Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Answering Dr. John Barnett on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happend with Constantine


Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happend with Constantine

The True Origin of Roman Catholicism
DTBM OnlineVideoTraining | 1.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmHFAs7euFw


I
0:12 - 0:23 "historically the Nicolaitans were the ones that believes that the clergy were elevated and had power and the laity the people had no power"

I'd like to know exactly from what historical source you have this.

This "fact" is not mentioned in Apocalypse where it is mentioned that Christ hated their deeds.

"which is the background for Roman Catholicism"

Except, if that were true, Catholics would not be Nicolaitans.

Sure, we believe laity have power only to make two sacraments happen, baptism and matrimony.

All other five, including Eucharist which is the holiest one, depend on clergy. AND this clergy is in its beginning shown in the Gospels where Christ choses 72, then 12, then St Peter.

However, laity have a lot of powers even if they can't consecrate bread and wine or absolve sinners. We can pray, and we can, as I do, defend the Catholic truth.

II
0:38 "where evil was becoming part of the church"

According to Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 there can have been no such time.

Evil can very well become a part in apostate "churches" (Lutherans, Anglicans, your Church, Vatican II Sect), but NOT of the Church which Christ founded.

III
1:20 "in hoc signo vinces", so far, so good.

I believe this dream came from God who was giving the successors of the Apostles the opportunity to make disciples of all Roman Empire, of all its nations.

You probably believe it didn't.

We'll see when we get to actual disagreements on history ...

"Cross as a sign of victory"

Appropriately, Christ won His victory over Satan on .... the Holy Cross.

"were not going to kill Christians any more"

So far, still correct.

IV
1:53 "but this is what I'm gonna do, I have all the gods of Rome, the Pantheon, and all the gods of the Assyrians and the Babylonians"

What did he have to do with those?

You depend on Hislop claiming Roman paganism was identic to Assyrian and Babylonian, and on top of that Constantine prior to Christianity was a devout worshipper of Roman gods and believer in them.

Neither is true, he was arguably more Platonic than Homeric, and on top of that Roman Pagans of either type were not all that fancying Assyrians and Babylonians.

You are reading a loyalty into Constantine's acts which is not there in his known loyalties.

"And Ashteroth and everybody else."

Venus is roughly speaking Ashteroth, but then we are talking of very roughly. Also, nothing shows Constantine cared very much about worshipping Venus.

"and they're gonna stay gods, I'm just gonna add Christianity to it."

If you mean Roman Paganism remained legal for a few decades after Christianity became so, true.

But if you mean it was incorporated in Christianity (any form of it) - so not true.

V
2:04 "Have you ever wondered where beads in Roman Catholicism comes from, there are no beads in the New Testament"

There are also no microphones for preachers in the New Testament.

Well, to answer your implied question, some monks could read and prayed the psalms, some couldn't and repeated Our Father in the meanwhile, a set number of times.

This was later reused with Hail Mary's in the Rosary.

2:33 On the contrary, none of that is Roman Paganism, except Mardi Gras coming from Lupercalia, and Roman Catholic Church doesn't preach, but tolerate Mardi Gras.

For one thing, beads were definitely not in the Roman religion, Roman paganism had no such thing as Hinduism or Buddhism.

VI
2:46 "all of you are legal now"

Correct insofar as he outlawed neither Judaism nor even Paganism.

But this was not a merger, it was simply a refusal to persecute those who were hanging on to the past.

2:55 Priests of paganism and bishops surviving after persecutions or elected after martyrdoms were indeed both legal.

But they were not legally the same religious body.

3:07 "those who had the Baalim error and those who had the Nicolaitan error, just merged right into the Church"

Baalim error would arguably mean Roman paganism, even if there were actual differences between Roman and Canaanean paganism.

Nicolaitan error - you still have given no credible source for it's being clericalism.

Ancient sources don't show it to be clergy as in Roman Catholicism, but rather to be ... well, Moses David movement and hookers for Jesus. A deacon called Nicolas seems to have allowed people to sleep with his very beautiful wife. Whether or not he was therein culpable, those taking advantage of it and perhaps asking other clergymen to do the same with their wives, certainly were culpable, and these were the Nicolaites.

"The last Western Church Father was Isidore of Seville, who finished the Etymologies, or the Origins, in the year 636 A.D. In Book VIII titled "The Church and sects (De ecclesia et sects)" he wrote, "The Nicolaites (Nicolaita) are so called from Nicolas, deacon of the church of Jerusalem, who, along with Stephen and the others, was ordained by Peter. He abandoned his wife because of her beauty, so that whoever wanted to might enjoy her; the practice turned into debauchery, with partners being exchanged in turn. Jesus condemns them in the Apocalypse, saying (2:6): “But this thou hast, that thou hates the deeds of the Nicolaites.”"

" common view holds that the Nicolaitans held the antinomian heresy of 1 Corinthians 6, although this has not been proved.[5] One scholar who espouses this interpretation, John Henry Blunt, maintains that the comparison between the Nicolaitans and Balaam "proves that the fornication spoken of is not that crime under ordinary circumstances, but fornication connected with religious rites"."

"Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses III. xi. 1; I. xxvi. 3 holds that the Gospel of John was written to counter the teachings of Cerinthus, which he holds was spread by the Nicolaitans. But when Irenaeus focuses on them later, he only presents them as the Book of Revelation did, with no explanation how they can be held to have the doctrines of Cerinthus.[4] Later, Augustine of Hippo ascribed to them Cerinthian doctrines concerning the creation of the world (in his De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum, v)."

"Victorinus of Pettau held that the error of the Nicolaitans was that they ate things offered to idols.[6] Bede states that Nicolas allowed other men to marry his wife.[7] Thomas Aquinas believed that Nicholas supported either polygamy or the holding of wives in common.[8] Eusebius claimed that the sect was short-lived.[9]"


All these quotes are via wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism

You may claim these were so many lies, but who in the ancient world if so wrote the "truth" you think there was?

Btw, did you mean Balaam error? I heard it as Baalim ...

VII
3:47 "Roman Catholic is that merging in of all the beads"

Again, you don't find beads in Roman Paganism.

Also, you don't find beads systematically with Hail Mary's before St Dominic of Guzmán, 8 August 1170 – 6 August 1221.

Matthew 6:7-8 cannot refer to beads, it must refer to the heathen that Christ's audience knew, Roman Heathen.

Battologein is a word with little clues to exact meaning, but it is not the normal word for repeat.

The University of Chicago Library
Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary, p 696, Repeal to Reply
http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=^Repeat,%20v.%20trans.


Recite is ρωψωιδειν, perhaps more normally ραψωιδειν, say over and over is υμνειν or θρυλειν.

It is not battologein.

Now, "as the heathen" is a clue, but it can't be applied to Buddhists or Hindoos, since those were not the relevant heathens there and then.

Here is an actual pagan prayer from nearly same year:

Velleius Paterculus, book II (where we know from beginning of book II that the work is from 16th year of Tiberius), chapter CXXXI:

Let our book be concluded with a prayer. O Jupiter Capitolinus, O Jupiter Stator! O Mars Gradivus, author of the Roman name! O Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire! O all ye deities who have exalted the present magnitude of the Roman empire to a position of supremacy over the world, guard, preserve, and protect, I entreat and conjure you, in the name of the Commonwealth, our present state, our present peace, [our present prince[104]!] And when he shall have completed a long course on earth, grant him successors to the remotest ages, and such as shall have abilities to support the empire of the world as powerfully as we have seen him support it! All the just designs of our countrymen * * * *


You see why this would be "battologein" or "speak as a stutterer"? I do. Velleius never got to the point, started over and over again saying nearly same thing in slightly different words to a slightly different deity, as if he were unsure of hitting the right one.

So, beads were not a part of Roman paganism, it was never such an intimate affair as Buddhism and Hindooism can be (even if it is a faulty intimacy). It was about negotiating with the gods.

I keep the quote here, where it mainly serves to illustrate with previous quote, why we don't have ANY Roman historians from AD 31 to AD after 90 preserved in extensive text:

somewhere else : Two of These Quoted (Silent Historians Argument Revisited)
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/two-of-these-quoted-silent-historians.html


VIII
3:53 Candles are probably rather useful if you pray in catacombs, under ground.

Head dresses for Catholic higher clergy are not very well attested from these times.

Sacraments is exactly what Roman Paganism was so not about.

"all of that merged in"

  • 1) unrealistic considering legal status to two different religions does not prescribe a merger
  • 2) very contradictory to the promise of "all days" in Matthew 28:20 and the promise against gates of Hades in Matthew 16:18.


There are no direct repetitions in what Christ describes in Matthew 6:7-8.

Answering Dr. John Barnett's "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong"


Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happend with Constantine

Here is a video attacking Catholicism:

7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong
DTBM OnlineVideoTraining | 1.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXT6czCe_Q


Here are my answers to points raised in the video (usually with at least a minimal quote, sometimes to be deduced for those not watching video from my answer):

I
0:43 "crucifying Christ again for the people"

Do our books really say that?

Let's check. Jimmy Akin wrote an article on it:

Are We Re-Crucifying Jesus in the Mass? Jimmy Akin | New Catholic Register Jul. 8, 2013
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-we-re-crucifying-jesus-in-the-mass


The (non-Catholic and schismatic) CCC is cited, but where it cites Catechism of the Council of Trent (which is fully Catholic):

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:

[1] The victim is one and the same:

[2] the same [Priest] now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross;

[3] only the manner of offering is different.

In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.


Another fully Catholic Catechism:

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

The Essence, Institution and Ends of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

1 Q. Should the Holy Eucharist be considered only as a sacrament?
A. The Holy Eucharist, besides being a sacrament, is also the permanent Sacrifice of the New Law, which Jesus Christ left to His Church to be offered to God by the hands of His priests.

2 Q. In what in general does a sacrifice consist?
A. In general a sacrifice consists in the offering of some sensible thing to God and in some way destroying it as an acknowledgment of His Supreme Dominion over us and over all things.

3 Q. What is this Sacrifice of the New Law called?
A. This Sacrifice of the New Law is called the Holy Mass.

4 Q. What, then, is the Holy Mass?
A. The Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

5 Q. Is the Sacrifice of the Mass the same as that of the Cross?
A. The Sacrifice of the Mass is substantially the same as that of the Cross, for the same Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself on the Cross, it is Who offers Himself by the hands of the priests, His ministers, on our altars; but as regards the way in which He is offered, the Sacrifice of the Mass differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross, though retaining the most intimate and essential relation to it.

