Monday, September 30, 2013

... mainly to Hemant Mehta

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... mainly to Hemant Mehta, somewhere else : "maybe Zeus does exist"?

Video commented on (with some debates)
The Atheist Voice : 15 things to NEVER say to an atheist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNjEbPfc2d0
I
"atheists don't hate God" ... depends on which ones.

I think Marx and Feuerbach did. I dont think you do yet (or the opposite), but you are a disciple of theirs.
TimSurrey
How can anyone hate something/someone they do not believe exists? It makes no sense.

I am not aware of anything in Marx's writings to suggest he hated God. In fact, Marxist theory is quite clearly a materialist philosophy that does not acknowledge the supernatural in any way.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you may not have read the collected works. He wrote some dramas suggesting he considered himself a lost soul and a poem in which he professed to hate God.

Neither of which are Das Kapital of course, but if he was primarily a God-hater and only secundarily an Atheist, is not that the kind of duplicity you would expect?

I have not read the incriminating works by Karl Marx myself, I refer you to a book by Richard Wurmbrandt, called Was Karl Marx a Satanist? - Title in a question mark and conclusion of the book in affirmative.
TimSurrey
Then I suggest you read source material.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I suggest you get the book by Wurmbrandt and read the source material he refers to. I will not agree that Wurmbrandt made himself a liar about Karl Marx, not to mention making himself ridiculous to anyone who could look up the official edition of Karl Marx' collected works which he refers to. I trust his quotes, even though it is a long time since I read them. Karl Marx was an Apostate and he hated God.
II short answer
greatgulffixed
The Bible is God's complete revelation to man. There weren't be more added.

That being said, if you read the Acts of the Apostles (chronicling the activity of the church), you will find that it is not competed. There is a reason for this. We have been basically writing the book down through the centuries since then - in the lives and histories of believers who are spreading the Word.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In the lives and histories of believers who are spreading the Word ... thank you!

We Catholics call it Church History and we also call those believers Saints.
III
"maybe Zeus does exist"

answered on my blog, giving you short link:

ppt dot li/cp

[somewhere else : "maybe Zeus does exist"?
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/09/maybe-zeus-does-exist.html
]
IV
"they were Christians and later in life ..."

Two questions:

- how many of them were Protestants who would not give Catholicism a chance once they discovered where Luther got the Bible from?

- how many were at that later date convinced by Evolution, Big Bang, Heliocentrism ... some of the things that today are really believed in (along with friendship and family and children you teach) instead of God?
V
"we know were all the holes are ..."

Not in religious beliefs like Evolutionism and Heliocentrism I presume? I think Kent Hovind and Robert Sungenis do better than you there!
VI
Answering your questions:

1) I have read most of the Bible. Been rereading part after part as it comes up in debates and in things like Missler's and Skiba's research about Genesis and Apocalypse. Also sometimes follow readings of the Church year.

2) I have read the fifth Surat and know it conflicts with Gospel about Jesus and that Gospels were written much closer to events by people much closer to Him. I have read Mahabharata about Krishna's supposed "ascension", i e of his soul (cremated body)

I have not read The God Delusion, but I have read about half of same author's Greatest Show on earth. Actually learnt some biology from it. "DNA is not like blueprint, more like recipe". I have followed Carl Sagans series Cosmos. I have laid down Origin of the Species after Darwin goes on from Ring Species to supposing all species are related. I have laid down Manuel d'athéologie after Onfray contradicts himself about what Christianity does to its believers - from p. 29 to p. 30.
VII
Do you know how many people who consider me some sort of Satanist and who pray for me?

Problem is they are not praying for the right things. As far as I can see.

I can tell you from experience, prayer does make a difference.
VIII
"bald is a hair colour"

It is the colour of your skin where otherwise there would be colour of hair ... now, atheism as a position in itself is not a religion, because it is only rejection of one, but Evolutionism, Heliocentrism, believing in friends and family and the children you teach - how much difference is there between that and a religion, once you reject any religion higher than that, not mentioning E[volutionism] and H[eliocentrism] are also religious beliefs disguised as "science".
IX
Number 15 - you have pinpointed why I am angry at Judaism, Protestantism and Atheism. Not to mention Freemasonry which infiltrates all of above.

LGBT rights as far as I am concerned is the right to not be LGBT, even if that happens to be how you feel. Just as a cleptomaniac has a right not to be a thief.

Abortion is very clearly murder. "Birth control" is very clearly murder of populations the survival of which depend on getting children.
X, two more responses:
TimSurrey (in reply to someone unknown, since he used new comment instead of reply button)
No, most Christians are claiming we are not moral, by asking this question, by implication.

Morality certainly exists without God. It exists through an honest, and thoughtful examination of the consequences, and contexts, of our actions.

Religion has no moral mechanism, only moral pronouncements, many of which come from a book, the Bible, that is riddled with the most immoral recommendations (about slavery, for example).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Morality certainly exists without God."

It certainly exists in some atheists without a belief in God.

Whether it came to their and to Christian (and so on) hearts from God or just from nature is another matter.

Also, it exists in them insofar as atheism has not yet corrupted them or opened them to corrupting friendships or goals.

"Morality certainly exists without God. It exists through an honest, and thoughtful examination of the consequences, and contexts, of our actions."

Bad morality and cruelty are quite possible outcomes of such a thing. I was just reading about the medical doctors involved in gassing in euthanasia after 1940 ... their examination of the actions at their value was not honest, but the examination of consequences and contexts was both honest and thougtful. Only immoral. Q not answered.
Anton Martin
Actually, for those who believe there is no proof necesary because they believe whatever the priests tell them, they dismiss the evidence against their beliefs and try to cherry pick what they like. And for the non believers, well we actually care for what's true, so we do need evidence that suggests that there is a god-like being and that the being is the one you believe in.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Evidence of God (whoever he might be): His Creation.

False issue about this: Heliocentrism detracting from non-aleatory construction of universe at large, Evolutionism from non-aleatory arrival of life and diverse species. (Is being answered by Creationists and Geocentrics).

Evidence God is One in Three: the word of Jesus, the Son of the Father.

Evidence His word is Divine and He is God: His Resurrection.

A story, and not two or three hairbrained theories. It has been checked for sources.

... to Rebecca Watson on contraceptives and patriarchy

AronRa : Communicating Atheism (pt 1) Skepchick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik
Hans-Georg Lundahl
a) Vegetarian Priest refusing Holy Eucharist ... well, a Priest's job is all about Holy Eucharist.

Is a Pharmaceut's job all about contraceptives? I thought there were things like antibiotics and analgetics involved, but maybe that was wrong. And skin products, I have even seen such lately, but maybe I just hallucinated (goes for the prescription as well) ...

b) The thing about Patriarchy not being a conspiracy ...

In the same vein I could say Atheism is no conspiracy - in most atheists. Or evolutionism - in most evolutionists.

As to Patriarchy, in some applications, as I happen to believe in it, I think it is simply being rational.

And if skepchick wants a good old age pension when she is older, my tip about it is in four letters: K, I, D, S. As in kids.

If she believes in collective old age pension systems, they R breaking down due to fewer kids.

(Sorry, CSL, I know you hate the word "kids", but "children" is eight letters and at the end those were too many, also too many to make it snappy).

Friday, September 27, 2013

... commenting on Bates and Lynch, UFOs and St Patrick

Video commented on, A:
orlibonurb : Gary Bates: The UFO - Evolution Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-dBdfTggBs
I
No two UFO sightings ever looked the same?

One possible exception: I saw three falling stars on two occasions back in the late nineties in the Sysslebäck area of Sweden; I did not think it was a normal comet, and I wasn't thinking of UFOs either. I immediately thought of Matthew 24 "the stars will fall from heaven" ... "oh, these are the first three? Do they represent those three people I know, need I pray for them?" And I got onto the Rosary when back home. But the two occasions looked alike.
II
"Do I have a world view?"

Yes, you even have a grammar. There is no language without a grammar, but in your mother tongue's case, unless you are bilingual, you don't think of it.

And same with minds and world views.

And Churches and ritual for the matter (Pentecostals have as much ritual as we Catholics, it is just different ritual).
III
"The same distant starlight" ...

Close is to space as present is to time. Starlight from 13 point 5 billion light years away are as much assumptions about the present far away, as an earth 4.5 billion years old is an assumption about the close by far into the past.

A Geocentric knows (usually) a way around the distant starlight problem (which will not usually bog him down into UFO belief): "parallax" is nothing of the sort, but a star really moved by a real angel ... which tells not how far away.
IV
"Don't say his name, he's the Messiah" ...

[Gary Bates quoting a French Raelian whom he met in Australia]

I am very glad I am not Rael, and that I believe in the one who was born in Bethlehem by the Blessed Virgin Mary, died on Calvary or Golgotha (depending on Latin or Semitic naming) by Crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and rose again from the Dead and from the Grave the Third day according to Old Testament prophecy which He then explained in detail the next forty days.

I am not glad there are people who believe in other ones, but won't say their names.

