Thursday, October 31, 2013

... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:
tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
Akita538 (to a previous one of notstayinsdowns)
Your claim that things *must* have always been the same because you didn't see them change is refuted by all the available evidence, logic and common sense - there used to be dinosaurs but no birds or mammals. Now there are birds and mammals but no dinosaurs.

Calling evolution "religion" is simply untruthful. You either reject science and evidence or you don't. It seems that you do.
That's weird, because I heard that birds are dinosaurs. That is why it a belief system because when one starts putting all the "answers" together it doesn't make sense.

And then there is the Cambrian Explosion.
Your post makes no sense. Does that make it a ''belief system?

The Cambrian Explosion is a crushing humiliation for 'creationism'!
The Cambrian Explosion proves a world wide flood because everything was buried in one huge event.

They really got you good with their brainwashing if you can't see that.
So you should have no problem pointing us towards the fossils of some Pre Cambrian people, donkeys, camels etc...the ones that lived and died before the flood.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with your assumption is the you are assuming "Cambrian layers" are earlier than "Triassic layers".

For Grand Canyon this may be so (earlier by a few days or even minutes during Flood, we would say), but for other parts of earth you do not find fossil bearing layers of both epochs on top of each other in that or any other order.
Answered twice:
  • DeathsHood (i)
  • Coolguy Canuck (ij)
DeathsHood (i)
There is no evidence anywhere on the planet positively indicative of a global flood.

Anything and everything that has been brought forth in support of Noah's Flood has been systematically dismantled, debunked, disproved and utterly destroyed by actual scientists working from an objective standpoint.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is no evidence anywhere except Grand Canyon for the Geological Column. And in Grand Canyon it could be produced by the Flood.

The people you call "actual scientists" are actually people who adher to a Geological Column that I am debunking.

There are plenty of evidence all over the world for rapid burial under high layers of mud (that become sediment).
Answered twice:
  • DeathsHood α
  • Akita538 β
HAH! Debunking the Geologic Column! Good one...

Coming from a guy who believes a flood could have carved a mile-deep canyon, with turns at up to and exceeding 180 degrees, through solid rock, in 'a couple days'.

Good one.

Go learn some basic geology and stop adhering to Hovind Theory, little one.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Basic geological fact:

Apart from Grand Canyon fossil carrying layers are not different eras in different levels.

Try getting straight WHERE the paleontologists get their Cambrian and their Triassic fossils.

It is on the wikipedia.

And it is not one place where you find Triassic 25 ft and Cambrian 50 ft under ground level (except, possibly, Grand Canyon).
Answered twice:
  • Teraku2 I
  • DeathsHood II
Teraku2 I
That's not a basic geological fact, that's a lie you just made up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not make it up, I looked it up.

On wikipedia.

en . wikipedia . org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
Answered twice:
  • Marco Hooghuis (1)
  • Teraku2 (2)
Marco Hooghuis (1)
Argument from ignorance.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Argument from knowledge. Only Grand Canyon (in that list or not?) and a place in Morocco span more than one or two closely neighbouring geological eras.
Marco Hooghuis
You are assuming that because those two areas are like that the flood must have happened. That is an argument from ignorance.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl α
  • DeathsHood β
Hans-Georg Lundahl α
I am rather saying that on all areas except the two (GC plus a place in Morocco ranging from Cambrian to Permian) there is not very much temporal stratification as to fossil finds.

And I am basing that on the wiki list of such sites.
DeathsHood β
He's also ignoring everything about Hydro-logic sorting dismantling a global-flood hypothesis.

But... Creationists and reality never get along.
Marco Hooghuis
And that even though the bible says the flood was global, somehow at least every Egyptian at the time missed it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Egyptian culture starts after flood and develops some kind of flood denial (Atlantis story can be flood minimalisation). And in case you say Egyptian starts before date of flood, no, either is a bit off the date (say if you date flood by protestant Bibles).
Marco Hooghuis
Ancient Egypt started around 3000 BC, the flood was apparently after that (according to answersingenesis it was 2348 BC). Atlantis merely proves that a city can be wiped out, not that it was done by a god. A force of nature is able to do the same.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
According to the Roman Martyrologium for December 25 it was "a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo" (2957 after Flood) that Christ was born.

Say Ancient Egypt's start is two hundred years after rather than hundred years before that and there you have it.