6 Q. What difference and relation then is there between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross?
A. Between the Sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross there is this difference and relation, that on the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion And death.

7 Q. What other relation has the Sacrifice of the Mass to that of the Cross?
A. Another relation of the Sacrifice of the Mass to that of the Cross is, that the Sacrifice of the Mass represents in a sensible way the shedding of the Blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross, because, in virtue of the words of consecration, only the Body of our Saviour is made present under the species of the bread and only His Blood under the species of the wine; although by natural concomitance and by the hypostatic union, the living And real Jesus Christ is present under each of the species.

8 Q. Is not the Sacrifice of the Cross the one only Sacrifice of the New Law?
A. The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

9 Q. For what ends then is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered?
A. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory.

10 Q. Who is it that offers to God the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?
A. The first and principal Offeror of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is Jesus Christ, while the priest is the minister who in the Name of Jesus Christ offers the same Sacrifice to the Eternal Father.

11 Q. Who instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass?
A. Jesus Christ Himself instituted the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass when He instituted the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist and said that this should be done in memory of His passion.

12 Q. To whom is the Holy Mass offered?
A. The Holy Mass is offered to God alone.

13 Q. If the Holy Mass is offered to God alone why are so many Masses celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin And the Saints?
A. Mass celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is always a sacrifice offered to God alone; it is said to be celebrated in honour of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints to thank God for the gifts He has given them, and through their intercession to obtain from Him more abundantly the graces of which we have need.

14 Q. Who shares in the fruits of the Mass?
A. The entire Church shares in the fruits of the Mass, but more particularly: (1) The priest and those who assist at Mass, the latter being united with the priest; (2) Those for whom the Mass is applied, both living and dead.


EWTN, Catechism of Pope St. Pius X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM#Sacraments


II
1:03 "Worst doctrine of Romanism"?

Of ALL non-Protestant Churches.

Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox - Copts - Armenians - Nestorians - they agree Christ sacrifices Himself in each Mass and that so the Sacrifice of Calvary is present in each Mass, none being a radically other sacrifice than it.

Denying the Mass came very late in Church history.

III
1:19 "my Saviour" - Our Lady indeed needed a Saviour, but got salvation at a different moment in Her life, namely the moment of conception.

Usually children are saved on day 8 after birth, when they are baptised. She was saved "nine months and eight days earlier" so to speak.

1:23 "she was a sinner that needed forgiveness"

Does not say so anywhere in the Bible. NOR in the tradition of any non-Protestant Church.

1:36 immaculately conceived means She was saved from moment one, not one moment with original sin.

If you don't believe that, you are simply NOT Roman Catholic (since 1854).

Previous to 1854, you could say She was conceived with Original Sin, then immediately prayed, and then immediately was saved - that was the other option. For Eastern Orthodox, that is still an option. Even if they are wrong in so taking it.

IV
1:56 "Tradition over Scripture"

II Thess 3:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

So, we see St Paul writing that he has said things that belong to the faith once given, even if he did not write them.

Any more indications?

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

In a parallel text, this opening of their minds is not a one moment event, but an exposition.

However, while Catholicism does have an OT exposition relating to this, very systematically so, it does not have this in all its details from NT writings.

This means, there are two differently named items, perhaps in reality the same item, which NT writings mention as orally transmitted.

This makes Tradition a check on right Bible exegesis. Traditions on the Blessed Virgin typically turn on traditional exegesis of OT passages, including Genesis 3:15 (enmity with the serpent means no sin), Fleece of Gideon (wet where all else is dry = fruitful where all other women are unfruitful, namely as a virgin, which you do not dispute; dry when all else is wet = virgin when other women are not, that is as mother, but also, sinless when no other women are, namely from conception).

V
2:18 We most certainly do not ascribe to images the omniscience of God, as to the saints themselves, we ascribe God sharing a portion of His omniscience so that saints invoked can know so and intercede.

But that is a finite portion, and with any saint in heaven it is less than what Christ knows as Man in capacity of judge of all men. Even that being a finite portion.

So, where is your problem?

Oh, "omnipotent" - only one saint is omnipotent even in prayer, that is the Blessed Virgin.

Other saints can have intercessional prayers refused or modified, as also angels can Michael and Prince of Persia disputing famously on whether Israelites should have their good (getting back to Holy Land) or provide the good of Persians (by staying there and giving them access to the truth so Persians could be saved). One of these two angels was not granted his prayer.

So also, any saint except the Virgin can have a prayer refused.

As to the Virgin, what did King Solomon say to Bathseba? He went back on his word, but Christ says the same to His Mother in Heaven and does not go back on it.

VI
3:13 There are a few saints .... lets check this week in Roman Martyrology shall we?

All mentioned, even those not feasted on day mentioned.

14 sancti Joannis a Cruce, Nicasii Episcopi, ac sororis Eutropiae Virginis, et Sociorum Martyrum; Martyrum Heronis, Arsenii, Isidori, et Dioscori pueri; Martyrum Drusi, Zosimi et Theodori. passio sanctorum Justi et Abundii, passio sanctorum Justi et Abundii, sancti Viatoris, sancti Pompeji, sancti Agnelli Abbatis, sancti Matroniani Eremita
15 Octava Conceptionis Immaculatae beatae Mariae Virginis. sanctorum Martyrum Irenaei, Antonii, Theodori, Saturnini, Victoris, et aliorum decem et septem, [=and seventeen more], passio sanctorum Faustini, Lucii, Candidi, Caeliani, Marci, Januarii et Fortunati. sancti Valeriani Episcopi, sancti Maximini Confessoris, sanctae Christianae ancillae, Ordinatio sancti Eusebii, Episcopi et Martyris (=same person feasted next day too)
16 Sancti Eusebii, Episcopi Vercellensis et Martyris; Sanctorum Trium Puerorum, id est Ananiae, Azariae et Misaelis; sanctorum Martyrum Valentini, magistri militum, ejusque filii Concordii, atque Navalis et Agricolae; sanctae Albinae, Virginis et Martyris, passio plurimarum sanctarum Virginum, beati Adonis, Episcopi et Confessoris, sancti Beani Episcopi, sancti Irenionis Episcopi
17 sancti Joannis de Matha, Presbyteri et Confessoris, beati Lazari Episcopi (yes, St Lazarus of Bethany), sanctorum Martyrum Floriani, Calanici, et Sociorum quinquaginta et octo; [=and 58 companions], sancti Sturmii, Abbatis et Saxoniae Apostoli; sanctae Wivinae Virginis, sanctae Olympiadis Viduae, beatae Beggae Viduae, Translatio. sancti Ignatii, Episcopi et Martyris; qui, tertius post beatum Petrum Apostolum, Antiochenam rexit Ecclesiam.
18 sanctorum Martyrum Rufi et Zosimi, passio sanctorum Theotimi et Basiliani, sanctorum Martyrum Quincti, Simplicii et aliorum - and others - sancti Moysetis Martyris, sanctorum Martyrum Victuri, Victoris, Victorini, Adjutoris, Quarti et aliorum triginta (and 30 others), sancti Auxentii Episcopi, sancti Gatiani Episcopi,
19 sancti Timothei Diaconi (this is not the Biblical Timothy who was a bishop), beati Nemesii Martyris, beati Nemesii Martyris, beati Nemesii Martyris; passio sanctarum Meuris et Theae. depositio sancti Anastasii Papae Primi, sancti Gregorii, Episcopi et Confessoris, sancti Adjuti Abbatis, sanctae Faustae, beati Urbani Papae Quinti,
20 Vigilia sancti Thomae Apostoli. sancti Zephyrini, Papae et Martyris, passio sancti Ignatii, Episcopi et Martyris (he was already mentioned), sanctorum Martyrum Liberati et Bajuli. sanctorum Martyrum Eugenii et Macarii Presbyterorum, sanctorum militum et Martyrum Ammonis, Zenonis, Ptolomaei, Ingenis et Theophili; sancti Julii Martyris. sancti Philogonii Episcopi, una cum sancto Alexandro Episcopo et Sociis, sancti Dominici, Episcopi et Confessoris. depositio sancti Dominici de Sylos Abbatis (both these St Dominic are NOT "THE St Dominic")

But do you know one thing more?

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

And elsewhere many other holy martyrs and confessors and holy virgins - thank God.

Multiply this by 52, since there are 52 weeks in a year.

THEN add that while it may indeed take a saint more than a century to get canonised, there are usually no single years in which saints are not being canonised.

THEN add that canonisation is not a posthumous sacrement to get someone out of purgatory, it's a posthumous declaration someone never went there in the first place.

"everybody else"

Everybody except the actual saints - yes.

Everybody except the canonised saints (who are just a portion of the actual ones) - no. Big difference. You don't need to have a canonisation to escape purgatory.

And no, purgatory does NOT negate one sacrifice on Calvary, that is calumny.

Everyone who makes it to Heaven, directly or via Purgatory, does so for the merits of Christ on Calvary.

The Blessed Virgin, free from all sin, both original and personal, was also so freed because of same merits - applied in advance.

Also, the saints who make it to Heaven without purgatory are getting to Heaven through the sacraments.

St Maria Goretti was martyred after receiving baptism as a small child, then confirmation and then five times Communion, not sure how many confessions, but not many.

It was through these sacraments Christ gave her the grace to prefer martyrdom to sin, and to offer up her martyrdom for the salvation of her killer. This event happened in 1902, and her repenting killer died after a holy life after prison, in 1968, the year when I was born. So much for comparing sacraments to "IV-drip".

If Roman Catholic teaching on Purgatory is a "terrible falsehood" what teaching on Purgatory is correct?

Purgatory is Biblical : II Maccabees 12, Tobit 4, and I Cor 3:14 If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as if through the flames.

It is previously mentioned this applies to those who have built on the right foundation, in case you were trying to consider flames as those of damnation and "saved" as denying thnetopsychism rather than as affirming salvation.

One more, if you die a small child but baptised, or if you die after baptism as having trisomy 21 and some similar conditions, you are guaranteed Heaven. If you die early enough, you will have no personal sins even venial ones after baptism and so you will not even go through purgatory.

VII
Your "finally" gets the subtitles garbled.

"most of Roman Catholicism z'right are tide change and paganism"

I don't know what you said that subtitling got as "tide change", but paganism is clear enough and you were not speaking of "right" but of "rite".