You see, when people believing in false Messiah's will not name them - the real one was named many times over, not just rabbi and rabbuni but "Jesus" and "held to be son of Joseph who was son of ..." and "Jesus from Nazareth", and so on and so forth ... there are names that can be smudged by a suspicion of being among those candidates in that sham Messiah business.

Video commented on, B:
MrPhilosopherPaul : Saint Patrick History after the Ancient Narrations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5TzgxNrOmc
I
Beurla back then did not yet mean English.

Beurla has for basic meaning "gloss" and if to the Irish Latin was a gloss, to St Patrick it was Irish Gaelic that was a gloss.

English very certainly did not exist back then.

It is theoretically possible he could have known English by a miracle before it was ever spoken, but any text referring to him as knowing "beurla, latin ..." should be taken as "gloss language: latin" rather than "english and latin".
II
Barbarian - born outside the Roman Empire.

More like - speaking sth other than Greek or Latin or Macedonian. Originally speaking sth other than Greek, but later Macedonian was elevated to status of a Thessalic dialect (and then vanished before Koiné), and Latin was elevated to status of an Aeolic dialect.

Speaking other languages than those meant being a Barbarian, unless you learned them as a student rather than as a child.
III
Royal chariot - reminds me of St Philip (your uncle's patron I presume) who went up in the chariot of an Ethiopian Eunuch and servant of Ethiopia's Queen.

Later we get a Calvinist in Savoy asking St Francis of Sales "how come you drive in such a princely chariot, did any of the apostles do so?" and he answered "you are right to call it princely, I borrowed it, and St Philip did".
Video commented on, C:
ollslynch95 : SAINT PATRICK AFTER THE ANCIENT NARRATIONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btOLVI8bo7k
One comment:
Dia dhuit agas Muire agas Paidraic!

[Should be: Dia agus Muíre dhuit agus Paidraic ...]

Keating left out the fact that some of the earlier lives did record - some of his sources thus - namely that some of the people baptised by the saint were technically fairies - i e had been living in fairy mounds, in sídhes.

One of the other saints - soon after St Patrick and I think it was St Columkille - did not leave that out.

I wonder about your uncle, shall we invoke him or pray for his soul? Memory eternal either way!

Friday, September 20, 2013

... on watching Confessions and Warnings of a Former Satanist

Video commented on, no debates so far, just my diverse comments along it:
kwcgladius : Former Satanist shows everyday occultism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5vZ14Ozqzw
I
Funny, I am in the Georges Pompidou library in Paris (Beaubourg), and there was an error so the video stopped at 04:12 when the former satanist was explaining what "enchanter" means.
II
Funny, that high school biology teacher (the video works now), was he by any chance an evolutionist despising creationists?

The demon getting back and afraid of a Christian reminds me a bit of the turning point of one later named St Christopher.

He was a giant, wanted to serve "the mightiest", served a mighty king, then saw him afraid of Satan. THEN saw Satan afraid of a Cross.
III
Corrections on Samhain and Halloween.

Pronunciation: in Irish Gaelic you do not put an H after the M, you put a point above it. Either spelling means it becomes a spirant - v - or in this case an approximant - w. With some nasal twinge. Sowin, with a nasal twinge, correct, Sam - Hayne, incorrect. (C further Teach Yourself Irish).

Btw, sowin not as the English word sowing, but as sow-in (full nasal consonant after i, nasal twinge on the ow vowel).

Samhain and Halloween are same date, but not same feast. Halloween is an Een, or an Eve, meaning the feast is the day after. It was put that date to make sure that parishioners who went to Church soberly on All Hallows Day had not been indulging in any Pagan Samhain feasts.

That correction on Theology is Crucial.

Calling All Hallows a Pagan Feast is helping Satan reclaim Christian things for himself and appear more powerful than he is.

Just like an earlier stunt of claiming "Antichrist" lasted from St Gregory I to the Popes in Luther's time a thousand years later. That guy will have three and a half years to persecute the Church. Not 1000.
IV
Cell phone in screamer movie ... I used one in a better context (the refrain of which is also a penance for enjoying a bawdy song by Elvis - a divorced husband has a right to tell his wife "are you lonesome tonight", unlike the persona in Elvis' song):

ppt d o t li/8e [En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : The pilgrim's padreen http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/11/pilgrims-padreen.html ]

[Exorcism done by a d]efrocked priest in Day's of Our Lives?

What is wrong with the normal ones, like Gabriele Amorth (Vatican's Exorcist) .... oh, wait ... US priests are maybe since Vatican II a bit shy of exorcism stuff? Not sure, I am not over in US.
V
Demons inhabiting inanimate objects? How about the object the archaeologists of "Kaiser" Wilhelm (more properly usurper of Christian Imperial dignity in the West, belonging to Austria) brought back from Pergamon to Berlin?

It seems it was the "seat of Satan" in Apocalypse. The altar of Zeus in Pergamon.

If Hesiod's gods are bad, it seems the Hurrian were worse - and Pergamon was founded before Hesiod by a grandson of Hercules [Telephos].
VI
Crowley's advice of backwards ... can it have been known back in the times of Giordano Bruno?

Can that have been why he set the seen relations of Earth and Sun backwards in his new cosmology?

You see, he apostasised from a Catholic Christian faith. He was a Dominican priest. When he was burned he professed that each "universe" (basically = solar system) had its own immanent world soul or "god".

Maybe a reason for Christians to agree with St Robert Bellarmine?

Old wisdom ... the Egyptian one about dung beetles was bad.

How do you feel about Abraham's - he saw all the stars obey so to speak a common will. He concluded that will was one true God. I have this from Josephus.

Could he have said so with modern Heliocentric explanations as easily as all that?

He lived before Our Lord Jesus Christ, and did not have as much help from History as we do. Some who reject that Sacred History can need similar help from philosophy until they recover (if ever).
VII
The supposed Celtic symbol for three pagan goddesses ... I think it is an Irish Christian symbol for Holy Trinity, and had no feminism on it until the seventies, when it was abused.

Runes are not Celtic, they are Germanic. They are first of all an alphabet - borrowed from Etruscan alphabet in Rhaetia probably - but second a fortune telling devise using names of letters as omens when casting the letters out.

Speaker on video reveals parts of the inaccurate lore he dabbled in.

And a bit later, no, a Celtic Cross is not an Ancient Pagan symbol of Druidism, it is a Christian Symbol.

It was used by the same Culdees some of you claim falsely were the crypto-protestants who kept Christianity alive despite Catholicism.

I am pretty much in agreement that the pentagram jewelry is bad.

And the Merlin jewel is an insult to the poor man's efforts to save his soul despite being born to a demonic rape victim.
VIII
As to counterfeit versions of God's Word, King James' version is not Authorised by God, since not authorised by His Church.

Use the Douay Rheims version, it has the blessing of the Catholic Church.

Do not forget the Haydock comment.

haydock1859 dot tripod dot com (Bible and commentary)
[Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/ ]
IX
That fairies are actually demons ... well, that is one theory of them.

There are other Christian theories about what fairies really are.

Cain's kin (along with trolls and giants). Or near-demons, spirits neither loyal nor rebellious when Satan fell to Hell, and which thus only fell to earth and are not judged before judgement day. Or spirits in limbo - too innocent for Hell, too unbaptised for Heaven. Or some kind pf Nephelim - which Saint Christopher might have for physic origin too (9 ft).
X
We are very symbolic - true.

A good reason not to confuse the meaning of symbols or calumniate the Triskell (symbol of Holy Trinity) with the three crescents symbol, which is probably Wiccan and Satanic.

A good reason not to reject Catholicism because of Symbolism.
XI
Got to catch them all?

Sounds like what Tolkien was warning about. I won't quote the ugly ring verse ... he hated it too.

For those not seing this, it is about Pokémon.

Same as with Magic the Gathering ... any Tolkien geek can say "you don't have to walk to Mount Doom to throw that deck of cards in the fire."
XII
Ave Maria! Ave Crux spes unica!

I see that satanists are into trying to discredit the speaker's testimony about satanism.

Freemasons do the same with ex-masons' testimonies about masonry.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

Video commented on:
CROBN : Debate On Evolution - Dr. Kent Hovind at the University of West Florida (CSE)
I am here commenting on first half only. At eight different points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUDFcM_A-88
I
More oxygen in pre-flood atmosphere?

Fine with my - recent, formed in debate against Hugh Ross supporters - theory: part of water of flood came when hydrogen separated from oxygen in day two so oxygen could be or support firmament recombined with oxygen to form downpour part of flood. The oxygen in the atmosphere before that was not recombined is what we breath now. That which was recombined is what was more rich in oxygen back then.

U C, Biblical Hebrew had no word for H2 [hydrogen] - other than 4 H2O. [than for water]
II
Explanation of Neanderthal men ... in suppport of Hovind:

How come all intact Neanderthal babies are only Neanderthal/Sapiens-Sapiens hybrids? Or, Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon hybrids?