Atlantis and the Hindoo flood story are both untypical by not being global. Egyptians and Hindoos also share longer chronologies than the Hebrew ones.

That is a particular cultural denial - like Darwinism.
Marco Hooghuis
3000 BC comes before 2957 BC...

Darwinism is denial? How?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You said Egypt starts about 3000 BC

If Egypt had started 3057 BC that would have been 100 years preflood.

If Egypt started 2757 BC that would be 200 years post-flood.

3057 BC and 2757 BC are BOTH around 3000 BC.

Darwinism is denial of Creation and Flood, despite all stories we have of both. Egyptians and Hindoos were in partial Flood denial.
john clewes
You fucking stupid imbecile. If the Egyptian culture started 200years after the so called flood,how come there were enough people around to quarry,cut,and assemble 2million ten ton blocks of solid rock,Did the fabled multicenturion Noah and his band of merry shipmates produce this phenominal offspring,and re-populate the rest of the world whilst they were at it?? No,of course fucking not,the whole ark myth is complete nonsense,as is the entire biblical OT, and believing this rubbish is absurd.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
On exiting Ark after Flood:

Eight people. Three of the four couples start to reproduce.

One pregnancy takes nine months. One new born takes about 13 years before being able to reproduce himself or herself.

200 years is ample time for this. Do the maths.
john clewes
LMFAO,of course 300 years is plenty of time for three mating couples and subsequent offspring to repopulate the entire planet,how can I have been so stupid not to realise something so obvious .!!!!!! The mind fucking boggles.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As long as they have no competition and no real setbacks, yes.
Teraku2 (2)
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Please show me a geological, scientifically peer-reviewed article or journal backing up your statement.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please show me a geological peer reviewed article on any of the sites enumerated that contradicts the wiki on what eras you find fossils from on the site.
DeathsHood II
Not only are you completely ignorant of the geologic column as an idea, you're completely ignorant of basic geology...

Find me a single place on the entire planet where Cambrian-era fossils are found in Permian or Cretaceous rock.

I'll save you a few microseconds of research and say: There aren't any! No Cambrian fossils have ever been found in rock that wasn't dated to the Cambrian Era, just as Triassic fossils are found in the Triassic, Permian in the Permian, and Cretaceous in Cretaceous.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Find me a single place on the entire planet where Cambrian-era fossils are found in Permian or Cretaceous rock."

Find me a single place where Cambrian layers with Cambrian fossils are found under Cretaceous layers with Cretaceous fossils, for that matter?

Always excepting the Grand Canyon.

Provide it.

What you're doing is making claims.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I already back them up by linking to the list of fossil finds.

In that list I have not found any with two widely different eras. One place you find Pliocene and Pleistocene. One other you find Triassic and Jurassic.

It is rather rare to find Cambrian and Pleistocene neatly on top of each other.

Did I not give YOU the link to the wiki? Sorry:

en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
You didn't even read the article, did you?

Wow, this is priceless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have spent half an hour clicking one site after site named in that list.

You are the one who did not read the article. Supposing you even understood my point.

See, place A you find Cretaceous. Place B you find Triassic. Place ? do you find Triassic above Cretaceous? Or if you do, you bet they are hardly far off from each other.

There is not enough double era finds to substantiate geological column. Each era can be verified as fauna, but not likely temprally through column.
You said: "One place you find Pliocene and Pleistocene. One other you find Triassic and Jurassic."

So why is it that there are numerous Pleistocene formations located in: Eritrea, South Africa, Ethiopia, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, China, Spain, Italy, France, Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Wales, Australia, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Idaho, California, S.Dakota, etc, etc, etc...

Seems like formations from the same era are located pretty much all over the Earth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, they are. But not in same places as Triassic formations also all over the world.

Meaning you cannot really tell whether Pleistocene and Triassic are different eras as evolutionists want to believe or just different faunas, as we Flood Geologists-with-adherents (I am not a Geologist myself) tend to believe.
Akita538 β
A typical North American erosion formation will consist of layers of rock strata as deep as a mile or more and covering an area of hundreds of square miles. Layers of limestone which were clearly formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine animals are interspersed with sandstone strata which were clearly formed on dry land, as evidenced by fossilized footprints of land animals, and other land animal fossils"
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And if limestone was a lot of shellfish overflowing an area during flood?