Well, no.

Hislop's The Two Babylons was published in 1853, before there was any accurate extra-Biblical knowledge of Babylon to speak of.

In other words, you are perpetuating a lie, where original liar could have been just ignorant (but chose to include guess work and loose parallels), but you have an opportunity to get rid of such ignorance.

Answering Dr. John Barnett on Catholic Oral Tradition


Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happend with Constantine

Catholic Oral Tradition
DTBM OnlineVideoTraining | 5.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJCk_WCZdNw


I
1:26 I John 2 ...

[18] Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. [20] But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things.

Would the adressees of John have been in a position to use oral tradition?

Certainly. John had already taught them orally.

Would the "Antichrists" (in this context it means heretics) have been in such a position?

No, leaving the Church in which they had it, obviously they found fault in it.

II
1:37 Acts 17:10 - 11

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

Does it say Christians are examining Scriptures, as a criticism of the oral tradition of St Paul? No.

It says JEWS were examining presumably Old Testament Scriptures, to see if the purported fulfilment was matching the prophecies.

  • 1) This passage cannot be used to motivate private or even collective "searching the scriptures" to criticise oral tradition.

  • 2) Also, they were not told to criticise the oral tradition they had in (second temple) Judaism, examining it was presumably part of their examining Scriptures. How so?

    "Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."
    [2 Timothy 3:8]

    Exodus does not give the names of Jannes and Mambres ... Sts Paul and Timothy knew these names from oral tradition.

  • 3) Also, since they were a synagogue, they were Pharisees, this meaning that they were already experts in Scriptures.

    The parallel is not if you tell a half instructed Catholic to search the NT to verify if we find "beads" in it, the parallel is when a Protestant examines my words about Matthew 28:20.


III
"acts 17:11 that we examine and check the scriptures whether what is being taught is in the scriptures"

Are you Jews? If you check 17:10, this is still talking of a synagogue of Jews.

"what the Scriptures tell us in I John 2 is, we have an anointing of the Holy Spirit, that teaches us all things"

Are you Catholics? Were you anointed in Confirmation?

Does John say that the Holy Spirit teaches independently of the Magisterium? Here is I John 2 again:

But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things. I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth.

Everything in verses 20 and 21 is perfectly compatible with Catholics knowing the truth from the Magisterium.

New King James Version also does not say that the Holy Spirit dispenses with the need for a magisterium. Neither does the normal King James Version. Neither does Evangelical Heritage Version. Neither does the Luther Bible in German from 1545. And New Geneva Version in French is even less encouraging "et vous avez tous de la connaissance" - it says "all of you have some knowledge".

Not one trace in your Bible versions, nor ours (I cited Douay Rheims) of your idea that the Holy Spirit Himself is the Magisterium of all the faithful, so that they need no human magisterium, nor any oral tradition.

YOUR interpretation of this passage is an oral tradition, but unfortuntately not one going back to the Apostles, but one going back to the Reformation. That is, to sth which St John described in verses 18 and 19 ...

1:59 - 2:08 "so we are Holy Spirit taught and we can just us with the Holy Spirit inside of us do it, Luther did, and question things, because the Bible says this and you say that."

That is so not what the Bible says in this passage.

IV
2:08 - 2:20 "that corpus of oral tradition passed down that only they can interpret goes against what Jesus said, he said you follow the laws of rather than the [law] of God."

First of all, the Pharisees were following "traditions of the elders" on points where they certainly were not traditions from Moses on mount Sinai.

Second, the Pharisees were in the process of apostatising. Such an apostasy of all Catholicism goes against Matthew 28:20. If you compare the covenant chapters Deuteronomy 28 and Matthew 28, you will find that Deuteronomy gives a conditional convenant, which the Jews could chose to not observe, but Matthew records an eternal covenant, which Catholics as a whole cannot chose not to observe. Each individual Catholic can but the Church as a whole cannot.

This means, the traditions about what the Bible means cannot be parallel to erroneous traditions of men.

Rather, what is parallel to them is things like saying "Church Fathers would have accepted Evolution if they lived now" or "Church Fathers only took Genesis 1 as literal days (or in some cases as one moment) because the science of their time had not discovered Deep Time yet".

This type of statement is clearly not what has been passed down since Ascension Day AD 33.

Keeping Sunday, making the sign of the cross, fasting Wednesdays and Fridays (tomorrow is by the way one of the weeks when Wednesday, Friday and Saturday are all actual Fasting days in Western rite, not just Friday being just Abstinence), that the Sacraments are seven and that washing of the feet is not one of them, how Genesis 3:15 or Fleece of Gideon refer to the Blessed Virgin, these things most definitely are passed down from day one.

As is the interpretation that the Church must have an uninterrupted, not a "restored" presence on Earth. Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20.

Furthermore, your term "that only they can interpret" is unclear.

Does it refer to clergy? That is not what the Catholic Church teaches, the higher clergy indeed has a role to play when new disputes arise or when old disputes arise anew, but apart from that, any Catholic can know the correct interpretation of a Bible passage by looking it up in a Bible with a Catholic comment, like Catena Aurea for the Four Gospels or like Challoner comment or Haydock comment for Bible as a whole, all 73 books (or 72, if you count Baruch as a part of Jeremiah).

V
2:30 While the Pharisees indeed had an oral tradition, like the one identifying Jannes and Mambres, this is not what Our Lord is condemning.

What Christ referred to definitely was not just part of the book but also of Pharisaic oral tradition, as far as goes "tradition from Moses on Sinai".

He even identifies the greatest commandment in accordance with Shema Israel. While this is indeed a part of the Bible, as written, it is also a part of the Bible which oral tradition choses to recite as a daily prayer. Precisely as Hail Mary in the New Testament.

VI
"The Inquisition did, taking away the Bible out of the people's language."

This is a whole other kettle of fish.

In England, the Inquisition was conducted by bishops, by a law which was signed by king and parliament in 1401. In England, also, possessing Bible or prayers in people's language was enough to be at least suspected and in some cases even stamped as a Lollard and given the alternatives of fire or recanting.

Now, this is why Tyndale fled to the Continent.

He was prisoner of Flemish Inquisitor James Latomus for 7 years, before going to be burnt, and all this time it was known he had translated the Bible to English.

What was debated during this time was how he understood Romans 3, for example.

VII
2:52 No, John did not say not to allow your priests to interpret Scripture and John while saying "ye know all things" most certainly did not say it was independently of his oral tradition, more like it was independent of his epistle.

You are wrong there.

VIII
2:57 "you take men's traditions above the written word of God"

Here is the actual text beginning Matthew 15:

[1] And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. [2] And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients: [4] And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds. [5] And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?

[6] But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. [8] For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. [9] And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. [10] For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.

Notice, He did not say "it is written" as He did on another occasion, He said "Moses said".

He is NOT contrasting orality of tradition with writtenness of law of God.

He is even not content to use the word "tradition" only about the traditions they were faulty in, but he was specifying, which tradition:

[11] But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee. [12] And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, [13] Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.

Note here, He is specifying your own tradition, which you have given forth - not a tradition from Moses on the Mount Sinai.

Precisely as you Protestants have given forth your own tradition about what Matthew 15 means. And you are even mixing it with the actual text.

"what Jesus said about the tradition of the Pharisees not being higher than the Bible"

He did not mention "the Bible" in all of the 13 verses.

You are, sorry, a fraud.

IX
Confer also, II Thessalonians 3:6

I think you can guess that Douay Rheims has tradition, so, I'll give you two Protestant versions.

First, King James:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Next, NIV:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us.

Footnote a notes "Or tradition". But actually, even the word "teaching" refutes you, since you were arguing I John 2 taught Christians received their teaching from Holy Ghost and not from Apostles (with successors).

And Nestle Aland has the normal Greek word for tradition, paradosis:

καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ’ ἡμῶν.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Soon Christmas


Most of this youtube is correct:

Is Christmas based on pagan traditions? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-24)
CMIcreationstation | 5.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxoZljZDwI


I

9:55 Catholic CHurch has three Masses on Christmas day.

Midnight Mass, Dawn Mass, Day Mass.

The Day Mass, I think, has John 1 up to verse 14 as its Gospel.

II

19:41 Erroneous.

Christmas really is a Mass.

You have no trace of any Christmas celebration outside the Church celebrating Mass, since denial of the Mass very much post-dates St Hippolytus in 202. Among nominal Christians, that is.

III

Star of Magi - "not part of heavenly system":

Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system?
S. Th. III P, 36 Q, 7 A
http://newadvent.com/summa/4036.htm#article7

Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry


Bill Nye Destroys Noah's Ark
The Daily Conversation | 7.II.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc


I
0:51 Grand canyon ... you seem to overdo segregation of marine invertebrates a bit.

How many of them are unknown from other places so they are considered as "their layer" bc they come between this or that layer?

In a Flood scenario, how much sorting of marine invertebrates could occur by currents overflowing the place from different directions?

II
1:36 evidence of kangaroos between Middle East and Australia ...

You know, there is evidence of Australian aboriginee art in Göbekli Tepe ... as for kangaroos, they could have transferred quickly, during a post-Flood Ice Age.

III
2:07 Land bridge or near such ... Sunda Sahul, during glacial maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

That [the] Glacial Maximum is misdated as older than 5000 years ago is another story.

IV
2:43 "these people were unskilled"

How do you know?

For one, how do you assess pre-Flood skills?

For another, how much skill will an amateur acquire during a 100 year building experience?

For a third, how much know-how would God have provided (we need not assume Genesis 6 détails every word God spoke to Noah)?

For a fourth, how do you know others weren't helping building without getting into the Ark?

Nodian government can have provided some sponsored workers on the dole (whatever that is in English, in French you'd say stagiaires). I mean ridiculing rather than persecuting the Ark project. Relatives helping to build could have got old and died before it was ready, or even gotten martyred. And so on.

V
3:16 Six-masted schooner Wyoming is no parallel, since it was meant to navigate, not to drift. This puts extra pressure to the boat. Also, it necessitates a prow that was narrowed and therefore perhaps more vulnerable.

Yes, it would twist, but precisely because it was navigating through the sea, not drifting with the waves.

3:57 "Very skilled shipwrights" ... how do you know the shipwrights of Wyoming were even equal to the skills of Noah and family with pre-Flood skills?

4:34 "Superpowers" is not necessary.

Only thing needed is the shipwrights in your ancestry were recovering a lost art and still not equalling what had been lost.

Dialogues

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:07 Land bridge or near such ... Sunda Sahul, during glacial maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

That Glacial Maximum is misdated as older than 5000 years ago is another story.

Scott E
That Glacial Maximum is misdated as older than 5000 years ago is another story.

It being "another story" doesn't excuse you from providing a credible scientific reference for it. This is a standard creationist tactic: pull in a random scientific fact that supports your myths and treat it as completely credible, while dismissing as false (and without evidence) any related facts that cause additional problems for the story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Scott E Reference?

Passim on CMI (creation.com is their url).

Work about details?

W e l l - so happens I have done some myself. But that is not what is normally meant by "scientific reference" - is it?

@Scott E "while dismissing as false (and without evidence) any related facts that cause additional problems for the story."

There is no fact causing insurmountable problems for the story.

Simply a matter of letting C14 content back then have been considerably lower.

Scott E
@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Passim on CMI (@t is their url).

Like I said, a credible scientific reference. I.e., an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, detailing both conclusions and replicable methodology, by scientists with credentials in an applicable field.

Simply a matter of letting C14 content back then have been considerably lower.

So show credible scientific evidence that it was. You just imagining it to be so doesn't get us anywhere.

Note
If he is not giving their URL, was he not shown it? Or is he refusing to credit it?



Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Scott E "Like I said, a credible scientific reference. I.e., an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, detailing both conclusions and replicable methodology, by scientists with credentials in an applicable field."

Check Michael Oard on CMI.

"So show credible scientific evidence that it was. You just imagining it to be so doesn't get us anywhere."

Show "credible evidence" of opposite?

The Bible is credible evidence of carbon 14 having been lower.

History primes reconstruction, when it comes to the past and the Bible is credible history, therefore deep time is NOT credible reconstruction.

Scott E
@Hans-Georg Lundahl

You're the one who claimed that the dating of the last glacial maximum was wrong. You provide the reference to the actual scientific journal article showing that. It's not our job to go digging to prove your claims. If Michael Oard, whoever he is, has such an article on CMI, whatever that is, you must have read it and should be able to provide a direct link to it here without much trouble.

The Bible is credible evidence of carbon 14 having been lower.

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Show "credible evidence" of opposite?

I'm not the one claiming C-14 levels were anything in particular. You are, and it is your claims that require them to be something specific. The burden of proof is on the person making a particular claim. That's you. I hope you don't actually think "prove me wrong" makes for a convincing argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Scott E "I'm not the one claiming C-14 levels were anything in particular."

Yes, you are.

If you say "last glacial maximum was" - citing wiki: "The ice sheets reached their maximum coverage about 26,500 years ago (26.5 ka BP)," you are claiming two things:

  • 1) The organic remains associated with LGM have 4.053 percent modern Carbon.
  • 2) They started out with 100 pmC.


So, this means, you are claiming carbon levels were at 100 pmC.

Suppose they had been at 200 pmC, 4.053 pmC would really be 2.0265 percent left of that, and it would have been 32,200 years ago.

Suppose they had been at 50 pmC (a level I consider they reached after Göbekli Tepe), that would have been 8.106 percent left, and it would have been only 20,750 years ago. NB, with the constant known half life known as Cambridge halflife.

So, if they had been at 25 pmC, that would be 16.212 percent left, 15,050 years ago.

At 12.5 pmC when they started, it would be 32.424 percent left, 9300 years ago.

At 6.25 when they started, it would be 64.848 percent left, 3600 years ago.

I believe it was more than 3600 and less than 9300 years ago. I go to my previous work, and I look it up:

2913 BC
 6.333 pmc 25 713 BC

2868 BC
 11.641 pmc, 20 668 BC


Ah, so, it started out between 6.333 and 11.641 pmC between 2913 and 2868 BC.

2913 06.333 +
2868 11.641 =
5781 17.974 : 2 =
2890 08.987


So, 8.987 pmC should give us 19,900 extra years from when it started. After 4890 years there should be 55.348 percent left of that.

55.348 * 8.987 / 100 = 4.974 pmC left. A bit higher than the 4.053 pmC I think the remains are showing and a bit more recent than "last" (or only) glacial maximum.

"Earlier" glacial maxima are not carbon dated anyway.

"If Michael Oard, whoever he is,"

Michael Oard
https://creation.com/michael-oard


Note, MS in Atmospheric science.

"has such an article on CMI, whatever that is,"

Creation Ministries International
https://creation.com/


"you must have read it and should be able to provide a direct link to it here without much trouble."

Today, yes, I have more time, I'm in a library - yesterday, I was in a cyber with limited time. Here is one article:

Tackling the big freeze
An interview with weather scientist Michael Oard
by Carl Wieland (December 1996)
https://creation.com/tackling-the-big-freeze


@Scott E btw, I forgot linking to my previous work, here is my own article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html


Scott E
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
*Yes, you are.

If you say "last glacial maximum was" - citing wiki: [etc]*

Except that I said no such thing, nor cited any wiki, nor made any claim to knowledge about any Carbon-14 levels anywhere, at any time. I think you're hallucinating. The only person making C-14 claims here is you.

I see no actual measured data in your own explanation, mostly some math and personal suppositions that aren't explained well, nor supported in any way. Sure, if you assume your preferred target date from the outset (the one that makes your myth work), you can calculate back to see what environmental C-14 levels then would have been. Congratulations on doing an exponential decay calculation correctly. There's only the tiny snag that your target date is the thing you're trying to show in the first place. It is thus on you to show, by some other means, that C-14 levels at that time actually were at the low level you need them to be.

Michael Oard sounds like an interesting person, to put it politely. While his degree and occupation seem applicable to what you're saying, an interview is not a peer-reviewed journal article, and "Journal of Creation" is not a credible peer-reviewed research journal in his field, e.g., Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Atmospheric Science Letters, or a number of others. From a brief search about him, he appears to have earned his master's degree in 1973 and only ever published articles in creationist magazines and web sites since then, plus some children's books. You'd think that if he had anything to say that other scientists in his field were willing to take seriously, he'd have said it in journals used by those scientists and not just "journals" where the audience knows nothing about the relevant science and are eager to have their beliefs confirmed by "experts".

gsundiszno
First problem with your position is that the biblical flood ALLEGEDLY occurred less than 6,000 years ago. Your bible claims a creation of the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. Human habitation is known to have existed in the Australian continent for up to 65,000 years ago. One set of claims is very inconsistent with the other and all the evidence supports the 65,000 years version.

Second problem is that if the kangaroos (and all the other species unique to Australia) used the Sunda Sahul then why are those species unique to Australia? Surely there must have been some suitable environments along the way?

You make very poor arguments. Try again!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Has anyone in the employment of CMI ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal????

Seriously, CMI, AiG, and all the similar propaganda organizations spend most of their time and money on using lawyers trying to force their religious views on society despite the American Constitution (they are American organizations working in the USA primarily) clearly states that this is a secular nation.

WHAT CMI DOESN'T DO IS PUBLISH SCIENCE PAPERS!!!

LOL!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Michael J. Oard has only one paper to his credit from any source besides various creationist groups. It was published in 1968, at his alma mater (University of Washington) and presumably either part of his education (dissertation) or before he went creationist.

Not one paper is listed after that time period that was published at a science publication. Only religious propaganda groups. Okay, he did one paper on wind phenomena prediction. If he had actual evidence he should brave the peer-review process. Lacking anything besides wishful fantasies he has hidden behind the propaganda program. Punch in "Michael Oard" at 'scholar.google.com'. Basically he is a liar, in my opinion!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did your study of carbon 14 include the rate for replacement caused by alpha radiation which would INCREASE the number of carbon 14 isotopes?

You clearly suffer from the pathetic methodology of creationists whereby they have a result and only look for alleged evidence to support their preferred conclusion instead of looking at the evidence and using that to make the determination of a result. Really pathetic abuse of the scientific method.

Watch this video and learn more about carbon 14 radiometric dating!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSYBp-Kjx0

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Michael J. Oard has only one paper to his credit from any source besides various creationist groups."

"Not one paper is listed after that time period that was published at a science publication. Only religious propaganda groups. Okay, he did one paper on wind phenomena prediction. If he had actual evidence he should brave the peer-review process."

You are missing that CMI is a science group and has peer review.

"Did your study of carbon 14 include the rate for replacement caused by alpha radiation which would INCREASE the number of carbon 14 isotopes?"

You mean replacement in the atmosphere? It certainly did.

My top speed of replacement is 11 times the present production, from beginning to end of Göbekli Tepe, which I identified with Babel of Genesis 11.

Did you mean in samples? If so, that would be a lame excuse for not getting the implications of "millions of years' specimina" carbon dating to 20,000 - 50,000 years.

"instead of looking at the evidence and using that to make the determination of a result."

The available evidence is:

  • from the present, the present remains of carbon 14 in old samples
  • from the past, as in viewed in the past, the history.


If you discount Genesis from being history you will get another result than if you [count it as such, sorry, was hasty and tired]

"Watch this video and learn more about carbon 14 radiometric dating!"

Might do, not sure if I'll learn more about it there.

"First problem with your position is that the biblical flood ALLEGEDLY occurred less than 6,000 years ago. Your bible claims a creation of the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. Human habitation is known to have existed in the Australian continent for up to 65,000 years ago. One set of claims is very inconsistent with the other and all the evidence supports the 65,000 years version."

There is a little problem with your allegation.

The 65,000 years are not from a carbon date, but another method. If you go carbon dates, Mungo man or Mungo woman is dated to c. 20,000 BP

If we go to my table again, that would nearly exactly be 2868 BC. With 11.641 pmc, back then, we get 17800 extra years, so 20 668 BC ... that would be just before the Mungo specimen.

Btw, I am using a Biblical chronology based on LXX, in Roman Martyrology, giving Creation in 5199 BC - or Christmas day 5199 years after Creation. Flood in 2957 BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Scott E "Except that I said no such thing, nor cited any wiki, nor made any claim to knowledge about any Carbon-14 levels anywhere, at any time. I think you're hallucinating."

No, I am drawing out the implications of your claim.

If YOU don't know anything about carbon levels at all, YOU have no problem with "last" glacial maximum being in first half of 29th C. BC. You are perhaps trusting others who claim 26 500 BP? Well, THEY base that on two claims about carbon 14 levels, a directly testable one for the present, and one not directly testable for when samples are from.

So, if YOU don't know ANYTHING about carbon levels, you are still trusting OTHERS who claim they DO.