Maybe because all babies were not subject to either old age or rickets or whatever else may have caused Neanderthal features.

But seeing the flood is often carbon dated 20.000 - 50.000 years ago (though that is not true date) and Neanderthals often dated older, they are probably pre-flood.
III
Only definition x in the public heard of species: "interbreeding population" - may have been a useful update at that university, but is sure not the classic definition!

Of course it is convenient if you want to say "speciation" has been observed in flies. Some of them are as unwilling to interbreed as Danes and Chihuahuas.

I had heard a more Classic one: "individuals able to produce fertile offspring together belong to same species."

So, Coyotes & Dogs maybe are same species after all? Kind?
IV
Repetition of Calvin's slur against the Relics of the True Cross was not exactly well placed, no.

If you want to know about the Cross, check out the book

How the Holy Cross was Found
by Stephan Borgehammar
http://www.amazon.fr/dp/9122014322


We are both from Lund University. His - cautious - conclusion is that the varieties of the story diverged so soon after event the original story must have been from about the time of the event. He refrained from going further until Historians quit antimiraculous bias.

He's Catholic btw.
V
Hovind refuses to argue the Historical preservation of the Bible in that debate (at first, but as far as I checked, I stopped the video).*

Now, really arguing that would lead to:

  • agreeing Hebrews who refuses the building of Tower of Babel preserved the oral tradition correctly

  • that oral tradition can be preserved correctly if snippets learnt by heart are short enough (cf length of Genesis ch:s with length of Gospel ch:s, where two Gospellers memorised and two relied on other's memory)

  • that Sumerian accounts cannot be the one's God wanted to preserve, because they were not preserved, they were forgotten and only recently discovered.


AND this last point would lead to saying Novatians, Montanists, Donatists were not the Church God wanted to preserve, but the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church) was. And of course the original Christians cannot have refused to baptise babies, since then there wd continuously have been that refusal in the Church of God. Wh[ich] cont[inues] OT Israel.

Now, again: when was the Hebrew alphabet invented? By Moses or earlier?

If by Moses, then he was dealing with oral tradition, and since he was a man of God we must presume oral tradition is a reliable source, since he treated it as such. If Pagan traditions about creation and flood are not reliable, that is not due to orality of tradition, but to Paganism.

In that case book of Job and book of Henoch possibly [too] were written down by Moses from earlier tradition.

But if the Hebrew alphabet was invented before the flood, Henoch can have used it, and so can the men surrounding Job, or he himself.

If on the other hand the pre-flood writings were cuneiform, Moses can have edited documents not preserved by Hebrew people but in Egyptian or Babylonian archives and identified as not of their but of the Hebrew tradition.

*He might have been set on a limit or he might have been wanting to be paedagogical and keep to one subject or both.
VI
"You can't extrapolate from a process observed in the middle"

Argument offered against Hovind's moon argument.

But at same time - hope Hovind points it out in a few seconds - against extrapolations such as Big Bang from supposedly observed expansion of universe.

The evolutionists have a flexible epistemology, all right. I presume he accepts Big Bang.
VII
Universe had a beginning - Hovind adds less than billions of years old, I am fine with that. I cannot check myself right now.

But his shrinking of the sun has another parallel.

Dom Stanley Jaki observed that Hydrogen is becoming Helium ... if the Universe were eternal (abandoned in favour of Big Bang right now) - where does all the Hydrogen come from?
VIII
First of all it is a moot point whether Earth is spinning round in space or space (with aether) is spinning around earth.

Second of all, the leap second problem may be due to slowing down or to a problem with cesium clock's.

Today we don't even have a 24 h day ...?

Well, a solar day is the whole of which an hour is by definition 1/24 part.

Something is slightly wrong with cesium clocks.

Maybe the cesium clock problem leading to a day "shorter than 24 h" is the same as the one leading to leap seconds.

Perhaps the conviction of a slowing down comes from the Book of Henoch, though that is not admitted.

It seems from it, that back in his time the year was 364 days. A bit faster than now.

Video commented on:
ReasonsToBelieve1 : Did God create the earth before the sun and moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlGVqUZo83s
captainbryce1
With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."

It does not.

Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.

Your evidence for a moving earth is ...?
captainbryce1
The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
God certainly separated himself from darkness.
captainbryce1 (answer one)
Okay, well if you choose to view the passage in an abstract, bizarre way such as this, then that's your prerogative. I choose to interpret it in the way that it makes sense. There is no reason to believe that God separated day from night differently in the past than he does today. The laws of physics don't change, so the method by which we have day and night today is the same as when God separated light from darkness. And that requires a sun and planetary rotation. It's very simple!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It does not at all require earth to rotate, if it is sun that rotates each day with the heavens from east to west.

"I choose to interpret it in the way that it makes sense."

I chose to interpret it after the way the grammar makes sense.

"The laws of physics don't change"

Nevertheless they allowed for a non-solar light source three first days as much as for sun from day four on.

"so the method by which we have day and night today is the same as when God separated light from darkness."

No.
captainbryce1 (answer two)
There is no reason to insist that there was no sun in the beginning. Clearly there was. God always creates in the logical order. That means sun first, then earth. Without a sun, there can be no earth. It's simply physics! Scripture says "In the beginning, God created the heavens (which includes the Sun) and the Earth". Nothing was "created" on day 4!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing. Even day two you have a separation of waters that create a firmament between them - that being the atmosphere.
captainbryce1
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.

Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.

Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two.
wesmartin91
It doesn't say he created the "air of the atmosphere" on day 2, it says he created a space between the waters. And your idea that the water represents the hydrogen of the sun is frankly a stretch of the imagination. 1) Hydrogen is not water! 2) the passage is clearly describing the earth's water cycle, and that's even according to most theologians. So your conclusion makes no sense! Again, scripture doesn't say anything is created on day 4, and it wouldn't make sense even if it did!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Scripture says that God made or created sun and moon, and it says that in the account of day four.

Claiming that the Hebrew perfect does not equal our simple past in this passage is disingenious.

Both hydrogen molecules and water molecules are found way further out than just in atmosphere. Ask astronomers about what spectrography reveals as two most common molecules.

Hydrogen is not water per se, but the distinctive component differentiating water from just oxygen or air. 2*H2 + O2 > 2*H2O.
captainbryce1
First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The phrase 'God made two great lights' is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four."

It happened in the past compared to when Moses wrote it, not in the past before day four.

Your mistake is taking his vague description of Hebrew perfect (he does not know Hebrew, neither do I but ma studied it) to make it synonymous with pluperfect. If that were so, why did all transators translate as simple past (the default meaning of the Hebrew tense)?
captainbryce1
No, you're wrong. It happened in the past BEFORE day four because it is recounting a previous event. Just as Genesis 2:4-5 recounts what happened in Genesis 2:26-31 (in greater detail). It is not denoting a NEW act of creation. We know the great light already existed because God separated it in verse 4. And you may not know Hebrew, but the OT scholar Walter Kaiser DOES, and he says you're wrong! In any case, you're missing the point, the creation of sun and light occurred on day 1, not day 4.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Recounting a previous event" means Hebrew Perfect functions as European languages Pluperfect. It can do so, but that generally requires some kind of marker like (but not limited to) adverb meaning before.

Otherwise the default meaning is simple past. Greek aorist, Latin praeteritus perfectus. English / French simple past. [passé simple = simple past]

If there had been such a marker, early translators might have used pluperfect. They did not agree with Walter Kaiser. The seventy and St Jerome knew Hebrew too.
captainbryce1
"Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.

[He does not get difference between over all meaning and default meaning/default translation, nor what "simple past" means as opposed to "pluperfect"]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Otherwise the default meaning is simple past.

"That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past"

Sure. 7000 years and some 200 more ago by now and a little less past when Moses wrote. SIMPLE past, which is the default meaning, denotes in chronological sequence usually. The verb form can also refer to PREVIOUS action, but that is not a default meaning, and it was not the sense chosen by translators. Finally getting it or is ur grammar subdued 2 "faith"?
captainbryce1 (again, but with other set of answers)
With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."

It does not.

Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.

Your evidence for a moving earth is ...?
captainbryce1
Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I agree there was light in Heaven before day one.

That does not mean the sun was there from day one.
captainbryce1
It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day."

Does not mean it must have.

"God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness."

He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember?
captainbryce1
If God created the heavens and the earth (in the beginning) then the sun existed in the beginning. If God separated day from night on the first day, then that means the sun existed on the first day (because the Sun governs the day. There is no other interpretation that makes logical sense. There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated. Not only does that not make any sense, but the scripture doesn't say that, therefore that's not what happened.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated."

The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing?
captainbryce1
You're mixing up two different concepts and trying to combine them into one. "Light of heaven" is a metaphor! It is not literal because light represents goodness, as opposed to darkness which represents evil. It's the same when Jesus says he is the "light of the world" [John 8:12]. He wasn't a literal light, but he does show us they way (as light does). But the creation account is describing literal light in terms of sunlight, starlight, moonlight, etc. You're not reading in the proper context.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I mentioned that Jesus Christ WILL BE the light of Heaven. Apocalypse 21:[23] And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.
captainbryce1
Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, I did not get that you considered the prophecies of Revelation too as metaphors. That was actually not among your quotes.

