preserved in the Vulgate.

Final remark:
To return to the locus Apocalypse 16:5, it would seem the text of Beza would have been plausible if St John had been a Greek, having past, present and future as distinct tenses, while he was in fact a Hebrew, having past and non-past as distinct tenses and rendering non-past more generally as present than as future.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

... on the Honour Given the Blessed Virgin : Praising Her Blessed

Video commented on
The Virgin Mary | Protestant vs Catholic | Walter Martin vs Mitch Pacwa
Theology, Philosophy and Science

7:14 "which means she was transformed into a new body"? Where does Walter Martin get that from? Of the four doctrines he challenges, two were accepted by early Protestant reformers, like Luther and Calvin and Cranmer : mother of God, everlasting Virgin.

8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.
Reply. OHhhhhhh The Power of a Woman. I'm sure Satan KNEW he could not persuade Adam to obey him, BUT! Satan KNEW Who COULD, & SATAN KNEW WHY TOO! 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
True enough.

And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You said, > "And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion."
Hans!!! Where is that written? What Book, or, where in, anything?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed.

Even if we leave out the dispute on translation of the second half of the verse, and keep to the first verse, Mary is sinless.

Christ is called "seed of the woman" as Son of Mary. God is speaking to Satan (or to a serpent no longer speaking, but still representing Satan who spoke through him). ENMITIES means complete enmity. And complete nemity with Satan means never sinning.

ALSO in Luke. Hail thee full of Grace.

Full of grace = no place for sin, in Her soul.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed."
THAT WOMAN WAS Eve. Her seed was her children. Cain was the first child, Abel was the 2nd. Adam & Eve also had other children. Cain turned out to be the spiritual seed of Satan because he did the works of Satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Eve may have been an incomplete fulfilment, but the complete fulfilment of the words are in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg-Lundahl,
Hans! What are Your thoughts about what is written in Luke 1:46-56? < verses 46 thru 56.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It includes a prophecy about the faithful : all generations shall call Her blessed.

It is also (up to verse 55) a set Catholic prayer, called the Magnificat.

Check Latin text for those verses, and you'll know the liturgic text. And add Gloria after it.

Gospel According to Saint Luke : Chapter 1

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
Hans. What is your understanding of what the word, "blessed"? What does the word "blessed" mean? Different people have different opinions on/about what it means. What is yours?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One of the things is "She is in Heaven".

Another is "She was blessed already on Earth".

A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?

We Catholics use the words of the angel combined with those of the cousin Elisabeth and some additions for praising Her blessed.

What do YOU use for praising Her blessed?

The Orthodox have prayers similar to the Hail Mary, also restating the words of the angel and of Elisabeth.

What prayer of YOURS is regularly praising Her blessed?

One more.

Blessed as such refers to five women, Her and four in the Old Testament. Jael, Ruth, Abigail, Judith and the Blessed Virgin.

Blessed among womens to only three of them : Jael, Judith and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Jael earned it by killing Sisera. Judith earned it by killing Holophernes. Whom did the Blessed Virgin defeat or kill? Only one enemy of Israel comes to question : the old serpent, Satan. She had never laid unfriendly hands on any man. That is why her reaction to the angel's words was at first "what does he even mean". When Elisabeth says "blessed art thou maong women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", THEN only does the Virgin understand she and her seed are meant. And that means a reference back to Genesis 3.

In other words, this proves she had already defeated Satan. In his dominion over mankind in general? Not quite, Christ still had to die. In his dominion over her? Totally, he never had any. God had placed ENMITIES between him and Her, that is total enmity, not a moment of his peacefully enjoying dominion over her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You asked, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and I replied by another question: what do YOU, Donald Bailey, mean by the full phrase "praise someone blessed".

I am praising the Blessed Virgin blessed every time that I pray Ave Maria which includes "benedicta tu in mulieribus" as both St Gabriel and St Elisabeth said. Greek Orthodox include such words in the prayer "Theotoke Parthene chaire". What time each day do YOU, Donald Bailey praise Her blessed as she foretold all generations (namely of the faithful) would do.