@Scott E "I see no actual measured data in your own explanation,"

In the wiki, the date for "last glacial maximum" was given at 26 500 BP.

THAT means a supposition of 100 pmC when organic samples started + a measure of 4.053 pmC.

So, the wiki is indirectly giving a measured datum for organic samples from "LGM".

Oh, if you want to know how I convert pmC to years or vice versa, I usually leave that to the Carbon 14 Dating Calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html


It uses the same maths as what the scientists are using (they may also use some calibration, but it is supposed to be about marginal vaccillations in initial pmC), and the mathematician who made the program is not a Young Earth Creationist.

@Scott E "personal suppositions that aren't explained well, nor supported in any way. Sure, if you assume your preferred target date from the outset (the one that makes your myth work),"

Carbon dates work at all because we can check carbon dates with history.

Libby gave the wrong halflife, one that is slightly too short.

It has been corrected thanks to history.

Now, this means, history is important in determining whether carbon levels were at 100 pmC or not.

You carbon date anything that's 2000 years old, and you know from history it is, a result like 78.511 pmC both confirms that and the Cambridge halflife.

As for "not explained well" if you don't think so, carbon dating was never explained well to you in the first place, you just trusted it bc "science".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno I found one of yours just now, so here is more for you:

"Has anyone in the employment of CMI ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal????"

Creation is a science journal and it is peer reviewed.

"Seriously, CMI, AiG, and all the similar propaganda organizations spend most of their time and money on using lawyers trying to force their religious views on society"

Did you eat the wrong mushroom yesterday?

No one of their lawyers is forcing any person or institution to convert to Evangelical or to Creationist.

"despite the American Constitution (they are American organizations working in the USA primarily) clearly states that this is a secular nation."

You need to read up on 1st Amendment. It states no such thing.

@gsundiszno "Second problem is that if the kangaroos (and all the other species unique to Australia) used the Sunda Sahul then why are those species unique to Australia? Surely there must have been some suitable environments along the way?"

Answered by CMI : marsupials are timid, and so they hurried to get to a place where left alone by intimidating species.

Scott E
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
If YOU don't know anything about carbon levels at all, YOU have no problem with "last" glacial maximum being in first half of 29th C. BC.

If that's when credible scientists say when it was, perhaps that is so, or perhaps not. I'm not making any evaluation of that, because I'm not familiar with any of those claims or conclusions or methods they used to achieve them. My state of knowledge on it is simply that I don't know. YOU are the one making a very specific claim here, and I have yet to see it backed up by any evidence I should take seriously. Stop trying to dodge that by turning it back on me, and prove your claims.

Where is your evidence that starting levels of environmental C-14 were between 6 and 11 instead of 100? Even if 100 is wrong, why should your particular values be right, other than that you want them to be, so the math going forward from that gives you the date that makes you happy about your beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Scott E "If that's when credible scientists say when it was, perhaps that is so, or perhaps not. I'm not making any evaluation of that, because I'm not familiar with any of those claims or conclusions or methods they used to achieve them."

How will you evaluate who of them and I is "credible" without going into the exact nature of the evidence?

I don't go by "credible", I ask myself what evidence they are using and if it would work on my theory too, which it does.

And them ignoring that is their scientific ideology.

"Where is your evidence that starting levels of environmental C-14 were between 6 and 11 instead of 100?"

No, first, you mix it up. Starting levels of samples dated to 26 500 BP.

Environmental C14 started even lower on my theory, as Flood is before the Ice Age maximum.

A Neanderthal dated to 50 000 BP (if carbon dated) lived before the Flood, so between 5199 and 2957 BC (tending to latter date but not quite on it), which means the sample is about 45 000 extra years of instant age, when the Neanderthal died and gave up his soul to God.

This means, he started out with 0.432 pmC, meaning he presumably could have breathed an atmosphere with 0.432 pmC - 200 times less than now.

Now, my evidence for this is, as already said, the Biblical chronology (as well as some evidence Neanderthals were pre-Flood men, but not the lineage of pre-Flood men we come from as post-Flood men : one daughter in law of Noah would have been part Neanderthal, but have a mother who wasn't and as woman also have no Y chromosome, since Y chromosomes and mitochondriae are two parts of the Neanderthal genome conspicuously lacking today).

My general principle, not shared by the guys you chose to lable credible scientists, is, history primes reconstruction AND Genesis is history.

They would arguably share the first statement of that principle and apply it to what they admit as credible history and I apply it to what I admit as such.

@Scott E "why should your particular values be right,"

Because recorded history.

What you call "my beliefs" is my belief that Genesis is recorded history. Not just chapters 12 - 50 (which all or near all Christians admit), but chapters 2 to 11 (chapter 1 involves some pre-history, near unique in going six days back beyond human eyewitness to events, only John 1:1 goes further back).

If I believed some other history, I would of course not be proposing such values. The set you consider credible scientists are accepting "Deep Time" as credible history and are therefore fine with environment has had around 100 pmC for all or most of last 100 000 years. I have created some technical problems for me by disagreeing, but I think I have solved them.

They and I agree the value was 100 pmC 2000 years ago, since a sample from then carbon dates at about 78 pmC. A "recentist" claiming Augustus died (though we are not likely to have his body to test, he was cremated) 300 years or 1000 years more recently than that would have to conclude carbon was lower 1700 or 1000 years ago. I don't, and the guys you call credible scientists don't because neither of us are recentists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno Video - I actually already watched it and came into a series of debates commenting under it.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating.html


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating-with-tony-reed.html


Scott E
Hans-Georg Lundahl So you start with the completely non-scientific presupposition that Genesis is an accurate record of history, and then tack on some science after that to do some calculations that let you prove to people that Genesis is an accurate record of history (which is the question this all started with and what the debate in the video was about). Typical creationist drivel, borrowing bits of science where it suits you and dismissing it where it doesn't, to fit the things you've decided beforehand to believe no matter what.

gsundiszno
Hans-Georg Lundahl CMI is a science group? LOL! Sure, kid, and Santa is a polar explorer! Any carbon 12 atom can be converted to carbon 14 at any time if it collides with alpha radiation. I love that you mention Gobekli Tepe. You managed to point out a man-made structure that predates the alleged "creation" of the entire universe. Great job invalidating your silly claims. If you understood radiometric dating you would know that carbon dating has a specific range and other isotopes have to be measured for time frames outside of carbon's known range. SNORK, CMI is a science group! You are a funny dude!

ROFLMAO@U! Dude, every species makes all efforts to avoid their predators! Even you do. When you get a small cut don't you put some sort of antibiotic on the wound? Not only that but the fact remains that no specimens/remains/fossils/etc have been found outside of their current range!!!! Oh, I beat that CMI will claim that the predators hid the skeletons! How much energy have you wasted trying to make a myth "work"????? I bet you might even be a flat-earther! There are bible verses that support that "fact"!!!! LOL!

Does CMI think that the thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) was "timid"? How about the Tasmanian Devil?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
gsundiszno "CMI is a science group? LOL! Sure, kid, and Santa is a polar explorer!"

And a yogi is a PhD physicist ...

"Any carbon 12 atom can be converted to carbon 14 at any time if it collides with alpha radiation."

Possible, but the present theory is, C14 atoms mainly come from N14 colliding with such very far up in the atmosphere.

You are aware that "years back" is reckoned in how few, not how many C14 there are compared to today's normal ratio C14:C12?

"I love that you mention Gobekli Tepe. You managed to point out a man-made structure that predates the alleged "creation" of the entire universe. Great job invalidating your silly claims."

If you are not in too much of an alpha state lag next time you read what I wrote, after your yoga session, you may notice, I consider that C14 content back in GT was considerably lower back when it was recent samples than for recent samples now. Like, below 50 percent of modern carbon.

This means they had more than 5730 extra years in "instant age". Which in turn means, according to chronology of Roman Martyrology (the one I favour) it comes between Flood and Abraham.

"If you understood radiometric dating you would know that carbon dating has a specific range and other isotopes have to be measured for time frames outside of carbon's known range."

If you understood it, you would know that unlike for carbon dates, these other isotopes cannot be tested about their halflife, since it is too long for studying in history of isotope studies. Or in history for known historic samples (exception : history of volcanic eruptions has a tendency to invalidate Ka-Ar).

I mean, 100 years is known history and with a half life of 5730 years, you will get (50 %)^10/573 - the Carbon dating calculator says there will be 98.798 percent modern carbon left, and the normal calculator solves the math example as 0.9879760628287868

0.9879760628287868
=98.79760628287868 %
=98.798 % = what the carbon dating calculator said.

Now, what time scale would get you such a measurable result for Ka-Ar?

1.248×10^9 years = 1,248,000,000 years.
1,248,000,000 * 10 / 573 = 21,780,105

Hello, what historians were writing down human history 21,780,105 years ago?

"SNORK, CMI is a science group! You are a funny dude!"

It takes one to know one, right?

"ROFLMAO@U! Dude, every species makes all efforts to avoid their predators!"

Sure. But some species have better capacity for the flight reaction than others. Getting to Oz is a bit quicker for a Cangaroo than for a Sloth, right?

"Even you do. When you get a small cut don't you put some sort of antibiotic on the wound? Not only that but the fact remains that no specimens/remains/fossils/etc have been found outside of their current range!!!!"

Which is a problem for evolutionists, since marsupials exist in two habitats : Australia and South America.

"Oh, I beat that CMI will claim that the predators hid the skeletons!"

You might want to look up what they actually do claim. http://creation.com

"How much energy have you wasted trying to make a myth "work"?????"

How much have you wasted to debunk one in order to make another one work?

"I bet you might even be a flat-earther! There are bible verses that support that "fact"!!!! LOL!"

In fact none that do so clearly. It is conspicuous that, one, Bible authors lived in the Old World well before Magellan and most of them before Eratosthenes and Aristotle, two, none of them felt tempted to brag in detail about his "scientific knowledge" (if he had such) of a flat earth.

It is also conspicuous, that "circle" verses work equally with a globe, since globes as well as flat surface circles have circumferences, which is what the word for "circle" mainly means, and "four corners" verses work better with four corners of Old World on a Globe (extending SE corner to Australia), or even Old World and Americas, if you treat Atlantic as a secondary inland sea:


NW British Isles or Alaska
SW Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn
SE Australia
NE Japan

So, no flat earth verses in sight ...

"Does CMI think that the thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) was "timid"? How about the Tasmanian Devil?"