Well, you might be in for some unpleasant surprises on the battle field near Mount Megiddo (Apocalypse 19) ...
captainbryce1
Oh, and yes I understand the symbolic, prophetic vision of John called "Revelation" to be exactly what most scholars understand it to be, a symbolic, prophetic vision of John about end times. To interpret the vision literally is ultimately foolish (and again missing the point). The dragon and the beast are not literally dragons or beasts, they are symbolic! Go back to bible study and learn a bit more, then you come back and arrogantly try to tell me what "surprises" I might be in store for.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That the dragon is the devil does not stop him from being occasionally a dragon - at least an old serpent that literally misled as a serpent in Eden.

That the beast is a human person is another matter, but does not preclude his getting literally defeated along with the false prophet at a literal battle at Harmageddon.

And it is not exclusively about end times. The souls under the altar in Heaven are already there - as are the bodies under Catholic altars on earth. First chapters were back then
captainbryce1
A serpent and a dragon are two different things! The beast is not literally a beast. So you are picking and choosing when you arbitrarily decide how "literal" you want to take it, and thus missing the point of the story. It was never meant to be "literal", but a symbolic representation of things to come (allegory). In any case, "light" represents "good", and not necessarily visible light. Getting back to Genesis, "day" and "night" means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition.

"Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation."

It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so.
captainbryce1
Here's what I think about "accepting tradition": (Mark 7:6-9) "6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter.

The Church's tradition of OT exegesis starts in the 40 days when Christ exposed the Scriptures to the Apostles. It has not disappeared since, and needs no supplement from "Jewish theologians" who already rejected Christ when writing their Midrash to make sense.
captainbryce1
"Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter." - No, actually it's exactly the same thing. TRADITION! Tradition for the sake of tradition is also known as stupidity. You don't carry on WRONG ideas because of tradition. You exercise critical thinking and common sense. And both of those things would tell you that the Earth is old! And both of those things would tell you that the sun existed "in the beginning" as the bible says. Genesis 1:1 tells us when God "created" the sun.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You exercise critical thinking and common sense."

Neither of which supports "billions of years". Neither of which necessitates another order of creation than that suggested by the text and accepted by Church Fathers.

"No, actually it's exactly the same thing. TRADITION!"

Rabbinic tradition from Hillel is the same thing as Apostolic-Episcopal Tradition from Jesus those 40 days after Resurrection?

Yea, if you are an atheist ... but not if you are a Christian!
captainbryce1
Neither of which supports "billions of years". Actually it doesn't (sic), because science proves that the universe is billions of years old. Only by refusing critical thinking and ignoring common sense could someone believe otherwise. And I never said that another order of creation was needed. The order of creation in Genesis does not conflict with science. Only your interpretation of it does (which is why it's wrong). What the Church fathers "accepted" in their ignorance is irrelevant.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"science proves that the universe is billions of years old."

You refuse to apply critical thinking on science. You refuse to pose yourself common sense questions about what science can and cannot prove.

"What the Church fathers 'accepted' in their ignorance is irrelevant. "

Not if it is all the Church Fathers, since then it reflects what Jesus taught his Twelve Disciples between Resurrection and Ascension. If you had faith, you would have asked if "science" could be doctrinal revelation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (repeated for origin of other spinoff)
"This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."

It does not.

Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.

Your evidence for a moving earth is ...?
captainbryce1
The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
God certainly separated himself from darkness.
captainbryce1
There is no reason to insist that there was no sun in the beginning. Clearly there was. God always creates in the logical order. That means sun first, then earth. Without a sun, there can be no earth. It's simply physics! Scripture says "In the beginning, God created the heavens (which includes the Sun) and the Earth". Nothing was "created" on day 4!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing.

Even day two you have a separation of waters that create a firmament between them - that being the atmosphere.
captainbryce1
"That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.

Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.

Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two.
captainbryce1
There is no evidence whatsoever that the earth was created 7200 years ago (scientific or biblical). The firmament is merely the space between the oceans (waters of earth) and the atmosphere (waters of the heavens). It is not a "creation" event, it is an act of separating waters.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Add up the genealogies, Christ was born year 5199 after Creation.

The firmament is the atmosphere, as Kent Hovind has shown because the birds fly in the firmament. Or even under the firmament in Douai Reims:

Genesis 1: [20] God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

Atmosphere under firmament, not other way round as you would want. (answered immediately and another time again below)
captainbryce1
You CAN'T add up the genealogies because they are not complete. The vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge generation gaps in the bible. More to the point, even if you can count generations all the way back to Adam (which is impossible due to the gaps), that still only takes you back to creation day 6. We don't know exactly how much time passes between creation days, only that it is certainly MUCH longer than 24 hours.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You CAN'T add up the genealogies because they are not complete."

Oh boy ... what Church fathers told you that?

"The vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge generation gaps in the bible."

They are not Church Fathers.

"We ...know ... only that it is certainly MUCH longer than 24 hours."

No Church Father agrees.
captainbryce1
It doesn't matter what "church fathers" agree to, it only matters what the evidence shows. What special authority do they have over anyone else? NONE! They are flawed human beings, like the rest of us, and they were often uneducated compared to modern scholars. In any case, it's up to individuals to interpret that evidence using the Holy Spirit as guidance. Now, go look up "Telescoping of Genealogies" on Google to find out more about genealogical gaps in scripture.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
One Church Father is a human being.

All of them are the voice of the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Genealogical gaps ar not what the Church Fathers tell us, nor what St Luke tells us, nor consistent with the symbolism of 72 ancestors representing all peoples of mankind, since c. 72 were the original nations after Babel.

"they were often uneducated compared to modern scholars"

I refuse to idolise those!
captainbryce1 (parallel answer to above)
About the firmament, you're still missing my point. Separating the waters to allow a firmament to exist is not an act of "creation". Nothing (matter, energy, space, time, or "life") is being created on creation day 2, or creation day 4. God is only allowing things to be. At best you could say that he MADE the firmament. Making and creating are two different things in Hebrew by they way. In any case, (since we've gotten off topic) the point is, nothing is made on day 4.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have failed to make that point.
and again, remember this
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.

Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.

Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two.
wesmartin91
It doesn't say he created the "air of the atmosphere" on day 2, it says he created a space between the waters. And your idea that the water represents the hydrogen of the sun is frankly a stretch of the imagination. 1) Hydrogen is not water! 2) the passage is clearly describing the earth's water cycle, and that's even according to most theologians. So your conclusion makes no sense! Again, scripture doesn't say anything is created on day 4, and it wouldn't make sense even if it did!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Scripture says that God made or created sun and moon, and it says that in the account of day four.

Claiming that the Hebrew perfect does not equal our simple past in this passage is disingenious.

Both hydrogen molecules and water molecules are found way further out than just in atmosphere. Ask astronomers about what spectrography reveals as two most common molecules.

Hydrogen is not water per se, but the distinctive component differentiating water from just oxygen or air. 2*H2 + O2 > 2*H2O.
captainbryce1
First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous."

The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water.

But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness".

If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why.

And you get a possible scenario of how "the flood gates of heaven were opened".

Sunday, September 8, 2013

... on Classic Mathematics Logarithms - Revisited

1) ... on Classic Mathematics Logarithms - Revisited, 2) ... on Napier - with Admiration

Video commented on:
numberphile : Log Tables - Numberphile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRzH4xB0GdM
Hans-Georg Lundahl
(essay type multicomment)
Before getting to Napier, I would like to state I have:

a) reformulated definition of logarithms (esp. fractional exponents)

b) used that definition to work out a table of base ten formulated in feet, inches and lines and points (12 points = 1 line, obviously, French subdivision)

c) translated that very scarce table to decimals and found it agrees with usual table fairly well

thereby proving I was right in my reformulation.

a decimal series is a fraction is a ratio

a ratio as exponent is a ratio between exponents

100 to exp 3/2 = 1000

=

100 to exp 3 = 1000 to exp 2

So, look here:

10 to 1 = 2 to 3 (roughly)

10 to 2 = 2 to 7 (roughly)

Is the log for 2 6/21 or 7/21? Between, rather.

If we multiply both sides by 2 we get 12-13-14/42 [a less binary choice]

4398046511104 (4 rounds down) = 2 to 42

1000000000000 = 10 to 12

9223372036854775808 (9 rounds up) = 2 to 63

10000000000000000000 = 10 to ...

Not 18, but 19. So 19/63 is an approximation to base ten log of 2. And so on.

0,3010299956639 ... base ten log for two according to calculator

0,3015873015873 ... 19/63

My goal was not to make useful logarithmic tables, just to check if my understanding of what logarithm means could help me make a sufficiently accurate one to check I was on the right track.

As you saw, it could.