If you had been less eager to answer, you might also have seen that I gave a military definition of the phrase "blessed art thou among women" from the context of Jael and Judith. I answered that too. And there are only five women who are at all called blessed in the whole Bible - the other two being Ruth and Abigail. Ruth who, by marrying Obed became ancestress of King David and ultimately the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Abigail who pacified King David and averted him from shedding blood - as the Blessed Virgin has averted Her Son many times over from punishing the Christian people.

Actually, I had answered your question very shortly first, before giving you another one.

Do you imagine you are the only guy who has a right to quizz me, and I can't quizz you?

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg Lundahl
You, HANS asked me, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?
How can you imagine I am so dense not to SEE that You, HANS, are playing mind games?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Playing mind games? What are YOU then doing all the day quizzing people about verses YOU think relevant?

10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book).

Donald Bailey
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@> "No. God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book)."
Mr. Lundahl. There is a Bible Book called, Jude!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Suppressed comment linking to Douay Rheims Bible Online, might it have been here? No, it is further down and not suppressed.]

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hey Hans! You did not answer my 2 questions!!! Are ya harelipped? 😊 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Donald Bailey
Actually, the question had been suppressed, by someone else.

Yehuda and Yehudith were as common names among Jews as "John" and "Jane" are among English speakers.

There was a man called Yehuda who become a disciple of Christ (another one too, but he was from Ischariot and not the author of the Epistle) and a woman called Yehudith who became a military heroine of the North Kingdom and therefore a prototype of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The book of Judith is her story.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Thanh You for responding but your response did not answer my two questions. Once again, It is written in the Book of Jude, Chapter 1, verse 3, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." < Douay-Rheims Bible.
Mr. Lundahl. 2 questions here. Which came first, the Book of Judith, or, The Book of Jude?
2nd question. Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament.

And the faith is the same.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament. And the faith is the same."
Thank You Hans! What Chapter & verse would that be?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What chapter and verse of what?

There are no chapter and verse in any Book of the Bible, even of the 66 you acknowledge or even of the 73 (including Judith) I acknowledge, which gives a list of all Bible books.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hans. I asked You, Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

You responded and said, > "the faith is the same."

Then, next, I asked You, > What Chapter & verse would that be?

What I meant was What Chapter & verse in the Book of Judith.

Anyway, since I am failing to get my point across, maybe You can answer this question. How can I find this Book of Judith? I want to read what is written in it. I want to see what is written about faith. When I say faith, I mean a faith system, e.g. The RCC is a Faith system.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Any Catholic Bible includes the Book of Judith.

Here is an English Catholic Bible, online:

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes

And in case you find it troublesome to look up the book of Judith among the 73 books, here is Judith chapter 1:

Book Of Judith : Chapter 1

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
HEY!!! Thanks for the link!!! I just now downloaded it! I DID & DO use the Douay-Rheims Bible in/for the 66 Books of the Bible that I do have. BUT! There is not a Book of Judith in those 66 Books. I have the Book of Jude. BUT, NOW, thanks to You, I have Judith TOO!! Thanks again! Btw. Do you know a Poster, DancesWithBears??? I like her very much! She is Catholic. I love GOOD kind hearted people! I HATE REPROBATES!! AND, I MAKE NO BONES ABOUT LETTING THEM KNOW SO!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not know her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ >"I did not know her."
ok I'll rephrase my question. Have You ever read any of her messages?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I had, I would not have said so, I would have at least known her in passing by that fact.

No, I haven't.

Donald Bailey
Regarding the "Mother Mary"! This is ANOTHER Scripture all of You "Mother Mary" WORSHIPERS ACT LIKE YOU DON'T GET THE MEANING OF! Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and obey it. < CAPICHE? EASTER SUNRISE SUN WORSHIPERS!!! DO YOU K PEACH E?? NOoooooo! YOU REFUSE 2 SEE!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My mother, my brethren and my sisters.

Believing and lively acting Christian men : brethren.

Believing and lively acting Christian women : sisters.

Who is left to be His mother, whom He mentioned first?