Well, more like, God made sure there was one predator they didn't escape. Check running speed for Tasmanian Devil and for, say T. Rex (there were still some just after Flood) or for Tigers ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Scott E "So you start with the completely non-scientific presupposition that Genesis is an accurate record of history,"

Hello, Theory of Knowledge Department? There is an urgency!

History is not determined by science, it is science that is determined by history.

To record history, you don't need fancy science, you need a commonplace understanding of the world around you, which may have very crude scientific concepts.

But to do science, you certainly need history. If you say "bacteria mutate" you are making in reality a claim about Lenski experiment, and Lenski having arranged an experiment is history. Without that history, you don't have that science.

Yes, I suppose, as a decent historian (not as a scientist) that Genesis is well recorded history. More well recorded from 12 to 50, sufficiently well recorded from 2 to 11 and chapter 1 is (fairly unique for the Bible, though parallelled in John 1) pre-history, before human observers were around, revealed to Moses, not record he found.

"and then tack on some science after that"

Science is always tacked on after history.

"to do some calculations that let you prove to people that Genesis is an accurate record of history"

To show that it CAN be, despite a raised objection.

Very different, my reasons why Genesis IS accurate history are another concern, which I haven't touched on yet, but now I will do so.

Here is how Father George Leo Haydock comments on a verse in Genesis 3:

"Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H."

Get it? A) oral tradition is fairly reliable, and Genesis 2-11 is built on oral tradition, while later chapters could also have been written down, B) this history is confirmed by Moses composing the final book of it and his doing miracles which only God can do.

"(which is the question this all started with and what the debate in the video was about)."

In fact, Bill Nye was not debating the question from scratch, he was giving objections on a few specific points.

"Typical creationist drivel, borrowing bits of science"

What does "borrowed" science mean? You didn't discover it yourself? Fine, then most of us use borrowed science.

What does "bits of" mean? You don't know all science there is to know? Most of us don't, and I am far from exceptional.

"where it suits you and dismissing it where it doesn't,"

There is no fact of science we accept when it suits and dismiss when it doesn't. But there are facts of science we do accept and there are factoids of the "scientific world view" we don't accept.

Get your terminology straight.

"to fit the things you've decided beforehand to believe no matter what."

Science is the wrong field to ask whether one should or should not believe that Genesis is history. History is the right field.

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl There were some T. rex around AFTER the alleged flood? Your evidence for this is what? There are no tigers (Panthera tigris) in Australia. Ever. Not one skeleton, partial or complete. And no sloths in Australia either.

Since you brought up sloths, how do you explain sloths making it from Central and South America all the way to the Iraq/Turkey region? From say, Panama? Walking the length of the Rockies, braving the arctic weather found in Alaska, crossing some sort of ice/land bridge at the Bering Strait, then a huge stretch of Siberia, then the Gobi desert, over the Himalayas, then the deserts of Iran, Turkey and Iraq? Never once deterred by weather, great mountain ranges, considerable numbers of predators, then surviving on an Ark for a year, only to then return home?

How about flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on specific remote oceanic islands? The Kiwi bird of New Zealand? No land bridge there! Or how about the Inaccessible Island Rail from Tristan da Cunha (only on one island of the archipelago! Middle of the fierce south Atlantic!)?

So, T. rex evidence? You might find this video about T. rex soft tissues of great interest!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDY7GSf6Rk

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno "There were some T. rex around AFTER the alleged flood? Your evidence for this is what?"

  • 1) T. Rex have existed since they have been found (about 30 full skeleta)
  • 2) This means the following is probably pertaining to them: Genesis 6:[19] And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female.


"There are no tigers (Panthera tigris) in Australia. Ever. Not one skeleton, partial or complete. And no sloths in Australia either."

No tigers? Reason why cangaroos found it safe.

No sloths? Because they didn't hop all the way to Australia.

"Since you brought up sloths, how do you explain sloths making it from Central and South America all the way to the Iraq/Turkey region? From say, Panama? Walking the length of the Rockies, braving the arctic weather found in Alaska, crossing some sort of ice/land bridge at the Bering Strait, then a huge stretch of Siberia, then the Gobi desert, over the Himalayas, then the deserts of Iran, Turkey and Iraq? Never once deterred by weather, great mountain ranges, considerable numbers of predators, then surviving on an Ark for a year, only to then return home?"

You are presuming pre-Flood geographic, oceanic, climactic conditions to be more or less like post-Flood ones. Already Four Rivers of Paradise say sth else, since the two most easiuly as well as all named alternatives for the less easily identified post-Flood ones do not have a common source after Flood. What if for instance there was an Atlantis where now there is an Atlantic? What if Atlantis sunk in post-Flood times (perhaps between Genesis 10 last verse and Genesis 11:9?)?

You are even presuming sloths are known from pre-Flood times. What if all xenarthrans from South America are post-Flood? Including "Promegatherium ("before Megatherium") is a genus of prehistoric xenarthrans that lived in Argentina, during the Late Miocene."

You see, Aquitanian Miocene "started 23.03 million years ago" and Messinian Miocene "ended 5.333 million years ago" = no carbon dating used = no guarantee they are any bit older than a Neanderthal dated to [I am sorry, I was tired and impatient and didn't end the sentence - whenever they are dated to. As carbon dated 40,000 BP. I added this afterwards:] - say 40,000 BP (carbon).

"How about flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on specific remote oceanic islands? The Kiwi bird of New Zealand? No land bridge there!"

I'll first look up how Evolutionists explain the kiwi ...

"Approximately the size of a domestic chicken, kiwi are by far the smallest living ratites (which also consist of ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi

Now, what about ratites?

"A ratite is any of a diverse group of flightless and mostly large and long-legged birds of the infraclass Palaeognathae."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite

Well, duh, looks like evolutionists have exact same problem. Kiwis were flightless when they arrived. Because all ratites elsewhere (Africa or South America) are also flightless. Here is another one for you:

"Elephant birds are members of the extinct ratite family Aepyornithidae, made up of large to enormous flightless birds that once lived on the island of Madagascar. They became extinct, perhaps around 1000–1200 CE, for reasons that are unclear, although human activity is the suspected cause. Elephant birds comprised the genera Mullerornis, Vorombe and Aepyornis. While they were in close geographical proximity to the ostrich, their closest living relatives are kiwi,[2] suggesting that ratites did not diversify by vicariance during the breakup of Gondwana but instead evolved from ancestors that dispersed more recently by flying.[3]"

To spell this out for you:

"DNA sequence comparisons have yielded the surprising conclusion that kiwi are much more closely related to the extinct Malagasy elephant birds than to the moa with which they shared New Zealand."

(Kiwi article, again)

So, spread by flight and then all of them lost flight? We are not against admitting mutations may result in lost abilities, for one.

Even more, we are also not against men bringing ratites to diverse places by boats.

There seem to have been no fossil kiwis on NZ.

However, there are fossils on NZ:

Ankylosaur Maastrichtian Probably a nodosaur similar to Kunbarrasaurus.
Compsognathid Tithonian Known from phalanges. Associated with possible coprolites.
Ornithopod Maastrichtian Possibly an Elasmarian.
Joan Wiffen's theropod Maastrichtian Possibly a Megaraptoran.
Titanosaur Maastrichtian Known from a rib.
Unidentified dinosaur Early Maastrichtian Known from footprints. Possibly a thyreophoran.
Unidentified theropod Late Cretaceous Known from toe bone around the size of Allosaurus.
Kaiwhekea
Mauisaurus
Prognathodon
Taniwhasaurus
Tuatara.
Carsosaurus Cenomanian 
Ectenosaurus Cretaceous 
Eidolosaurus Cretaceous 
Hector's Ichthyosaur Triassic 
Kaiwhekea Cretaceous 
Komensaurus Cretaceous 
Liodon Cretaceous The maximum length of this species is 30 feet (9.1 m).
Mauisaurus Cretaceous Largest plesiosaur in New Zealand.
Moanasaurus Cretaceous Largest mosasaur in New Zealand.
Nothosaur Triassic 
Pontosaurus Cretaceous 
Prognathodon Cretaceous 
Pterosaur Late Cretaceous Possibly an Azhdarchid.
Sphenodon Mesozoic-Holocene Extant.
Taniwhasaurus Cretaceous 
Tuarangisaurus Cretaceous


Since I believe that Maastrichtian and other Cretaceous, Triassic and so on are diverse pre-Flood biotopes (mainly pre-Flood), how did an Ankylosaur make it to NZ?

"Or how about the Inaccessible Island Rail from Tristan da Cunha (only on one island of the archipelago! Middle of the fierce south Atlantic!)?"

I'd say Tristan da Cunha might have been accessible from Atlantis before it sank.

"So, T. rex evidence? You might find this video about T. rex soft tissues of great interest!:"
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDY7GSf6Rk"

Have debated this elsewhere. You rely heavily on Tony Reed.

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, a full blown (probably a "fool" blown) Gish Gallop! You worked pretty hard to fail so miserably at explain how the Kiwi got to Iraq/Turkey.

You also failed to include any evidence of T. rex specimens that were younger than 66 million years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

I do enjoy Tony Reed and his very well done presentations. He isn't the only one, but he is one of the best and his real virtue is that he is succinct in his presentations. You could learn from him!

Atlantis? _ROFLMAO@U!+ SNORK! MAYBE THAT IS WHERE SANTA VACATIONS! UFOS! FLAT EARTH! SASQUATCH!

You still haven't explained how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Tristan da Cunha. Or Atlantis! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno
"Wow, a full blown (probably a "fool" blown) Gish Gallop!"

If my answer was long, it was not so by heaping ten diverse arguments on each other, and hoping someone won't be able to answer them all.

That's what usually referred to as Gish Gallop. It's not limited to Creationists and it's not there in all Creationists, and considering how you attributed it to me, I am not sure it's even there in Duane Gish.

"You worked pretty hard to fail so miserably at explain how the Kiwi got to Iraq/Turkey."

If you meant I didn't give a detailed explanation, that is true.

I also do not think the ratite couple on the ark were different ones for kiwis and ostriches and emus, it could well be a common ancestor of them all.

"You also failed to include any evidence of T. rex specimens that were younger than 66 million years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus"

It has not occurred to you that "66 million years old" is a definite claim, which needs definite evidence.

Now, the pieces of evidence usually presented as warranting that are geological column and radiometric but non-carbon dates.