Meaning I can also dispose of logarithms as an argument for irrational numbers. A log is not the number of times that ten is multiplied by itself, it is a ratio.

And in my book, so to speak, irrational ratios are quite ok, it is only irrational numbers that are out of the possible.

Pi and Sqrt of 2 are not there in the arithmetic of Boethius, but they are sure there in his Geometry.

And a logarithm is really a geometric size to size ratio, even if the most famous ones are so for size ratios there are whole numbers for.

So are of course sine, cosine, tangent (remember soh-cah-toa).

Look at this quote:

Objection 1. It seems that there can be something actually infinite in magnitude. For in mathematics there is no error, since "there is no lie in things abstract," as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii). But mathematics uses the infinite in magnitude; thus, the geometrician in his demonstrations says, "Let this line be infinite." Therefore it is not impossible for a thing to be infinite in magnitude. ...

Reply to Objection 1. A geometrician does not need to assume a line actually infinite, but takes some actually finite line, from which he subtracts whatever he finds necessary; which line he calls infinite.


Summa Theologica I, Q7, A3
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm#article3


Precisely likewise, what is useful for the mathematician is not the irrational ratio itself of the logarithm, except in the geometry of a slide rule, but in tables the useful things are approximations, which are rational ratios.
 
Appendix
 
If I wanted to reinvent logarithms (not to correct Napier, just to know how he did, or replace if his work is lost or so), I might use base two:
 
1 0 51 a, f
2 1 52 e, 2
3 a 53 o
4 2 54 3a, 1
5 b 55 b, d
6 a, 1 56 c, 3
7 c 57 a, g
8 3 58 i, 1
9 2a 59 p
 
10 b, 1 60 a, b, 2
11 d 61 q
12 a, 2 62 j, 1
13 e 63 2a, c
14 c, 1 64 6
15 a, b 65 b, e
16 4 66 a, d, 1
17 f 67 r
18 2a, 1 68 f, 2
19 g 69 a, h
 
20 b, 2 70 b, c, 1
21 a, c 71 s
22 d, 1 72 2a, 3
23 h 73 t
24 a, 3 74 k, 1
25 2b 75 a, 2b
26 e, 1 76 g, 2
27 3a 77 c, d
28 c, 2 78 a, e, 1
29 i 79 u
 
30 a, b, 1 80 b, 4
31 j 81 4a
32 5 82 l, 1
33 a, d 83 v
34 f, 1 84 a, c, 2
35 b, c 85 b, f
36 2a, 2 86 m, 1
37 k 87 a, i
38 g, 1 88 d, 3
39 a, e 89 w
 
40 b, 3 90 2a, b, 1
41 l 91 c, e
42 a, c, 1 92 h, 2
43 m 93 a, j
44 d, 2 94 n, 1
45 2a, b 95 b, g
46 h, 1 96 a, 5
47 n 97 x
48 a, 4 98 2c, 1
49 2c 99 2a, d
50 2b, 1 100 2b, 2
 
35 = circa = 28
 
37 = circa = 211
 
a = 8/5 / 11/7?
 
a = 56/35 / 55/35?
 
a = 224/140 ... 220/140
 
3140 = 6,26...*1066
 
2224 = 2,69...*1067
2223 = 1,34...*1067
2222 = 6,74...*1066
= circa = 3140 = 6,26...*1066
 
a = 222/140 = 111/70
 
And so on for all other logarithmic components (all being incommensurable if totally exact, which they never get anyway), then add them up, which will involve making a common denominator for two such components (like .../35 was for 8/5 and 11/7).
 
Now, whichever base you calculate your logarithms in, you will get equal distances between those for 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 and so on, and also between 10, 100, 1000 - "and so on" if you go on. And the logarithm for two added to the logarithm for ten will give you the logarithm for twenty. True for base ten logarithms, in which twenty gets 1+logarithm mantiss for 2, true for base two logarithms, in which 20 gets 1+logarithm mantiss for 10.
 
This means that once you have enough logarithms - like for all the whole number antilogarithms between 1 and 1000 - you can set out to convert any of these into any unit you chose. If you start out with base 2 logarithms, in order to get an order where 10=logarithmic one, all you need to do is give the "one" of above table a value like 30.1 millimetres so that the value of ten becomes somthing close to a decimetre. If you chose to make two the unit and each unit an inch you will get a very similar though slightly off and incompatible scale.
 
And the fact that logarithms are the same relation whichever base you chose, illustrates that as they are irrational, they are also no numbers. Like lengths the "unit" is arbitrary rather than a real unit. Meaning, their place is not in arithmetic but in geometry. It is only their application (tables or slide rules) which is useful in arithmetic - or for calculating without overusing your knowledge of arithmetic. Which, as I have said elsewhere, is not the same as understanding arithmetic correctly in a philosophical way./HGL

Saturday, September 7, 2013

... on Chromosome Numbers Problem for Evolutionism, and on Solving Distant Starlight Problem for Creationism by Geocentrism

Video commented on:
Thraxfan54 : Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer on intelligent design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VcuUgGMjno
I (each Roman numeral I am either only or first commenter)
Eugenie Scott: it is not the basic idea of Intelligent Design that things cannot be explained by natural causes. It is the idea that if you look at what natural causes can explain you find things they cannot explain.

It is not the whole idea of science to explain everything by natural cause whether natural cause is true or not, but to study natural causes and explain what can be explained by them. Doctors sometimes must admit miracles of healing or life sustained without food.
avilaysane1a
How come there are no miracles for amputees?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Luke 22: [49] And they that were about him, seeing what would follow, said to him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? [50] And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. [51] But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him.
II
The jerk Abram:

Assuming evolution cannot be the explanation and concluding it cannot be the explanation for certain things are two different things. And the second is not even assuming evolution does not exist.

Even if that would be a correct conclusion too.

Why are people like that admitted to journalism school? Why are they hired at television companies?

Possibly because some people prefer jerks to intelligent debate.
III
Either the designer is God, or someone with the same skill set. [Eugenie Scott]

Correct.

Telling who is really owning that skill set - Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Allah, a non-Trinitarian version of ha-Shem, an eleven times male and female version of ha-Shem, Plato's God, Achenaton's God ... that would be identifying the designer. Religion.

Attributing certain features of biologic reality to that skill set no more identifies which God than attributing circuits to a computer programmer says which one. Sci.
IV
The jerk Abram again:

"all the major scientific organisations do is look at the evidence"

a) Stephen Meyer wanted YOU to do so in place of asking "major scientific organisations" to do so for you.

b) They do look at evidence, but they also refuse to look at evidence not going the direction of their paradigms.
3theghost
So very true. People don't think for themselves anymore
mcmanustony
b) They do look at evidence, but they also refuse to look at evidence not going the direction of their paradigms.

can you give an example of this
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Intelligent design. Any evidence.

Most evolutionists also refuse to comment on Mammalian Chromosome numbers.

One in 1999 admitted there was a mystery. PZM claimed to have solved it.

[Note: I said here he claimed to have solved the problem, not that he had ignored it completely.]

I refuted his solution and now comments from when I started debating under his post are no longer visible.

ppt d o t li/7m

[ppt.li url burner dysfunctions, so I give full url here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/]
mcmanustony
a google academic search on mammalian chromosome evolution produces 650,000 hits.

can you name a biologist (the term "evolutionist" is as idiotic as describing a physicist as a "gravitationalist") who refuses to comment- that is a different thing than refusing to comment to you btw.

you are simply wrong. many scientists in multiple disciplines have devoted much time to refuting ID. they have ignored nothing. there is no evidence to ignore.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Click the first ten hits and see how many of these (I mean first ten are supposed to be best fits) adress the following:

How do Chromosome numbers increase in Mammals?

Not chromosome content, not decrease of numbers and not in amphibians or plants. But their number, increase of it and in precisely mammals.

Then come back. Name one (except the one from 1999 and PZM) who agrees to comment. I won't do it for you.
mcmanustony
there is a very informative page on PZs site on precisely the question you claim he ducks.

the first link is to several thousand research articles. the third is to "Evolution of number and morphology of mammalian chromosomes"

the notion that the scientific community is running scared from your searing evolution shattering questions is laughable.

why don't you submit an article on your "findings" to Nature and if it has any merit at all you'll get some nice comments from qualified reviewers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, I did precisely submit an article [click link] linking to three of my articles (on my blog, all four) and also linking to precisely the "very informative" article on PZM's site, [click link] where there used to be comments into late years like 2011 but are now no comments past 2009. [Number of comments are now equal to up to last of 2009, #204. Seems he deleted the rest.]