Well, in a backhanded way He said SHE was innocent of the occasion and She was more than other believers doing the will of the Father.

Misquote alert?
In Douay Rheims, I found "my mother and my brethren" and not the words "my sisters". This is however not how I recall the verse from memory. From Swedish. In case I should have remembered wrong, which I don't believe, the singular for "mother" makes the same point, and the other female believers are included in brethren. 

Monday, October 24, 2016

[belated title : Comments on Conspiracy Road Trip : Creationism]

Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism

On the FIRST stop, I wrote no comment. That is because I had no idea how to explain Horse Shoe Bend myself. I took Tas Walker on CMI to help out, and here is THAT link:

CMI : Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona
Carved by the receding waters of Noah’s Flood
by Tas Walker, Published: 18 September 2012

17:17 I know Jerry Coyne somewhat from his blog and he is certainly a COMMITTED secularist. When he claims the Creationists are committed and he is not, he lies.

Here is his blog:

Why Evolution is True

Huge minus, he is evolutionist and fanatic enough to have banned my from commenting, huge plus, the Hili dialogues - a cat and sometimes a dog speaking Polish with translation. Here are three occasions when my arguing has involved him, which can be seen as a huge plus (from my p o v, since I enjoy arguing) or a huge minus (if you really hate what I write):

He's a pretty dedicated evolutionist.

18:13 Coyne says "morality does not come from God" (according to Evolution, but that is what he believes in as "science") and says it is hard for us to accept.

Well, claiming universally valid morality issued from evolution is a theoretical impossibility to him, and renouncing claims of morality being universally moral, at least it is hard to most evolutionists, not sure about him. See Wettstein's attitude:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Wettstein on Abortion and Sodomy, Chanaaneans and Old Age Pensions

25:28 Wonder if Andrew Maxwell could as successfully get evolutionists to dig for Triassic straight below Jurassic or for Permian straight below Triassic in Karoo?

If these were different epochs, surely some place you would find a Permian layer below a Triassic one, palaeontologically speaking and not just by default geological labelling?

The professionals of Karoo seemed less than eager:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

26:26 Hypothesis on why not finding human fossils along dino ones.

  • A) Most basically. Where T Rexes or wild Brontosaurs abound, you don't settle if you have any sense. And since man lived to 900 years sometimes pre-Flood, by the time of the Flood (when fossils are mostly from) man and dino had separate habitats.

  • B) Some dinos are actually so little documented, that they theoretically also could be human/nephelim fossils. Here is my mirror for a page on the now lost site palaeocritti. I added own comments in square brackets or signalled as own:

    Palaeocritti Blog : Uberabatitan ribeiroi

He mentioned pterodactyls and condors. But solution is basically same there : different habitats.

26:59 To squish His creative power into a ... 6000 year [literal?] framework ... false point. It would be a true one, if creating a world or any number of worlds could in any way exhaust God's creative power - or if God was suff ering from an irrepressible itch to use it through "millions of years" before or after His creating time. But read a little St Thomas Aquinas! If God had been creating world after world, allowing each an infinite time, it would still not in any way exhaust His creativity. And the "outside" the finite creation, either locally or temporally, is not there to bother God - God is rather Himself outside as well as inside creation. Saint Juliana of Norwich had a vision of Christ as God the Creator. In that vision, He held all He had created in his hand, and it was not bigger than a nut (obviously in that vision compared to His human form). So, God's creative power is not squished into what He has chosen to actually create.

27:10 ... is to tarnish His glory? Er, no. Denying His truthfulness is tarnishing His glory, as far as we speak of His external glory among us.

[debate under these two, upcoming]

28:19, sth before. "But you interpret science whi chever way it fits" - Andrew Maxwell, are you treating science as an absolute we have to bow down to?

29:09 "the point of the show is for you" Oh, Andrew Maxwell sees fit to treat creationists as some half looney guys whom one should try to treat ... never mind the debate or all that! Well, I'd say it was easier for Coyne and Prothero and that other guy to play Andrew Maxwell's game than taking on Kent Hovind or Tas Walker or Woodmorappe in oral debate - or me in written one. Via internet.

31:43 Chimps can cry, but they don't have tears like us. They also have emotions, but cannot signal them by the eyes that well, since they have nearly no visible sclera. They have opposable thumbs, but apparently don't do crafts either. And if they are taught any kind of language to communicate with keepers, the least impressed with it are linguists who have a hunch of what grammar or a human language is.

And at age seven, the chimps is behaving i n a way which would get a seven year old boy spanked - or given psychiatric treatment. (31:54)

39:07 Phil suspected of being a bully by Andrew Maxwell? More like, he is (rather consciously) setting a standard of not being concessionist. Simply by not being so himself.

39:22 If A M or director is bullying or not depends very much on what we do not see. Some are more likely to complain than others.

39:30 Taking leadership over the group? Or receiving it? Two different things.

43:00 "I always thought Adam and Eve weren't meant to be taken literally" - and who the Hell gave you that impression, Andrew? I suppose you won't admit it was the serpent himself, so who?

By 47:00 looking back a bit. Something has been edited out. Oldest dated fossils from a valley in Ethiopia are NOT carbon dated. If you date anything to "4 million years ago", it is not by carbon 14. Can I guess that the valley in Ethiopia is called Olduvai? Here goes ... oh, sorry, it is Laetoli in Tanzania:

Creation vs. Evolution : Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors?

52:03 Question in two parts : do the bacteria there have cell walls made by phospholipids? Are phospholipids likely to be produced without previous life in such exact places?

53:42 "that for hundreds of years scientists have concocted absolute nonsense, just so we can do as we please" I do not share Phil's analysis of motive on the level of every scientist. But those who are honest have been formed an an environment which is not. Check out Dawkins, Coyne, Salman Rushdie, AronRa and a few more like those. And of course P Z Myers. They do have a hatchet to grind with Christianity and with Christian morality. And some of them are natural scientists, of above all except Salman, as far as I know.

[comment debate under this one]

55:01 Abdul has been the voice of reason throughout ... no, we could never ever in a thousand years have guessed a Muslim would think of himself as that, could we?

55:07 And Abdul thinks Christianity didn't do too well? Well, who has been teaching him its history?

55:14 Islam absolutely unscathed? Yea, in this roadtrip. Unless being too conceited is a bit ... scathed.

55:52 Really pleased JoJo has taken a step to his position ... right. Was she honestly Young Earth Creationist at the start? Perhaps. "I don't want to be blinkered" Right, we have all heard, time after time, about Fundies being blinkered. I wonder if the five scientists would accept a similar roadtrip with Creation Scientists hosting - or if they are too blinkered.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

... 3 QQ on Evolution / Creation (Quora)

What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?

Answer A
Claudio Delise,
I have read the bible (OT and NT) cover to cover 2 and 1/2 times and more.

Quick example off the top of my head are Tuberculosis, Gonorrhea, and guess what Syphyllis.

In my lifetime TB has changed (evolved) to not respond to medicines that used to work in a 6 months of treatment.

Gonorrhea has changed (evolved) to be resistant to common (simple) antibiotics.

But most interesting: Syphilis was first introduced to Europe probably by Christopher Columbus travels.

Initially it was a more impressive than small pox. So it became colloquially known as the Great Pox. Now it has evolved to be milder and more indolent disease.

See Knell, RJ (7 May 2004). "Syphilis in renaissance Europe: rapid evolution of an introduced sexually transmitted disease?" (PDF). Proceedings. Biological sciences / the Royal Society. 271 Suppl 4 (Suppl 4): S174–6. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0131. PMC 1810019free to read. PMID 15252975.

When syphilis first appeared in Europe in 1495, it was an acute and extremely unpleasant disease. After only a few years it was less severe than it once was, and it changed over the next 50 years into a milder, chronic disease. The severe early symptoms may have been the result of the disease being introduced into a new host population without any resistance mechanisms, but the change in virulence is most likely to have happened because of selection favouring milder strains of the pathogen. The symptoms of the virulent early disease were both debilitating and obvious to potential sexual partners of the infected, and strains that caused less obvious or painful symptoms would have enjoyed a higher transmission rate.