Did you miss the piece where I said Ka-Ar cannot have its halflife tested, because it's too long? 100 years for a halflife of 5730 years (the one for C14, documented by lots of specimens from last centuries as correct) corresponds to 21 million years for a halflife of over a billion years, which therefore is not testable.

T. Rex is a land vertebrate and "from Mesozoic" and both of these are qualities that are lacking in the actual column in Grand Canyon.

Now, land vertebrates have this property so far verified in my research, that you don't find two layers of them above each other. VERY compatible with my theory that Cretaceous and its subdivisions, Jurassic etc are simply different biotopes mostly of the pre-Flood world.

"I do enjoy Tony Reed and his very well done presentations. He isn't the only one, but he is one of the best and his real virtue is that he is succinct in his presentations. You could learn from him!"

I've debated him, he refuses to learn from me and is ultra vicious against Christianity, because he is an ex-Christian.

"Atlantis? _ROFLMAO@U!+ SNORK! MAYBE THAT IS WHERE SANTA VACATIONS! UFOS! FLAT EARTH! SASQUATCH!"

You seem to think cultural associations + despising a certain culture is enough as far as arguments are concerned. I don't belong to that subculture, but I don't despise it like you do.

"You still haven't explained how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Tristan da Cunha. Or Atlantis! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

You still haven't explained X sounds like a follow up to a Gish Gallop. Plus I kind of did. It wasn't inaccessible while Atlantis was around.

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl So where is "Atlantis"?? You debated Tony Reed? Where? Christianity is a man-made myth system based off of an older bronze age myth. It has the credibility equal to Zeus and Osiris. It is amazing to me that supposedly educated people would believe anything that ridiculous! And then heap "righteous indignity" on top! Too fricking funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The only "culture" I despise is the culture of "willful ignorance".

And still no evidence for T. rex being alive at the same time as humans. Or a plausible explanation for how any flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on extremely remote oceanic islands could have made it to Iraq/Turkey and back. Nor any for the sloths...............

But keep trying, your slogans are so darned cute!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno
"So where is "Atlantis"??"

It seems shallows have been found by submarine investigations.

"You debated Tony Reed? Where?"

Among others, here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed (update : and others)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating-with-tony-reed.html


"Christianity is a man-made myth system based off of an older bronze age myth."

As for Christianity being a man-made myth, I think I countered it here:

somewhere else : Could a Community Arising a Century Later Invent ...
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/12/could-community-arising-century-later.html


"It has the credibility equal to Zeus and Osiris."

To what exact claims of them?

"It is amazing to me that supposedly educated people would believe anything that ridiculous!"

It's amazing how so much despising of culture could go into ... culture.

"And then heap "righteous indignity" on top! Too fricking funny if it weren't so pathetic."

I don't think I did righteous indignity, in fact ... were you thinking of someone else?

"The only "culture" I despise is the culture of "willful ignorance"."

There is more than one culture you despise by branding it so. Wilful disagreement with your culture would be more correct.

"And still no evidence for T. rex being alive at the same time as humans."

Except history.

Except carbon dates of Dinosaurs getting into the span of carbon dates for human skeleta.

"Or a plausible explanation for how any flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on extremely remote oceanic islands could have made it to Iraq/Turkey and back. Nor any for the sloths..............."

I think your lack of detail in response to my answer shows wilful ignorance on your part.

"But keep trying, your slogans are so darned cute!"

How about learning to read? I gave no slogans, I gave arguments ... (wait, a yogi might want to abstain from yoga or other alpha states before actually dealing with that for at least half an hour) (OK, that was a slogan, feel free to call that cute).

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, what, no evidence forthcoming on the existence of T. rexs alive at the same time as human? How are you forging ahead on your explanation of sloths getting to Iraq/Turkey? What about those flightless, non-aquatic birds from remote oceanic islands?

Hell, I haven't even brought up the Giant Palouse Worm!!!

Never mind the remote and rare plants!!!!

You also never explained away how Gobekli Tepe could have existed for some 5,000 years BEFORE the universe!!!

Since you seem to be Catholic I have some questions. To be fair, are you Catholic???

ans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno
"So, what, no evidence forthcoming on the existence of T. rexs alive at the same time as human?"

As said, Genesis 6. Now, YOU have no evidence to the contrary. That some scientists consider 66 million years proven fact doesn't shift the burden of proof to me, unless I have no answer to their purported proofs, which I had.

READ OUR DIALOGUE AGAIN:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-supposed-to-destroy-flood-or.html


You scroll down past I, II, III, IV, V to Dialogues, then I.

"How are you forging ahead on your explanation of sloths getting to Iraq/Turkey?"

I mentioned Atlantis, did I not? Besides, I also mentioned sloths perhaps not being known from pre-Flood times.

"What about those flightless, non-aquatic birds from remote oceanic islands?"

I think I already DID mention:

  • evolutionists have the same problem
  • as far as I am concerned, kiwis could have been brought along by Maoris.


"Hell, I haven't even brought up the Giant Palouse Worm!!!"

No, you haven't. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm

Where is the argument against the Flood?

"Never mind the remote and rare plants!!!!"

Tree mats floating above the flood, and some plants remaining alive.

"You also never explained away how Gobekli Tepe could have existed for some 5,000 years BEFORE the universe!!!"

AGAIN, READ OUR DIALOGUE AGAIN:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-supposed-to-destroy-flood-or.html


You scroll down past I, II, III, IV, V to Dialogues, then I.

If carbon levels in the atmosphere breathed by the organic material of GT when alive were like 42 - 47 % of the modern level, GT fits very neatly between 350 and 401 after the Flood - where it should be, if Babel.

"Since you seem to be Catholic I have some questions. To be fair, are you Catholic???"

Yes. I am also one of the Catholics who reject "Vatican II", "John Paul II" and for that matter already "Paul VI" and their successors as non-popes, as pseudo-popes, as anti-popes. And if you were bringing up Pius XII, well Dignitatis Humanae doesn't decide either way, and the allocution to a group of scientists in 1951, the year after, is just the level of an allocution, definitely lower than an encyclical adressed to all bishops.

@gsundiszno I'm impressed on how dense you can come off as being, in an oral situation, that might be a winner. As it is, people can check our dialogue.

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You made the claim that T. rex was alive during the time of humans. Per your argument of "genesis" said so then you'll also have to prove dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giant, as well as talking donkeys and snakes! Not one skeleton has been found of T. rex that is less than 66 million years old.

Not one skeleton has been found for the dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giants. They are mythological from your "book of magic".

Sad.

The rest is just more blather......

Oh, except that earth worms can't survive for a year in saltwater, silly child!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl says the man who believes T. rex played on the Ark! I'll bet you think they were vegetarians as well! LOL!

[refers to my point of his tactic of playing dense]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno
"You made the claim that T. rex was alive during the time of humans."

Yes, based on history, and you made a definite counterclaim.

"Per your argument of "genesis" said so then you'll also have to prove dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giant, as well as talking donkeys and snakes!"

You are missing what I said to Scott E : Genesis is history, history primes science, not the other way round.

Donkeys and snakes usually don't talk, one of each did, and in each case it was an angelic being talking through them.

Dragons would be one indication outside Genesis that T. Rex or Dimetrodon Grandis or some such coexisted with man.

Unicorns might be the traditional name for Ceratopsians.

Human giants, well, some bones that could be dinosaurian also could be human giants : head and most of skeleton missing doesn't tell which femur it was.

Satyrs, well, we have at least Greek and Roman tradition, plus Scottish kelpies to back up the "hairy ones" which could also mean something else.

"Not one skeleton has been found of T. rex that is less than 66 million years old."

Not one skeleton of T. Rex has been found that is more than 7000 years old.

My proof : Biblical chronology - what's yours? We each made a definite claim, we each need backing it up.

"Not one skeleton has been found for the dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giants. They are mythological from your "book of magic"."

Several, in fact, except perhaps satyrs.

"Sad."

Shall I feel sorry for you?

"The rest is just more blather......"

Of what you said? Sure/Oh, of what I said? Was it over your head?

"Oh, except that earth worms can't survive for a year in saltwater, silly child!"

At 50 I am hardly a child anymore, and earth worms can have partly survived on Ark as bird food, and also Flood was not salt water.

"@Hans-Georg Lundahl says the man who believes T. rex played on the Ark! I'll bet you think they were vegetarians as well! LOL!"

Most carnivores have vegetarian moments or at least piscivorian ones. Very tiny and young T. Rex (or other Coelurosaurians, as they are arguably all one kind and taking a smaller race would be nice to other critters), they could have been fed suitable veggies, earthworms or .... fisssssssshh (there was plenty around the Ark).

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl If the global flood occurred the waters would have been definitely saline. Salt water. Not only that but earth worms drown in any kind of water. What a science ignoramus!

The bible is hardly historical! It claims Israelites in Egypt for over 400 years yet there hasn't been a single Israelite skeleton or artifact found in Egypt. Just one of the most archeologically explored place on earth. None found in the Sinai either. Over a million Israelites wandering around in a relatively small place for 40 years (roughly the life expectancy during those times!) and not one skeleton? You are aware that dry deserts are only the single best place for preserving remains, right?

So, not only is the bible not historical, but your genesis verse doesn't mention T. rex, no other verse mentions T. rex, and/or similar dinosaurs. The bible doesn't even bother to mention the New World, nor Australia, nor Antarctica. That is because a bunch of semi-literate goat herders had no way of knowing these things when they sat around and invented the stories.

No firmament either. Just a trillion galaxies with over a billion stars each on average.

Keep it coming, you heretic! LOL!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno "If the global flood occurred the waters would have been definitely saline. Salt water."

That's not what Creationists think. Seas were at worst brackwater.

"Not only that but earth worms drown in any kind of water. What a science ignoramus!"

Did I say sth about logmats? Did I say sth about earthworms on the ark as bird food supply? Or did I really forget?

"The bible is hardly historical!"

50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 4 + 31 + 24 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 15 + 28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 = 680 chapters of historic books.

I omitted books of instruction and devotion, as well as books with clearly more prophecy than history (I included Daniel, Ezra and Nehemia, though).

"It claims Israelites in Egypt for over 400 years"

In fact, the Biblical chronology I am counting on more like reckons the 430 years only had second half in Egypt, first in Canaan, before 70 persons migrated to Egypt.

Note also, they started out fairly modestly in numbers.

"yet there hasn't been a single Israelite skeleton or artifact found in Egypt."

How would you know one if you found one?