Several thousand research articles is not an article - its just another google search. As for : "Evolution of number and morphology of mammalian chromosomes" - author? does it adress mechanism or extrapolate from interspecial patterns?
mcmanustony
and where did you submit this article? what was the response?
Hans-Georg Lundahl I already gave you a short link to the article:

ppt

d o t

li/7m
*

[http://ppt.li/7m*]

sent to nature reviews genetics, not published, no response even of refusal

[* ppt.li url burner dysfunctions, so I give full url here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/]
avilaysane1a
They had an article that supposedly debunked the chromosome 2 fusion, but after further review, it only showed that they quotemined other research and did not do their own research showing that fusion does not happen. There are lab works that showed fusion occurred but they left those research out. That's selection bias. This is the core of the ID/Creationism movement; Misinformation, no research and no integrity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, chromosome fusion is not about increase of chromosome numbers, but about decrease. Like mice on Mallorca (I think) which have only 22 chromosomes and descend from an animal [also a mouse] with 40.

Fission is a harder fish to fry. Unless at least one of the newly separated chromosomes is strictly telocentric.

Mammalian chromosomes are most typically acrocentric. Note that some call "telocentric" "extreme acrocentric", but that confuses the issue.
Quoting #201, by PH Tran, from PZM's page:
... still believe we have no evidence of this process actually happening. Suppose this theory were in fact true and the main mechanism for increasing chromosome numbers. With thousands and thousands of mammal species living today, we’d then expect to find “same” species among mammals with different number of chromosomes. Well, we found some. Problem is, if these are a result of chromosome change, it is known to be fusion, not fission or polyploidy. So honestly, if you ask me, this is a theory that is nice in theory only, but without proof of it to have happened with evolution of mammal species. ...
My own comments ...
... which are no longer there, indicate there are major technical difficulties with fission (supposing it to result in two acrocentric or mesocentric chromosomes rather than telocentric at least for one of them) and polyploidy (supposingt it to happen in mammals : one of my links or quotes from links was to a tetraploid boy who died within a year and only survived that long due to modern medicine, since he was so dreadfully sick, and I also observed polyploidy normally results in spontaneous abortion (a feature of mammals only) and one of the other commenters had asked me why I had asked doctors rather than evolutionists about the thing. Well, the evolutionists are studying presumed chromosome number changes between species presumed to have a common ancestor though not sharing a common chromosome number or chromosome structure. Doctors of medicine look at what really happens if a human offspring has other chromosome structure and especially chromosome number than mother. Note that trisomy only survives if chromosomes are small enough. Trisomy 1 and trisomy 3 are either not present in all the cells (mosaical trisomy), or aborts spontaneously (like nearly every case of polyploidy). One asked what the survival value of keeping chromosome numbers constant would be, and I answered not suffering spontaneous abortion.
avilaysane1a
The problem with ID/Creationism, is that they don't have any research or evidence that can be falsified by other researchers. Stephen C Meyer submitted an article of such nature and was rejected because of this lack of research and evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Maybe it was rejected because the evidence he presented needed no original research but was strictly based on a combination of research already done and better logic about it.
KiPCommunity
There are different eyes not because an eye is evolving for a better survival. There are different eyes, like slit eyes, because there are different frequencies or wavelengths and different animals use different methods of processing information, because of their different receptor builds. Evolutionists are simply ignorant to the other Sciences and everyone tolerates them going around being ignorant. If people researched real physics, wave lengths and electromagnetism, they would understand.
mcmanustony
hard to imagine how you could pack more absolute drivel into a short comment. the pattern of opsin genes in primates is a beautiful illustration of evolution. not a single shred of evidence contradicts the evolutionary explanation of this pattern.
KiPCommunity
What's this "Evidence" that proves opsin genes evolved from anything?
mcmanustony
all new world primates are tri-chromatic there being a third opsin gene copied from one of the other two. how do we know it's copied? because there's a redundant truncated sequence next to the third gene which exactly matches the sequence next to the second along with which it got copied- the exact same mutation on the 3rd gene n in ALL those different species. all old world primates are di chromatic with one exception the howler monkey- EV would predict a different mutation- exactly as found.
KiPCommunity
What you are explaining is whatever codes the opsin gene, coded for a new one. That opsin gene didn't become anything other than what it was told to be, by DNA coding.

So again I say you are not forthcoming with evidence to support evolution. You are simply relaying how DNA tells a cell how to behave. We already know this.
me in parallel with last:
excuse me but ... a) new world primates are trichromatic and old world primates are dichromatic except the howler monkey ...? b) I though man was to be included in old world primates and that man is trichromatic!
mcmanustony
a typo. switch old for new. point being DNA analysis shows gene duplication with an identical mutation across multiple species. and no such duplication where bio-geography would not predict. the trichromacy of the howler is due to a different point mutation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
got it
back up the thread:
mcmanustony
hard to imagine how you could pack more absolute drivel into a short comment. the pattern of opsin genes in primates is a beautiful illustration of evolution. not a single shred of evidence contradicts the evolutionary explanation of this pattern.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The pattern of?

I got at that academic google search, and of the first ten (first page) the three closest about Mammalian Chromosome Evolution (there were hits for Chronomosome Evolution Non-Mammalian, there were hits for mice - where evolution is decrease of Chromosome numbers ...) three were exactly about extrapolating Chromosome Evolution changes from patterns of genetic similarities.

Not about observing chromosome changes in generations they happen in, in real life.
mcmanustony
yes "The pattern of....." the pattern of opsin genes across all primates is explained beautifully by common ancestry. what's your point?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The point is that the pattern of genes on chromosomes can have another common origin - like a common Creator - as origin, and thus does not prove evolution. But the erudition was precisely about this pattern which neither proves mammalian chromsome evolution nor even proves it possible, and you have not attended to discussions of the mechanism for chromosome number increase - except the lopsided one by PZM, which I have refuted.
PavelProstoy
What a gang show of a program!

To Abrams' parents:

Can you please get hold of the man? He has no self control. Please tell your son that it's very rude to speak to people like that.

To CBS:

Is this a Jerry Springer show? Why would you allow to anchor a TV program to a guy who needs sensitivity training. What's next -beating somebody over their head with a shoe?
Video Commented on:
GeneralHanSolo : Hugh Ross vs Danny Faulkner - How Old Is The Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaiAomEVpKY
Hans-Georg Lundahl
225 minutes:35 seconds - anything is model dependent, even if one does not even notice one is using a model, simpler model one has accounting for all the data, better chance one has of being right, but also "statistics tell us by how much we can be wrong" ... but that supposes the model was all right!

Now Geocentrism with angelic movers is a simpler model than totality of modern cosmology. It accounts for data, maybe all, as well and as not specifically predicting as a hand accounts for movement of a pen.

It leaves room for a very great error, way beyond statistic error margin assessments, as to stellar distances.

It leaves room for sufficient error to get "distant light problem" for young universe creationism out of the way.

Angelic either external movers or souls of stars are supported by Scripture Baruch 3:34-35 as well as Job 38:7 (which was of course used by JRRT when he wrote Akallabêth, but also accords with Anar/Isil model of solar and lunar movement, which I generalise).
gregrutz
The men who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat.

Isaiah 40 : 22-24

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”

I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2 Dimensional. FLAT.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (continued below)
You can also draw a circle on a globe. Geographers draw lots of them on the globe representing the earth.

Polar circles (N & S), Equator and all their Parallels.

Paris, Greenwich, and all other Meridians.

All of these are circles and on a globe. ...
gregrutz
''You can also draw a circle on a globe'' So what?

''He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth''

Everyone back then thought the earth was flat including the men who wrote the bible.

When you see a globe from across the room, does it look like a sphere or a circle? ID-iot.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It looks like a sphere with lots of circles on it.

The Hebrew word seems to be translatable as globe too.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: *he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Douay Rheims version).

Different languages have different frontiers between word meanings. Hebrew has a word meaning both circle and globe. In English I suppose it would be "the round".
Hans-Georg Lundahl (continued from above)
Now, I look at what you answered.

I give a model for how the universe works. I say it is supported by the Bible. I say it helps explain things where alternative explanations (such as only gravitation and mass and inertia moving heavenly bodies, such as parallax and such as distant star light paradox issuing from these indirectly) contradict the Biblical Chronology.

Your answer does not adress my solution, only my motive for it. Is that what you call arguing? Or any other fault w. my solution?
gregrutz
You, like all creatards, give a model that you made up to support your bible stories. You rambeled on and showed no evidence.

Sorry that scientists keep discovering things that prove the bible wrong.

Astronomy proves the bible is wrong.

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, I believe the Earth is still in the middle of the universe and is never moved.

My whole point is I give a model showing how modern astronomy could very well be wrong. My point is astronomy has NEITHER proven heliocentrism NOR distant starlight problem for a young universe.
gregrutz
The earth is not even the center of the solar system dummy. And there is no center of the universe. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.  Read a science book.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did read a science book.

"The earth is not even the center of the solar system dummy. And there is no center of the universe."

It alleged something like that and provided no proof I could accept as proof.

"The universe is 13.7 billion years old."

Provided no proof for that either.

"The science book says it" is not what I call proof, except in cases where the scientists writing it have direct observation for their proof. I see a difference between that and dubious conclusion.
gregrutz
Did the bible show you proof there was a global flood or the people could rise from the dead? ID-iot.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The fact that it has consistently been taken as fact by a community claiming to inherit the memory of those facts and only partly by the book does so.