(bold face added by me.) Notice that there were no antibiotics available to “interfere” with God’s plan for the disease.

Edit 9/17/16 this is a followup to a dialogue in comments section.

There are several sites that elaborate on topics of evolution, if you are really interested. These sites include a detailed explanation of of the evolution of the eye (a favorite counter-argument used for years by Creationists against evolution). You can also look up “humans have 46 chromosomes while other Apes have 48”. In particular check out human chromosome number 2. You will find a detailed analysis with a timeline a) First a prediction that would potentially falsify the hypothesis of common descent, followed by 2) detailed study followed by 3) confirmation of hypothesis.

A classic case of hypothesis, analysis, verification. This allows an hypothesis to begin a journey to a Theory (capital T) if there are many more verifications and no falsifications. One unequivocal proven falsification would be sufficient to turn evolution on its head and lots of biologists changing careers.

Oh, I forgot.

Your comment statement “genomic errors are by and large destructive,” is partially correct. Look up a gene (name escapes me) that controls the mammalian jaw. In humans it is defective but not in other apes. Result: A chimp can and sometimes does bite your face off. A human even if crazy cannot do it because muscles too weak.

This genetic “defect” resulted in larger and larger skulls in humans and and increase in brain size. So now humans can do math chimps not so much.

When I was an engineer I had on my dest a sign “ DCMWFMMIMUA” (don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up already). Did you by chance find my sign? (gentle humor). If you did not you can do a lot of easy reading and make your own mind.

My comment
“What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?”

I take it the word evolution in above is not contrasted with an absolute fixity of species, but rather with special creation of for instance, man, ape, donkey, sheep, bird, bacterium, fish, insect separate from any other in this list.

That is NOT evidenced by bacteria adapting and changing.

[Yeah, I know, should have read the answer through, not just blurted off my response to beginning.]

Answer B
Habib Fanny,
Political Animal, Goofball, Heathen, Physician, and all around Nerd.

I’m scratching my head, here.

Not really sure what the argument is.

You couldn’t possibly be saying that because people with no scientific knowledge wrote their legends of creation in a book a few thousand years ago, that should invalidate what we have learned since then.

Because, I’m not sure if you’d noticed but there are a lot of things the writers of the Bibles didn’t know about:

  • computers
  • avocados
  • the germ theory of disease
  • airplanes
  • chocolate
  • AIDS
  • MRIs
  • Gunpowder
  • spaghetti!!!

Do you really mean to insinuate that we should consult the Bible before deciding whether these things are real?

My comment
It is possible most authors of the Bible were not familiar with below list, but I'll comment on it one by one.

Actually, I think Hezekiel in the verse about "flying scroll" was shown sth about computer technology - some take this is robotics directed missiles, I might tend to think more of satellite communications (with deleting of accounts described as burning of house).

I also think St John on Patmos was shown about ASCII Code (and obviously the name or names of Antichrist and/or False Prophet in appropriate case and spacing) before writing verse 18 of chapter 13.

But suppose these hunches were wrong. Suppose all Bible book authors were ignorant of computers, which I don't think is the case, either way, there are NO Bible verses actually contradicting possibility of computers being made.

They are plants, right? Specifically fruit? Right? Well, if no Bible author (after Adam as part-of-book author and probably Noah too) ever knew of avocados, they knew of fruit and knew there were many kinds of them.

[part-of-book author - namely of certain parts of Genesis]

"the germ theory of disease"
I'd say that considering devils as guardian angels of bad bacteria functions rather well with considering them as guardian angels of flies. And Beelzebul is a title of the devil in the NT.

What specific Bible verse positively excludes them?

Extract of a certain plant, more specifically a fruit, see avocado, above.

Bible authors however did know bad manners draw after them punishment of God.

Don't know what they are.

I'd probaly agree only known explosive in pre-Flood and early post-Flood times was Uranium, see Mahabharata and confer it with the real context in Genesis 6 about wickedness.