What if Israelites were buried in Egyptian style?

“You will never find a lost watch if you’re looking for it in the wrong place,” says Murray. “If we are looking in the wrong period, because of the erroneous assumptions about the Egyptian chronology of Manetho, then it’s no wonder we don’t find evidence of the civilizations of David and Solomon, or the walled cities of the Conquest, or the Exodus from Egypt. No wonder secular archaeologists stand up and confidently claim there is no evidence of an Israelite sojourn in Egypt.

“However, secular archaeologists themselves have found evidence of the land of Goshen—the region of Faqus (Gk. Phacusa, the name in Ptolemaic times, traces back to the Egyptian Pa Kesem, with the ‘m’ later dropping off; the Septuagint calls the land of the sojourn Gesem, not Goshen.) There is a strong local tradition linking this area to Goshen. Helena, the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in the 4th Century AD, asking about the land of Goshen, was pointed to this area. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak, excavating there in the mid-1980s, found evidence of Semitic occupation—including homes with artefacts and animals of Canaanite origin, not found elsewhere in Egypt, plus the way in which they buried their dead. Because of the faulty chronology, he does not associate those settlements with Israel and Egypt (‘too early’). Bietak also concluded that these Semites had participated in the building of a significant nearby Egyptian metropolis.” The Bible does not say the Hebrews built pyramids; as Murray teaches his history students, “Hollywood is not in the business of teaching true history.”

Unravelling myths about myth
Carl Wieland chats with historian and archaeologist Murray Adamthwaite
https://creation.com/unravelling-myths-about-myth


"Just one of the most archeologically explored place on earth."

Sure, and one giving lots of hints archaeology can't cover all of history, since preservation is erratic.

"None found in the Sinai either. Over a million Israelites wandering around in a relatively small place for 40 years (roughly the life expectancy during those times!) and not one skeleton?"

Life expectancy back then? Don't think so. King David a few centuries later wrote:

"The days of our years in them are threescore and ten years. But if in the strong they be fourscore years: and what is more of them is labour and sorrow. For mildness is come upon us: and we shall be corrected."
[Psalms 89:10]

In other words, if you didn't die very young, but reached adult age, a normal life expectancy was 70 to 80 years.

"You are aware that dry deserts are only the single best place for preserving remains, right?"

Not really, if scavengers come along, of which there are plenty.

The real gold mine for preserving human remains are deep burials with very air tight sealing.

"So, not only is the bible not historical,"

You forget that history is not in the main confirmed by archaeology and does not depend on such confirmation to be reliable.

When South East France was being conquered by Romans about a generation or two or three before Caesar, there were lots of battles. Nearly no battle fields from then are actually excavated.

Waterloo battle could not be proven by archaeology, by now, since bones were dug up for fertiliser mid 19th C.

"but your genesis verse doesn't mention T. rex, no other verse mentions T. rex, and/or similar dinosaurs."

It doesn't mention even elks, yet arguably elks were on the ark. It's not a zoological inventary.

"The bible doesn't even bother to mention the New World, nor Australia, nor Antarctica."

I suppose Moses knew of them, when writing Genesis, prophetically. Seeing that diverse empires were going to have access to Genesis, he arguably left it out so that these were not tempted to cross Atlantic or Indian and Pacific Oceans.

It is definitely possible they are mentioned in Apocalypse as "the wilderness" which is an accurate description of most of these places (barring Antarctica which is not inhabitable) up to pre-Columbian and pre-Tasmanian and pre-Jacobo-Cookian times.

"That is because a bunch of semi-literate goat herders had no way of knowing these things when they sat around and invented the stories."

Would you mind explaining why, with so much "invented" stories they spent so little of 680 chapters (OK, the Four Gospellers were not goatherders, not even sure the fourth was a fisherman, St John of the Gospel could have been someone else than St John of the Twelve, namely someone with Cohen connections) on real history which they could hardly help noticing was going on and happening, and at least some of it was real interesting?

With traditional author assignments, we can even say they started writing history well before Egyptians and at least about the same time as people in Mesopotamia - and went about it with more thoroughness. I'd go so far as to call Genesis the first world history of the world. At least first 11 chapters, since later ones narrow the scope to one of the nations.

"No firmament either. Just a trillion galaxies with over a billion stars each on average."

Supposing modern cosmology were in fact true, which I don't, it is at least irrelevant for historic accuracy.

"Keep it coming, you heretic! LOL!"

There is one heretic here, and it's you.

gsundiszno
@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Giant Palouse earthworm would have had to get to the Ark in order to be bird food. And bird food doesn't survive. Do you even bother to note what you are writing?

Even if the entire volume of "flood water" (the amount that would have had to magically be created) were fresh the dilution is still quite saline. Fail, again. I can also demonstrate that given the resulting waters would have been quite saline (brackish even), that the flood was not global. There is a type of lake called an endorheic basin. That is any lake whose waters don't drain to the ocean. Now, that alone is not significant. However, what is significant is that some of those lakes are not saline at all. See, water evaporates, but salt doesn't. In fact the endorheic lakes would become MORE saline with evaporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorheic_basins

Elk? Dude, you still haven't provided a plausible explanation for how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Iraq/Turkey. Or the Kiwi. Your only explanation for any of it is that your "magic book" said so. Basically you are claiming the bible is true because the bible says it is true!!!! HUGE FAIL!!!

Hey, here is a news flash for you. "Scavengers" DON'T EAT BONES!!!! Or human artifacts, like clothes/jewelry/etc!!!!

No matter what the life expectancy was (archaeologists and other science professionals say it was more like 40 years, based on EVIDENCE!), the fact remains that with over a million people stumbling around in a very barren desert some would have died. Some being many! And not one burial site has been found. I didn't say they haven't found 50,000 but only 49,999 so it is false. No, I stated and it is a fact, that NOT ONE BURIAL SITE HAS BEEN FOUND.

Learn to read. Then learn how to think.

The rest is blather, especially your silly arithmetic of bible chapters being somehow (?????) meaningful!!!! By the way, your numbers are inaccurate since there are 10 (yes, TEN) different Canons with different numbers of "books".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

Never mind the Mormons! They also worship Jesus and are ''christian"! LOL!

You are quite silly, frankly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@gsundiszno "the Giant Palouse earthworm would have had to get to the Ark in order to be bird food. And bird food doesn't survive."

A heap of bird food worms, some certainly survive, especially if they multiply on board.

"Do you even bother to note what you are writing?"

Do you even bother to note what you are objecting to?

"Even if the entire volume of "flood water" (the amount that would have had to magically be created)"

Well, Oxygen + Hydrogen layers meet, explode in torrents (diminishing both, so now there is a distance), and there were also waters from the deep.

Magically? Not really.

"were fresh the dilution is still quite saline."

Sorry, but that presupposes that pre-Flood seas were salty. What if they weren't or what if they were only slightly brackish?

"Fail, again. I can also demonstrate that given the resulting waters would have been quite saline (brackish even), that the flood was not global. There is a type of lake called an endorheic basin. That is any lake whose waters don't drain to the ocean. Now, that alone is not significant. However, what is significant is that some of those lakes are not saline at all. See, water evaporates, but salt doesn't. In fact the endorheic lakes would become MORE saline with evaporation."

Yes, and most of these are post-Flood.

Big seas have also become more saline with exact same mechanism in post-Flood era, which is now 5000 years.

"Elk? Dude, you still haven't provided a plausible explanation for how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Iraq/Turkey."

Who says that is where the Ark was taking off, anyway? That's where it landed.

"Or the Kiwi. Your only explanation for any of it is that your "magic book" said so."

Where is exactly your evolutionist explanation of the kiwi? Your only explanation is that Darwin's Origin of the species says so ...

"Basically you are claiming the bible is true because the bible says it is true!!!! HUGE FAIL!!!"

Your talents in analysing logic seem temporarily clouded by your bias.

I am saying the Bible is history, because that is how audiences as far back as traceable have taken it.

Precisely as I am saying Lord of the Rings is fiction, because that is how audiences as far back as traceable have taken that.

While this doesn't prove the Bible is totally correct history, per se, there are blunders which are incredible to make, if not actual fact. And fact of Flood is strengthened by lots of other traditions too.

"Hey, here is a news flash for you. "Scavengers" DON'T EAT BONES!!!! Or human artifacts, like clothes/jewelry/etc!!!!"

Egyptian jewellry was spent in Golden Calf. Bones left to dry in the desert will disintegrate.

"No matter what the life expectancy was (archaeologists and other science professionals say it was more like 40 years, based on EVIDENCE!),"

Exactly how many graves from those times?

Does "40" refer to life expectancy at birth, which means that children dying at 5 are included in the mean?

"the fact remains that with over a million people stumbling around in a very barren desert some would have died. Some being many! And not one burial site has been found. I didn't say they haven't found 50,000 but only 49,999 so it is false. No, I stated and it is a fact, that NOT ONE BURIAL SITE HAS BEEN FOUND."

How much burial do you think people were given if they could dry? Cover with sand, that is it.

Where are the Israelite Burials From the Wilderness Wanderings?
Non-Technical - juin 18, 2009 - by Gordon Franz MA
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/06/Where-are-the-Israelite-Burials-From-the-Wilderness-Wanderings.aspx#Article


"Learn to read. Then learn how to think."

Did both already ....

"The rest is blather, especially your silly arithmetic of bible chapters being somehow (?????) meaningful!!!!"

680 chapters of Bible books mainly history is at least showing the Bible MEANS to be history, means to be taken as historical.

"By the way, your numbers are inaccurate since there are 10 (yes, TEN) different Canons with different numbers of "books"."

As a Catholic I am obviously using the 73 book canon, meaning I included chapters for Tobit, Judith and I and II Maccabees in the total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

"Never mind the Mormons! They also worship Jesus and are ''christian"! LOL!"

They'd have a problem with Matthew 28:20. They claim God RESTORED His Church through Joseph Smith, contrary to the "all days" promise.

"You are quite silly, frankly."

I am also used to people like you taking me to be so ....

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl
0:51Grand canyon ... you seem to overdo segregation of marine invertebrates a bit.

How many of them are unknown from other places so they are considered as "their layer" bc they come between this or that layer?

In a Flood scenario, how much sorting of marine invertebrates could occur by currents overflowing the place from different directions?

Ricahrd P'Brien
You obviously need to have your meds adjusted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Ricahrd P'Brien So where you live, psychiatry is used as a Commie "inquisition"?