And as the Global flood was witnessed not just by Israelites (now represented by the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ) or their ancestors as opposed to anyone else's, there are plenty of non-Biblical witnesses of the flood, more or less garbled from Pagan cults or morals, but not too much to be same event.
gregrutz (in parallel to above)
What ever you do, don't look for the proof, stay stupid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is that supposed to be advice to me?

If I am Geocentric I am stupid?

Don't be stupid, be a smarty come and join the heliocentric ...

Is that supposed to be a bottom line?
gregrutz
If you think the earth is 6000 years old because of your religion you ARE stupid.

If you think there was a global flood, you are stupid

because ''scientists writing it have direct observation for their proof''
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think the earth is 7200 years because of my religion. Add 12 or 13.

Scientists have no direct observation of 4 billion years for their proof, they have direct observations of some other things, then make that a proof for 4 point 5 billion years by a roundabout reasoning which is part of their religion, not of mine, and not of their direct observations either.

If you think there was not a global flood, you take basically mankind (with few modern exceptions like you) to be stupid.
gregrutz
''Scientists have no direct observation of 4 billion years for their proof''

YES THEY DO, GEOLOGY AND RADIOMETRIC DATING.

Read a science book.

IF you think there was a global flood you are brainwashed AND stupid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Has it ever occurred to you that neither geology nor radiometric dating are direct observations of 4.5 billion years?

Geological formation and radioactive substances occur. Those are directly observed.

The 4.5 billion years are not. They are concluded.

The Global Flood explains Geological Formations quite as well as 4.5 billion years.

I would not use the phrase brain washed too much if I were you, it's casting stones in a glass house.
gregrutz
If you think the earth is 6000 years old ... etc. as above.
uvafan420
The ancient texts gives no age or date stupid. If you can find one, let me know what verse you find it in. Now go ask scientists about this. It has been proven the moon gets about 1.5" further from the earth per year. So, 4 billions years ago, where would the moon be? LOL... I laugh when they squirm to answer that. And laugh at the ludicrous answer they come up with.
gregrutz
''It has been proven the moon gets about 1.5" further from the earth per year'' And that changes, dummy, so your math is wrong.
uvafan420
LOL Even scientists don't even use that excuse as they know better. Dummy.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (to uvafan)
The ancient texts do give ages like Adam being 230 years old when Set was born and living thereafter 700 years (using the LXX text).
uvafan420
They give ages for the family of Adam to Christ. It does not give dates for the universes creation. Also, explain II Pet 3:5-7 as this had nothing to do with the flood spoken of in Gen as this ushered in a New heaven age as well. Noahs flood was earthly. Also, where did the water come from in Gen 1:2?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
answered first by gregrutz, then uvafan
I would say not only the Flood changed on earth, but also Heavens changed.

Hovind Theory is probably mistaken about water canopy, but if not that would be one change in Heaven, we no longer find it.

Either way, we probably get much more cosmic radiation now than before the Flood.

In Book of Henoch we find an account stating basically the pre-Flood year was 364 days exactly.

It also suggests heavenly bodies might have been closer, which would agree with God stretching out heaven as a tent.

The water in Genesis 1:2 was probably created along with Earth, so dry land did not exist until day three.

I have already stated as my theory the oxygen in the atmosphere was created on day 2 from water, leaving hydrogen above (which might be "the water above the firmament") of which some was used for making sun and stars on day 4 and some went back to earth when recombining with oxygen to form water at the Flood.

If you mean by not giving dates for creation of universe that millions of years (or their equivalent in time) may have elapsed before day one on earth, then Christ rules that out by saying "From the beginning of Creation God created them Man and Woman." A word worth citing these days due to idiotic or evil changes of matrimonial legislation. And if millions of years had already elapsed before then, we would have had "from the beginning of mankind", but not "of creation" (in general).

[Marc 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. (Douay Rheims) ]
gregrutz
(first answer to above)
You are making shit up, stop it. The sun is not made from left over Hydrogen and there was no global flood.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not say it was "left over". I said it was separated from oxygen for among other reasons that purpose. When oxygen formed the firmament between water and water.

As for making shit up, what are the scientists doing? They have not observed everything they say, they are making up what they think is the missing clues, and so am I.

As for "no global flood" you are contradicted pretty much by the fossile record. Much of it cannot have been formed in conditions of slow sedimentation.
gregrutz (answering The ancient texts ...)
Then they are WRONG, dummy, people don't live that long.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not any more, no.

If they never did, how did anyone come to believe there was a time they did?

If they never did, how come certain peoples (nearly all except Hebrews) got stories about immortals that are otherwise human?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (to gregrutz)
Whether it changes or not, there must have been a time if this is so when closeness of moon would have made life on earth impossible.

But this would not follow if moon was up in the heavens already when created on day four.
gregrutz
''I say it is supported by the Bible'' Oh wow. Now all you need is some real evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
All I was doing in previous comment is point out that the things we see are compatible with the background they are supposed to have according to the Bible.

If you say it is not, for you to prove that. Preferrably not by referring to geology as "direct observation" of 4.5 billion years, but by some real reasoning.
gregrutz
The flood story is not ''campatible' with 'real reasoning', common logic, science or geology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Real reasoning is incompatible with things that contradict themselves. Same as common logic.

As for science or geology (which is one of them), it is a thing people do with observations and adding reasoning to them and those reasonings preferrably following logic.

Now, I happen to think the logic of Creationist scientists is better and the logic of Flood Geologists is better than that of Uniformitarians.
gregrutz
(first answer to "real reasoning")
Geologists knew the earth was at least 100 million years old when nuclear scientists told them it was more like 4500 million. Science moves on, what is the big deal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Geologist knew earth was at least 100 million years old" does not mean "geologists observed earth during 100 million years of age." Dito for nuclear scientists.
gregrutz
wow, you are sooo smart.

Stay in school, read a science book.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why are science books your Bible?

Do you think I did not look up how they reasoned when I read the science books I criticise conclusions of?
gregrutz
1. They are not 2000 years out of date.

2. They self correct.

3. They are full of knowledge not religious bullshit.

4. You did not look up ''how they reasoned'', I don't think you even understand how logic works.

You did not read the science books or you would not be so stupid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) They are not 2000 years, but they may very well be out of date for all that.

2) Self correction limited to within the scope of scientific prevalent paradigm.

3) That is your description.

4) I did, you are the one who did not look up how they reasoned, or you would repeat their reasons from observation onto conclusion instead of vaunting them like some kind of Delphic oracle.
gregrutz
I have a Bachelor of Science degree, creatard. I know how they ''reason form obsevation''

Ovservation one, million years old dinosaur fossils with flight feathers.

Observation two, distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order with different fossils in different layers. Floods don't do that.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Observation one: fossils with feathers classified as dinosaurs (which may be wrong) and dated million years old (which may be wrong too).

Observation two: I have seen no proof for the Geologic column so far. We see no trilobite fossils under dinosaur fossils in most places where either are found, and so on.
gregrutz
Define the Geologic Column.

Define Uniformitarianism.

Wrong.

Wrong again.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Geologic column - virtual column of layers with different faunas ontop of each other.

Uniformitarianism - belief processes in the past were basically the same as now.

The geologic column remains virtual. I have gone through the fundstätten or lagerstätten on wikipedia, you do not find one place where jurassic fossiles are found on top of precambrian ones. Except perhaps Grand Canyon or sth.

You can of course find rock classified as precambrian under fossiles classified as jurassic.
uvafan420
second answer to above
The flood of Genesis mentions nothing about a new age for the heavens regarding the flood of Noah. Also God says in Isaiah, He did not create the world tohu (void), He formed it to be inhabited. Thus, Gen 1:1-2 is a state of having become void. As the word "was" as used in Gen 1:2, of the english bible is hayah meaning "come to pass" or "became".

Also, if there was not an earlier age, there would have been no age for the downfall of Lucifer as explained in Isaiah 14.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The flood of Genesis mentions nothing about a new age for the heavens regarding the flood of Noah."

Neither excludes. As said, the heavens as described in book of Henoch seem to be other than those we observe - slightly.

Passage in Isaiah about not creating the world tohu would refer to end result of six days. (Where is it btw?)

If hayah could be translated "was" it would rather be like Latin fuit than like Latin facta est. Isaiah 14 describes sth which took no "age" only some time.
gregrutz
Genesis 6:17

For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

That never happened. There is no evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is plenty of historical evidence that something like that happened.

Babylonian, Greek, Norse, Celtic, Amerindian and other myths all take such an event into account, someway or other. I think Kent Hovind once said he had a collection of 250 such stories.

Unless you prefer to believe it from the Bible, believe it at least from the other sources taken together with it.

If you do'nt believe God, believe at least men.
gregrutz
Yes, that is all the evidence you have ... stories. You only proved people live near water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, stories tend to be evidence, unless there is evidence they were told just for fun in the first place or evidence they have been tampered with.

There is evidence Lord of the Rings was for fun. There is evidence certain parts of flood story - what caused it, what caused the election of one man, how earth was repeopled afterwards - have been tampered with. By either Hebrews or Pagans.

No evidence in the stories they were all just for fun or tampered with by exaggeration of water level.
gregrutz
starting new line
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Go look.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In the kind of books you use instead of a Bible?

I am not believing them. Or at least not the conclusion parts. Or certain ones of them.
gregrutz
I don't use any book in place of the bible. The bible is a religious book and I don't do religion.

''I am not believing them'' You study science you don't believe in it.

You can't seperater reality from your bibble book.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You seem unable to separate reality from your science books, if you cannot see what I mean when you say you are not using them as your Bible and when you say you are studying and not believing.

If you were really not believing them, you would not be angry for me disagreeing with them.
gregrutz
You are disagreeing with them becasue it does not match your bible stories. You have no evidence. Face reality, the bible is wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am positively disagreeing with them because they do not match historic evidence through the Bible.

I would not be possibly agreeing they had scientific evidence if I were stupid enough to disbelieve the Bible. The hole in their reasoning remains a hole in their reasoning.
gregrutz
The bible is wrong, that is my point.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are welcome to try to point out a similar hole in our reasoning for accepting the Bible's words ... key word try, I am not promising you any success.
gregrutz
Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it is wrong.

Isaiah 40 : 22-24

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”

I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2 Dimensional. FLAT.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The word can also be translated globe. NON-FLAT.

I think it was you who brought this up some weeks ago, have you already forgotten my refutation?
gregrutz
Everyone thought the earth was flat including the men who wrote the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Everyone is a big word. Can you prove it?

Enumerating such that clearly did proves nothing about those who refused to take sides.

And there were sides. Babylonians thought world flat, Phoenicians thought it round. Hebrew sacred writers did not clearly take sides.
gregrutz
What will change you mind?

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place".

EVERYONE THOUGHT THE EARTH WAS FLAT including the men who wrote the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is a bit funny that you cite texts for Geocentrism and then present as conclusion that they thought "the earth was flat".

Or a bit sad.

Do you usually confound geocentrism with flat earth in other contexts too?
Birdie Nam
You are simply wrong about this, for several reasons:

- The idea that everyone thought that the earth was flat is a invention from the 1800s. The old greeks knew it, universities in the middle ages taught it, and if you think about it, it is very simple to see the earth's curve from a tall mountain.

- There is nothing in the references above that indicates that one should understand these as scientific observations. For some funny reason you are demanding scientific understanding of POEMS!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are also wrong insofar as you want a purely non-scientific understanding of poems when it comes to places that do not indeed teach flat earth, but geocentrism.

That Greeks and Middle Age people knew the earth was round does not prove this was so for the Bible authors.

However Middle Age Christians usually saw no problem reconciling the Bible texts with a round earth.

In those times, Babylonians and Egyptians very arguably had flat earth cosmologies, but Phoenicians not.

Hebrews between.
gregrutz (to Birdie Nam)
Genesis 6:17

For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

NICE POEM.
Answered
by me and by Birdie Nam
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Apart from being a nice poem it is also fact.

Did you somehow learn poetry is generally and necessarily non-factual?

Besides, no, I know enough of Hebrew poetry (psalms, three word rule per half line, parallelism between half lines ...) to know that this is not a poem in the original.
Birdie Nam
I wonder why you think that Psalms should be read as a scientific description? It seems that you don't know that the Bible is actually 66 different books as you don't care to distinguish between the type of texts you have come across. Of course, different books would have to be read differently!

Wouldn't you agree that the verses you quoted from first are poems? (At least "Psalms" should be pretty obvious to everyone!)

Genesis might be of a somewhat different genre, though.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I wonder why you think that Psalms should be read as a scientific description?"

Ecclesiastes (quoted in Galileo trial context) is however meant as a series of scientific descriptions.

Besides, who says the poetic status of psalms includes scientific inaccuracy at any point?
Birdie Nam
II

Ecclesiastes meant as a series of scientific descriptions - by whom?

What if you read Ecclesiastes yourself? There is simply no way you can say these passages are meant "scientific"! Have you ever read a scientific paper which says that people are "striving after wind"?

Galileo said in this trial that the worst mistake one can make when interpreting the Bible, is failing to establish the point of view. Have you ever given that a thought?

[I am not sure I can retrieve part I of his response now]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Galileo failed to establish the point of view of words "sun stand still" as words of a man performing a miracle.

[I also answered his remark about "striving after wind" by saying that modern psychologists get dryer but not any more literal in their descriptions of such states of mind. That not being one of the things literal language is really good for. And that Ecclesiastes is at least as scientific in the description as they - I should rather have said more scientific.]
gregrutz
Gelileo proved the earth was not the center of everything like the Catholic Church was preaching as per the Bible when he discovered the moons of Jupiter. They put him under house arrest so they could have time to 'interpret Genesis' differently. The Catholics now accept evolution 'with God's design''. [God made the laws of nature that control nature and God made us sort of]

[Other parenthesis his, not mine.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
When Galileo discovered the Moons of Jupiter, he proved that an immobile body is not the only body around which another body may orbit.

This was against Ptolemy but equally in favour of Copernicus and of Tycho Brahe.

Galileo was Copernican. St Robert Bellarmine (one of his judges in the first process) was Tychonian.

Galileo was put in a house arrest so as not to lapse publically into the two theses that were condemned at the second process of 1633.

You can say that some Catholics now accept etc. but not that THE Catholics, as in all of us, do so.

There are Roman Catholic Creationists. Kolbe Institute. Robert Sungenis. Myself. And some more.
gregrutz
(second answer to "real reasoning")
There is no such thing as a ''flood geologists'' , just there are no 'creation scientiststs''. I don't work that way dummy.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tas Walker was educated as a uniformitarian geologist and is now a Flood Geologist.

He is researching on whether the virtual geological column supposed to give us millions of years can be found and in how many parts, if so, in the local, real geological columns.

A fairly scientific approach if you ask me, but I have no Masters of Science ...
gregrutz
So what if Tas stopped doing science and switched to bible study? That is not a ''scientific approach''.

The Geologic TIME SCALE is only found in the text books as you creatards like to point out.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Exactly, the Geologic time scale is found only in text books, and not in local geological columns such as Tasman Walker is now scientifically looking at one by one.

Which is a scientific approach.

I took the scientific approach to study wiki on where fossiles from different geological eras are found.

The finds of trilobites are not from where they find dinos further up and sabre toothed tigers further up still.

Which you would expect, at least once in a while, if all that were true.
gregrutz
Everywhere on earth has a ''local geological column' under your feet.

''The finds of trilobites are not from where they find dinos ''

NO SHIT, really. Maybe because trilobites lived in salt water and dinos live on land, creatard.

OR maybe because ''Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago.''
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure there is a geological column everywhere.

But hardly a column spanning all eras with complete succession of fossiles.

If all trilobites died 250 million years ago, would not land have had time to form somewhere so one could find on top of them dinos from 100 million years ago?

In fact the places you find divers fossiles are from typically one "era" only or from two or three neighbouring "timescales" - not two hugely divers kind of finds on top of each other.

(gregrutz answered twice, see a and b)
gregrutz (a)
How do you know what they find, you are not a Paleontologist?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neither are you obviously.

I find it through wikipedia.

List_of_fossil_sites

Go to them one by one, none of them covers many very different eras. As far as fossile finds go, that is.
gregrutz (b)
If all trilobites died 250 million years ago, would not land have had time to form somewhere so one could find on top of them dinos from 100 million years ago?

YES GO TO THE GRAND CANYON AREA.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yea, one single location on earth.

All other locations - no such thing as trilos under dinos or dinos over trilos, as far as I know.

GC can have formed with a very rapid stream of water and débris which would have mixed things living in water with those living on land.

Next try?
gregrutz
(third answer to "real reasoning")
When did bible packers start using logic? LOL

Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you recall a few weeks ago, I answered this is not wrong.

In case of flat earth it is wrong, but not attested by the Bible.

In case of stable earth and sun moving around it daily, it is attested by the Bible (most clearly in Joshua), but not proven wrong so far.

We went through that three weeks ago, why should I have changed my mind on either since then?
gregrutz (new start, again)
1. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

2. The solar system is 4.5 billion years old.

3. There was no global flood.

4. Dinosaurs lived and changed for 160 million years.

Yes, the bible is wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1-4 : assertions on your part.

Your summing up, a conclusion of assertions, but not of undisputed facts.
gregrutz
No, go look up the age of the universe [on a non bible site] and tell me what it says.

It is a fact that dinosaurs lived and changed for 160 million years.

It is a fact that you can't get 2 of every kind of animal on a boat.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is a fact that you want me to distrust the assertions of the Bible and to trust the assertions of "modern science".

Creationists have not just Theologically argued you must be wrong for contradicting God's word, but also argued you can be wrong and where you go wrong in the Theory of Knowledge.