Probably Tower of Babel was meant as a rocket (of which only the top reaches space), but they were going to use propulsion by exploding Uranium, and God mercifully averted this, while ensuing technology loss helped to continue averting it, until other rocket fuels had been studied and are adopted at Cape Canaveral.

Bible authors knew you could make both bread and beer with cereals, so being able to make spaghetti or other pasta should not come as a surprise.

By contrast,
Evolution over millions or billions of years are positively excluded by certain verses, about creation days having evenings and mornings, and earth being comparably old is positively excluded by the genealogies and other chronological stuff after Adam was created. See for instance Genesis V.

Two other QQ
My mother is teaching my younger brother creationism. He's a smart kid, and it hurts to hear him learn something so incorrect. What should I do?

He’s nine and learning Young Earth Creationism. My mother even has a timeline that goes from 4,000 BC to the modern era, wiping out most of ancient history and replacing it with the Old Testament mythology. Nobody deserves to learn something this bad.

My Answer
  • 1) Your mother believes creationism is true and has a right to teach it to children staying at home.
  • 2) If she doesn’t forbid it, you can of course offer him evolutionist stuff.

I don’t see any point in fretting over “a smart kid” becoming a creationist. Creationism is not exactly stupid.

Is jurassic world satanic propaganda?

(not read bef. answering)

Jurassic World | creationsciencestudy

Note: i know ist not, but this is a provocative question

My Answer
You mean the film?

I’d say it is more like stupid and ignorant propaganda, insofar as it portrays the Jurassic biotopes as having existed and gone partly extinct 145 million years ago.

“Satanic” I reserve for more depraved things.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

... on Dendrochronology, LXX Dates and My Own C14 Research

With CMI, I half appreciate, half polemise against certain points.

Tree ring dating (Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-21)

3:10 4700 sth? Predate Noah's Flood? Not according to LXX chronology, they don't!

2957 BC = Flood year, according to the Christmas proclamation (replaced in 1994 with non-Biblically based chronology things, which as a Trad I reject). St Jerome's Ussher-method chronology, but he did it on a LXX text.

Christ was born 5199 after "the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth" and 2957 "after the Flood of Noah". References to Abraham, Exodus and King David + to Rome and to Olympiads + "in the sixth age, when the world was at peace" ( = during the peace of Augustus).

So if we take LXX as more correct text, oldest living bristle cone pine is from AFTER flood even by conventional dendrochronology.

During commercial.

A thing in favour of LXX, not very decisive, but still.

If organic material from Flood dates to 20,000 to 50,000 years before present, that would be a medium of 35,000 years before present, which if Flood was 2957 BC (as per St Jerome's reading of LXX), means an extra of


32,000 years which implies a C14 level of around ...

11460 (two half lives)
11460 (two more halflives)
05730 (one halflife)
03350 (nearly another half life)

100 > 25 > 6.25 > 3.125 > somewhat more than 1.625 %. Of C14 content compared to present stable level.

I actually counted a few percent more at flood than that. If you think Flood was more recent, you need to add more years that are there for original low C14 content and lower the percentage further.

Then even if the Flood is as far past as 2016+2957 years ago, you need to get the rise in C14 by additions faster than those of the present near stable additions. In medium about 3 times faster to reach stable level at around 500 BC.

Then you need the graph to curve so as to smooth out to horizontal at 2500 years ago. This means it must have been steeper before.

THAT in turn would be even steeper again if Flood was more recent.

So, by my LXX calculation, I get a milliSieverts per year of over 7 of just cosmic radiation at time of Flood. That is higher than total background radiation at Princetown, which has one of the higher in the world.

Meaning, your milliSieverts at Flood would have to be even higher than that. Which would have been unhealthy.

20:16 "another time zone" - a solution reminiscent of yours to Distant starlight paradox ... thank you!

Obviously, since I am geocentric and believe stars are one light day away, that is not a paradox for me. (Two light days might work too).

27:46 I'd like you to have also adressed the overlap of tree ring series and how matches are erratic.

I saw examples of that (or one example with a "bottleneck" in European series, one about 2000 years ago), but lost the reference.

The graphs showed very erratic overlap of ring thickness, so that matches can be considered as far from certain.