If sandstone was formed on wet land before getting covered by flood?

I am no expert at Geology, but I do know you gave no very good evidence for a column with Triassic on top of Cambrian and under Tertiary and so on.
The burden of proof is on YOU to explain:

1. why all science is wrong, and

2. why, in spite of that, your computer still works.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The burden of proof of a scientist proposing an interpretation is to show either other interpretations wrong or his own clearly functioning.

A computer technician shows his science correct for instance by making computers.

Shall I suppose you to mean that those interpreting Grand Canyon as made over millions of years (as to the sediment at least) are involved in making Grand Canyons over millions of years?

A bit hard for me to stay around and check their result if so.
Coolguy Canuck (ij)
When was the Martian Great Flood...and was Noah up there too?

The Mariner canyon is even larger than the Grand Canyon and of very similar morphology. Care to explain where all the water went?

Even the ancients describe Mars as being red, so the water must have disappeared almost immediately.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know where the Martian Mariner Canyon comes from.

Mars could have held some waters up to the Flood of Noah and some of the waters we got here was thus evacuated from Mars, if it comes to that.

And yes, Noah's Flood and water coming down to earth would have been an occasion for pretty much drying up Mars.

Thanks for telling me about that Martian Canyon, I had not thought of this before.
If evolution has provable flaws, why has no creationist managed to find one of them?

If they have *anything* genuine to work with, why do they consistently resort to dishonesty?
You mean besides the ones I have been pointing out that you can't refute?

Even the scientists can't agree on how "evolution" works and the very statement that I keep hearing, The theory is able to change with new evidence, means "evolution" is inconsistent and therefore is flawed.

Logic 101.
When was this? You appear to be hallucinating or suffering from false memory syndrome!

All of science is "able to change with new evidence". That's what it's like when people actually care whether what they say is true, rather than the easy 'certainty' of the bigot.

If there is any real argument or evidence to support 'creationism', why isn't it put to work?
Which I answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl A
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl B
Hans-Georg Lundahl A
"You appear to be hallucinating or suffering from false memory syndrome!"

Be careful with such allegations.

You had a false memory - if you like - about my having admitted angels as dong what is supposed to be parallax doing so on my view with intent to fake.

That I did not admit. And yet you pretended I had admitted it.

I even quoted relevant parts of our earlier conversation from my blog post where I had copied it*. It was not there, you made no excuse.

* ppt . li / dg
*Your* claim is that the parallax evidence for heliocentrism is the result of trillions of angels moving stars in a coordinated way (and that this conceals the supposed 'fact' of geocentrism)

It hadn't occurred to me that anyone was dishonest enough to seriously pretend that such a thing could be anything other than a calculated act of deception.

I don't need an excuse for telling the truth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My claim is that the supposed parllax supposedly evidencing heliocentrism is not parallax but the result of some ten thousand angels (majority of stars show no parallax) doing proper movements.

I do not claim this conceals the very open fact of geocentrism. You claim it would be concealing it "if Geocentrism were a fact", I claim the parallaxes are no clear sign of heliocentrism, because of the alternative causality being thinkable.

And therefore there is no deception.
Hans-Georg Lundahl B
"If there is any real argument or evidence to support 'creationism', why isn't it put to work?"

It is put to work in media like creation . com but if you were asking about National Geographic, you are very naive about evolutionists' honesty on creationist argumentation.
If God didn't create DNA, what came 1st, the DNA or the protein?

The protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for BY the DNA.

So, the protein couldn't be there 1st since its code/order is contained in the DNA that it decodes.

Proteins would have to decode themselves BEFORE they could exist.

Without the protein there 1st, the DNA would never be read & the protein would never be made. The DNA couldn't have been there first since DNA is made & maintained by the proteins of the cell.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
  • Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
I do agree so much.

Only, should you not have put this as an answer to an evolutionist?

I am a creationist, you know.
Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Why start with the 'God did it' standpoint?

Maybe it was space aliens... there's equal evidence for both (none), but a far greater probability of space aliens than a deity as written in the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually space aliens would stand under exactly same problem.

They would be products of some evolution. And in their case too one could ask whether it started with DNA or with proteine.
"whether it started with DNA or with proteine." <-- I'm going to assume you meant 'Protein' here.

If that is the case, you just invalidated your own argument.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not.

And I assume Protein is American spelling for Proteine.
I'm not American, but whatever...

In any case, what is 'proteine' then?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Possibly a way too French spelling of Protein?

*apologetic smile*
I figured, but didn't want to assume.

That being the case, you still invalidated your own argument.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I still did not.
"whether it started with DNA or with proteine." Yes, you did.

^That quote^ perfectly illustrates your woeful ignorance on the basic subject of DNA.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you don't even understand the subject you're attempting to 'debunk'?

Really... you're just like Kent Hovind.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The argument is that DNA could not work for self replication without a proteine already existing, and proteines are built after recipes contained in the DNA.

Neither works without either eternal steady state universe or ... God.

Actually it is so well constructed that even an eternal steady state universe would need a divine designer.

Oh wait ... you mean the DNA is replicated via RNA and not a proteine?

Sorry point taken.
You assert that DNA required proteins, and that proteins require DNA, yes?

You assert that this is impossible, and therefore ONLY God can be the answer.

You invalidated your own argument by forming an argument from ignorance, providing no evidence to back up your claims, and following with a God of the Gaps,fallacy as the ABSOLUTE answer, despite having no evidence that any form of deity actually exists.

Your argument is invalid, as it is based on false premises, and baseless assumptions.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are things about abiogenesis which really require each other before working. Like self replication and cell walls around amino acids.

And in that case my point stands: saying Aliens are more probable than God ignores that Aliens would have developed on some other planet and their origin would pose exactly same problem.
"to teach young people things that we know are not true is tantamount to abuse of young people"

That coming from a catholic priest is priceless!!!!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We do not know if he is RC or Anglican.
A 20 second google search of 'Canon David Jennings' gave the first hit which is a C of E site.

Do you just make presumptions without looking these things up?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, he is David Jennings!

Did not hear that. And he is C of E?

OK, not a priest then! C of E lacks Apostolic Succession.
I heard the video twice trying to hear where did the priest ridiculed creationism but i heard nothing. Why then this video is titled as '' A Priest Ridicules Creationist''?

A deceitful and wily title!!!!!
All you have to do to humiliate a 'creationist' is to keep them talking - they do the rest themselves!
john clewes
Too fucking true,especially lunatics like Hans and his god monster adoring angels. Did you know they carry the stars?? Icertainly didn't,and im letting NASA in on the secret.,lol
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and his god monster adoring angels."

Where did monster come into the words? Did you get it I mean the angels adore God or did you get it backwards?

The secret is pretty old and open. Look up St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (or Summa Theologiae), Prima Pars, Quaestio 70, Articulus 3. Does exist in English translation too.

newadvent . org/summa/1070 . htm#article3
Mike Christ
I don't see the point in schools teaching creationism; the theory itself takes but a few minutes to learn. The entire class would simply be centered around disinformation to ensure creationism can fit with the pieces that don't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you mean the theory of how things were created, it can take more than that if you go into scholastic distinctions like what is God, why is universe produced by creation rather than emanation or identity, how is it like and unlike its maker, what is the difference between spiritual and material creation.

But creationism is also a pretty complete set of answers to the so called proofs for evolutionism. Why is abiogenesis impossible? Why is geological column unproven? How can C14 go wrong? Etc.
Mentioned flat earth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What Church Fathers denied sphericity, what accepted sphericity and what did not care about sphericity?

If you could get unanimous support from Church Fathers, which you cannot, what Bible passages would condemn sphericity?

None as far as I can see.
Matthew 4:8 (seeing all the Earth from the top of a tall mountain) and Revelation 7:1 (four angels standing on the four corners of the Earth), for example. And there are a few more.

Some writers clearly thought the Earth was square, some thought it was a disc (ex., Isaiah 40:22). None wrote that it was spherical, and they surely would if they had any knowledge of geometry.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You mentioned no Church Fathers.

Matthew 4:8

Ver. 8. Shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and as St. Luke says, in a moment of time. We cannot comprehend how this could be done from any mountain, or seen with human eyes. Therefore many think it was by some kind of representation; or that the devil shewing a part, by words set forth the rest. (Witham) --- He shewed him the different climates in which each country was situated. (St. Chrysostom)

Own hunch: showed by tele-vision (etymological sense)

Revelation 7:1 "corners" = major wind directions (NS-EW)

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.
So, where is the eastern or western corner of the Earth?

And no, Isaiah doesn't say globe, he says circle. The two words are quite different in Hebrew (kadur and chwug), and the sentence was correctly translated to other languages (preserving the word "circle", not globe). A simple web search for "Isaiah 40:22" should make that pretty clear.

Stop making stuff up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Douai-Reims Bible Online translates as globe.

The western corner of any part of the earth is where the west wind blows from. The eastern corner is where the east wind blows from.
I admire your logical contortions, and the work you went through to find a revisionist translation, more concerned with correcting the Bible than with preserving the Word of God™, but I think not even you buy those explanations.

The Bible was written by uneducated people who had no idea the Earth was spherical (few people did, or had any reason to care about it, in those days). Same thing with slavery or treating women as property; to them it was perfectly normal.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You may not have grasped that I am a Catholic.

If Douai Reims translates a Hebrew word as globe, I take it that globe is a good Hebrew translation for it.

Latin Vulgate has: Qui sedet super gyrum terrae.

The Bible may or may not have been written by people thinking the earth was flat, but if so they were curiously preserved from saying that out directly.

And people who accept psychiatry and school compulsion, not to mention child welfare are in no position to call Biblical slavery barbarous.
Answered four times
  • ExtantFrodo2 (1)
  • john clewes (2)
  • ExtantFrodo2 (3)
  • Cliffjumper24 (4)
ExtantFrodo2 (1)
" people who accept psychiatry and school compulsion, not to mention child welfare are in no position to call Biblical slavery barbarous."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What shall I consider in return for your insult?

Are you a social worker?
john clewes (2)
Child welfare??? That is a bit rich coming from a catholic.!! Does this supposed welfare include refusing to allow birth control in Africa,thus producing even more hungry mouths destined to die in agony of starvation?? Alternatively,do you class the systematic buggery and other ghastly sexual abuse of innocent children the world over by sexually dysfunctional paedophile priests as welfare.??? Personally speaking I would be delighted to see the pope and his cohorts of transvestite underlings shot
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Child welfare refers to a certain modern kind of administration which takes that name from its nominal concern for the welfare of children. In reality it takes children away from parents pretty often thereby reducing both to a real slavery.

As for sacerdotal child abuse, that is an issue after Vatican II, when one ceased to defrock priests for even slight offenses like touching a bottom or making a joke in bad taste.
ExtantFrodo2 (3)
The argument that some modern translations claim Isaiah meant "sphere" or "ball" when he wrote Isaiah 40:22 is not supported by the FACTS. Isaiah uses "chuwg" meaning "circle, circuit, compass" in 40:22. In Isaiah 22:18 he actually DOES refer to a "ball" using the word "duwr" meaning "to gyrate, circle, ball, turn, round about, to move in a circle".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Vulgate which uses "gyrus" is at least as good a clue to the text as the present Masoretic one.
It isn't. As mentioned above, the original says "chwug" (which means a circle), and a globe or sphere would be "kadur". That's why pretty much every bible, in every language, has translated it as "circle" for several centuries.

I like how you equate slavery to child welfare. It explains why you have a problem with psychiatry.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Slavery means one man acting as if he owned another man and his children.

Psychiatry does that. Child welfare does that.

The Crampon Bible translated the word as vault:

Isaïe 40:22 Il trône par dessus la voûte de la terre, -- et ses habitants sont comme des sauterelles; -- il étend les cieux comme un voile, et les déploie comme une tente pour y habiter;

[My emphasis, obviously.]

And when you say "original" I suppose you mean Masoretic. Note same thing.
Louis Segond: "C'est lui qui est assis au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre"

Bible du Semeur: "Or, pour celui qui siège sur son trône au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre,"

NE Genève: "C’est lui qui est assis au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre"

Segond 21: "C’est l’Eternel qui siège au-dessus du *cercle* de la terre;"

And so on.

It's actually a good thing that some people are revising the bible to fix its many errors. If only they would also fix the parts about killing gays, owning slaves, etc....
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Louis Segond was a Protestant scholar, I boycott his Bible.

Obviously he took the masoretic text.

I have not yet had time to see if Septuagint has "kyklos" or "sphaira" in the vers[e] ....

But even supposing circle is the original word - though Jews could have changed that to make their Babylonian Flat Earth convictions clearer in opposition to Christians - that does not specify whether the circle is a rim of a disc or any kind of cut through a globe. It could by itself be either.

If you take together "circle of the earth" and "four corners", the disc interpretation makes these contradict each other, the alternative ones of either do not contradict.
It isn't. As mentioned above, the original says "chwug" (which means a circle), and a globe or sphere would be "kadur". That's why pretty much every bible, in every language, has translated it as "circle" for several centuries.

I like how you equate slavery to child welfare. It explains why you have a problem with psychiatry.
Hans believes the universe to be 7200 years old and the sun orbits the earth between Venus and Mars.

I'm not surprised he's afraid of phychiatry... it's only thanks to a tag of a religious viewpoint that he hasn't been carted off to the funny farm (or maybe he has been in the past!)!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and the sun orbits the earth between Venus and Mars"

I am Tychonian.

Venus and Mercury are always between us and the Sun when it is not the Sun that is between either or both of them than us.

Mars and Jupiter are never between us and the Sun, but when either is on our side of the Sun, we are between it and the Sun.

Where is the problem?

As for psychiatry, I might or I might not be afraid, but I certainly condemn it.
Cliffjumper24 (4)
Even the catholic church has embraced evolution, although it takes the point that God breathed 'spirit' into the human soul.

I may not agree, but at least Catholicism has made the leap from crazy childish Creationist ideas into something that resembles the facts as we've come to know them thus far!

Maybe you should get in line with your own church's viewpoint?!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Even the catholic church has embraced evolution"

What has embraced evolution is not the Catholic Church.

What is still the Catholic Church has not embraced evolution.
Well, both evolution and the big bang theory were first formulated by priests (Mendel and Lemaitre, respectively). The fact that they had a lot of free time and didn't have to worry about working for their food enabled them to study those issues.

So, while religions that promote anti-rational thought are indeed a hindrance, in practical / economic terms, religions that promote the pursuit of knowledge were responsible for funding most science before the industrial revolution.
Mendel didn't formulate 'evolution' by any stretch, let alone be the first to do so.
He's generally considered as the father of genetics, which forms the scientific basis (i.e., the demonstrable working mechanism) for evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It also forms a scientific basis for certain refutations of evolution.

E g the one from Chromosome numbers.
That can only be considered "a refutation" by someone who completely failed to understand the mechanism.

The problem with most creationists is they don't even know enough to present an argument that makes sense, let alone an argument with any scientific merit.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh yeah?

creavsevolu. blogspot. com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-o­n-karyotype-evolution. html
Oh my, a link to a creationist blog that doesn't even work. My Lord, I have seen the light!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Remove the spaces and it will work.

Is this the first time you realise that links that do work cannot be posted in youtube comments?
Answered twice
  • ExtantFrodo2 A
  • RFC3514 B
ExtantFrodo2 A
This site does not indicate any understanding of any aspect of biology on your part. Try again.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

It indicates I have better understanding of chromosome numbers than PZM has.

You try again.
RFC3514 B
Duh! I did remove the spaces. It tells me "Désolé, la page que vous recherchez dans ce blog n'existe pas".

What kind of argument do you expect to "prove" by posting a link to your own blog anyway, even if it wasn't broken? Is this one of those "it is written so it must be true" arguments?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, when you have done that and clicked, one more step: there are funny characters inserted:

[...] letter-to-nature-o%C2%ADn-kary­otype-evolution [...]

[...] letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-­evolution [...]

Try that.
humans do not get possessed by demons. People just lose sanity. Exorcism does not cure insanity, but it can make the insane feel the people are not all out to get them and thus relieve their fears for a time.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neither of these two affirmations are true.

Both insult the Gospel truth.
Insulting the bible is required. It is an insult to any intellect. It is an insult to humanity. It is an insult to our better selves. It is an insult to morality. It's a fucking fairytale.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fairytales are no insult to the intellect, nor to a will that is innocent. They are an insult to perverted intellects that serve perverted wills.
john clewes
Ah,a fucking catholic,that says it all.!!! Do you feel proud belonging to what is probably the most inherently evil,manipulative,corrupt,and sexually dysfunctional religious cults ever devised by mankind?? Does it warm your heart to think of the millions of innocents starving to death in Africa,courtesy of the insane catholic doctrine of banning birth control?? Do you get a hard on thinking about homosexual so called priests systematically buggering children,only to be absolved by the Vatican???
I am not the Catholic. The person in the video is.

But people are starving in Africa because of the godless political leaders. There is plenty of food and most of those countries were good producers until the IMF introduced socialist programs.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As a Catholic and a Creationist I do appreciate if you do not add Evolutionist Fanatics to the number of Catholics.

I did not know (since I overlooked) that the speaker was an Anglican.

Someone pointed it out to me and I wrote him to notify him of the blog posts where I save my parts of the debates.
I appreciate your comment. My intent is not to disparage Catholics but core Catholicism believes it is in charge of all religion and therefore does not always represent Christianity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know why you call such a thing "core Catholicism".

Except in the sense that truth judges all error the Catholic truth cannot be in charge of Non-Cathoic errors.

By the way, I have difficulties seeing Karol Wojtyla as a Catholic.

If you want to know what Catholicism is, take a look at authorities like St Robert Bellarmine or Pope St Pius X. Newman is not always absolutely right, but generally good (and not a modernist, despite reputations).
john clewes
Pope Leo X was by far the best catholic leader,a drunken glutton with a penchant for small boys {obligatory??},he openly admitted in front of several dinner guests Jesus Christ was an invention.!!! BTW Hans,google it first before throwing a tantrum,it is a recorded historical fact.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Recorded" by an Englishman devout to Martin Luther whom Leo X had excommunicated. An Englishman which tektonics (a Protestant apologetics ministry) called Bilious Bale after the nickname he had in his own day. "Recorded" in a book that was admittedly a satire.

But this is of course the kind of "history" you call recorded facts.
'Creation Science' is science in the same way that a 'fake gun' is a gun.]
Michael Brown
A naturalistic evolutionary creation would be science just as much as the magician is truly cutting the lady in half and putting her back together alive.

There is no ingrained naturalistic dynamism that would have led life to add to its genetic complexity while leading it to evolve into a higher life form. Dogs are an example of the fact that mutation are always creates flawed mutants.

Your peers have been able to peddle a silly mythology as a scientific concept
Physics: look it up. Do you think God spends all day causing the weather? Or is it conceivable that it is the result of natural processes, without requiring any mystical powers?

You appear to live in a pagan twilight zone rejecting the concept of a God who created the laws of physics and instead believe that any organised matter is caused by spirits of some kind.

Perhaps you should take more water with them? : )
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Any MOVED matter is caused by spirits of some kind.

Matter without spirit = INERTIA.

Your vision of a clockwork with "laws of physics" acting like a spring is Newton's Deism.

"Do you think God spends all day causing the weather? Or is it conceivable that it is the result of natural processes, without requiring any mystical powers?"

God is eternal and omniscient. He is not "spending" time attending at anything. He is quite capable of making every electron (if there be such) make its due orbits around the nuclei everywhere in the Universe. [... and still attend on exactly everything else at every other level as well and still not "spend much of" His attention on created things, if it were correct to speak as if God's attention were divided into portions.]

God is however also capable of leaving the immediate direction of event based things (and of beasts) to spirits. Dan. 3:58 - 81

[O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [...] O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Beasts and cattle do not praise their maker in themselves consciously, but their guardian angels do.]
Answered (in its first part) twice:
  • Akita538 α
  • Akita538 β
Akita538 α
Strange then that Newton's Laws of Motion do such a good job of predicting what the spirits will do next. Spirits with no will to do anything other than obey the laws of physics might just as well not exist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Newton's Laws of Motion do such a good job of predicting what the spirits will do next."

They do no such thing of course.

"Spirits with no will to do anything other than obey the laws of physics"

They do other things while the bodies they move obey the laws of physics. Note that a sun moved daily around earth (regularly) or a pen held in mid air (exceptionally) by an angel would not be "disobeying" any law of physics, just doing what they could not do on their own without action of angels.
Akita538 β
How do you mean 'clockwork'? Surely you don't believe it is possible to make anything that works? You appear to be entering the strange pre-Christian, animistic mental world of Michael Brown! Take care.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do believe it is possible to make things that work. On their own even.

But I do not believe the Universe relates primarily like that to God.

The world you call pre-Christian was not abolished by Christianity. Unless you call St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis of Assisi "pre-Christians" and Newton the first Christian.

No comments: