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
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.
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.
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.
Either the designer is God, or someone with the same skill set. [Eugenie Scott]


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.
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.
So very true. People don't think for themselves anymore
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

[ url burner dysfunctions, so I give full url here:]
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.
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?
and where did you submit this article? what was the response?
Hans-Georg Lundahl I already gave you a short link to the article:


d o t



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

[* url burner dysfunctions, so I give full url here:]
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.
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.
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.
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.
What's this "Evidence" that proves opsin genes evolved from anything?
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.


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?
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).
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. ...
''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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
''Scientists have no direct observation of 4 billion years for their proof''


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.
If you think the earth is 6000 years old ... etc. as above.
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.
''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.
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).
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) ]
(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.
''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.
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.
(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.
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?
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.
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.
Define the Geologic Column.

Define Uniformitarianism.


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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.

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

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.]
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.
(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 ...
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.
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.


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?

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?
(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.
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.

No comments: