... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC priest (?) and his defenders, part I

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQuvwQ4y-k

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If a Hindoo wants to teach his children the earth is on the back of a turtle or a Jew that it is flat, they have a right to do so if homeschooling or if paying their own schools.

However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory.

These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis.

So far

I have go three responses (four ...)

I

ExtantFrodo2

Are you brain dead or just home schooled?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Home schooled in part.

Public school tried to make me brain dead, but failed. So far.

II

MoiAussi

"However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory."

If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you mean a toy version of London Bridge, I think that can wait until I have an appartment to keep it in and children who will play with it.

Thank you very kindly!

III

sven svensson

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Dt.23:2

So there we have it -- God does NOT allow creationists to enter churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Creationists are no bastards,

2) the fact you can allude to them as such shows what the unbalance in education is causing in terms of barbarism,

3) that rule of Deuteronomy was for Old Testament anyway. A method to keep the lineage of Our Lord unsullied. Or as clean as possible (cf Athalia and three missing generations in Gospel of St Matthew).

As to Q mark in title ...

... I do not know if he (in the video) is Anglican (non-priest) or Catholic (presumably priest even if modernist).

IV

Akita538

An invisible, massless turtle would be much easier to accommodate than geocentrism or denial of the actual, demonstrable age of the earth.

I'm also pretty sure that Judaism doesn't cling to the solid firmament, small stars and flat earth cosmology of Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not know what you call Judaism. I do know that some Jews are in flat earth society and as long as their children are minors, they have a right to see that that is what their children are taught in schools they pay for (and making them pay by taxes for schools they do not choose is a clear evil).

Now, you presumed that Geocentrism or YEC go against what is demonstrable or are inaccomodable? Why so? What is your refutation?

Btw, I am Catholic ...

Akita538 (first answer to "I do not know what you call Judaism")

I don't decide what is Judaism - try Wikipedia.

Lying to children as a human rights issue? I'm not impressed!

The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating and observation of geological processes. The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars. Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wikipedia may very well be accurate in what it states, insofar as inaccuracies are often deleted. It is however not complete.

A man who believes the earth is flat is not lying to his children when telling them it is flat. He is just wrong and as long as they believe him they are wrong. That includes a few Jews (far from majority) and also some Hindoos who think there is a visible and heavy turtle under it, once you look from the right angle.

Educating the young is up to parents. Right or wrong.

Except when children are baptised and the baptismal faith of children is at stake.

"The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating (a) and observation of geological processes (b)."

a) That is based on assumptions about initial state and probably too long half lives calculated according to b.

b) That is based on uniformitarian (anti-gobal-Flood) assumptions.

In both cases it is assumptions.

"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. ... (Answers continued below after debate on this)

Akita538

The 'proper movement' would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth. Since it is possible to imagine magic entities 'shifting the scenery' to back up *any* proposition, you are effectively asking for a blank cheque with that argument!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can have created the world any way He wanted to.

God can have made the world look any way He wanted to.

What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West.

It would not be exactly calculated to deceive observers on earth, except if they had a clear reason to believe the stars did not move on their own.

But since Geocentrism is the default and common sense interpretation of our daily observations, and it involves stars moving daily around us, we would have no such reason.

It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss.

Akita538

"What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West"

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you got somewhat wrong what parallax changes were about.

Also somewhat wrong how modern astronomy pretends to demonstrate rotation of earth.

Akita538

It doesn't just rotate, it orbits the sun!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another question.

But the point is, not only does it not look like orbitting the sun, it does not even look like rotating.

And if it does not rotate it certainly is not orbitting anything, but everything is each day orbitting it. Whatever the other relations are between the other bodies.

Akita538

"God can have created the world any way He wanted to"

Try telling a 'creationist' that!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They already know, that includes the Protestants.

God could have created the world over billions of years if He had wanted to.

But could He have wanted to? And if He had done so, could He have wanted to reveal what He did to Moses the way He did?

That rather than any arbitrary limits on the Omnipotence is the Creationist argument against Old Earth scenarios. [As far as theology is concerned]

(Continuing answers after debate on "parallax" made by angels).

"Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics."

One can reject Newtonian assumptions about this without rejecting the physics observed on earth.

F o a this is mostly taken out and carefully considered only in two body problems (sun - earth, earth - moon, sometimes earth - moon set into relation with sun as well).

But its "parallels" on earth involve a string or solid rim and are thus 3 body problems.

And second, the relative masses are not known per se, but deduced from this theory.

And third, it involved the kind of problems with planet Mercury that could not be resolved until Einstein introduced yet another theory.

Akita538

Any decision to assume that there is different physics in different places demands justification. Since ONE physics explains all relevant observations, there is no reason to propose a different one just for the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is you do not have the same physics in the supposed two body problems in the universe and their supposed parallels on earth.

Their supposed parallels uniformly involve a "parallel" to gravitation which is no force but a body.

[in parallel to above]

But the point is you do NOT have one physics on earth and for what you assume as celestial mechanics.

Stone on string is not a two body problem with your hand and the stone, but a third body, the string is sham "parallel" to gravitation.

Biker in hub is not a two body problem with biker and centre of hub, it is also a third body, the hub, which is sham "parallel" to the gravity.

For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.

Akita538

Are you really basing an argument on not understanding physics? : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, you are.

You are basing your argument on not understanding physics any better than your teacher in school presented it.

And that is just a bit too bad.

Because a stone on a string is not a smaller body "attached" to a greater one through its gravitation. It is rather attached for real, on a string.

Answering mine

For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.

ExtantFrodo2

SpaceVidsNet : [ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A pretty close parallel to the experiment of magnets on ice. Even better, actually concerned with gravitation. [actually not as I saw when seeing full title, but electromagnetic attraction]

And better than so. It orbitted more than I expected.

However, it did not orbit billions of orbits, like some certains pretend Earth has been orbitting Sun. I am not sure it took ten or fifteen orbits, and down the drop went to the pen (or whatever the object was).

Akita538 (second answer to "I do not know what you call Judaism")

But what when you want an ambulance and a doctor, and somebody to give a shit whether you are wrongly arrested, or expect people to respect your property?

Try 'buying' all those when you need them. They wouldn't be there if somebody didn't pay for *real* education, and the law didn't create concepts such as 'property' or 'habeus corpus'. Maybe you should stop using a language you didn't create?

Governments and corporations love 'individuals' - they are so easy to control!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ambulances and doctors are made with medical education which does not at all depend on either the General Theorem of Evolution or Heliocentrism and all that.

Medicine (or the somatic part) is what some YEC have the presence of mind to call a "here-and-now-science".

Ambulances and doctors are made with a medical education which is at university level and therefore not available to children or youngsters under the parental custody.

"Governments and corporations love 'individuals' - they are so easy to control!"

Except when they aren't.

Homeschooling is not easy to control. Governments are tearing lives to pieces in the attempt to do so. Like German case with the Wunderlich family.

Akita538

Actually vehicle technology and medicine *do* rely on science.

YECs make an idol of a literalist interpretation of parts of the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The literalist interpretation which you call an idol is actually the traditional of holy church.

Technology and medicine (the somatic part) do rely on science, more precisely on what can be observed here and now and everywhere and anytime.

Not on what can only be gotten about the past or the distant or the hidden.

Akita538 (i)

'Creationism' as such is a comparatively recent invention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

Creationist refutations of evolutionism is a recent invention.

Creationist beliefs are by contrast totally traditional.

You do Trent, you do Church Fathers, all were YEC, all were Geocentric. That was why Galileo was condemned.

Akita538 (ii)

"even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world.. ..and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian"

St Augustine ~480AD

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wonderful. I know that quote.

But my point is what you propose as knowledge (that "even" non-Christians have) is in this case not so.

Ever checked what St Augustine did when Biblical account of Jacob and Esau contradicted what he saw as astrological knowledge?

And remember that apart from Christians everybody back then would have agreed with the Manichaeans that astrology was science.

I am afraid of a man with only one St Augustine quote.

Inserting

from his answers later to someone else, but same subject:

Akita538

If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works? The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible - it was created by men, long after the bible was written.

Men did not create hundreds of millions of year's worth of rock and fossils, or DNA, or light travelling from billions of light years away. All of these are facts which (unlike biblical interpretations!) would exist even if no man had ever existed.

notstayinsdowns

Why wouldn't God speak literally?

Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the million's or years. While the fossils and rocks show flood evidence. God can create light to already be on it's way since He is the source of light and DNA acts just like God created, it is limited to kinds.

Akita538

You could just as easily condemn Newton in the same way!

"Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the force of gravity to explain planets staying in their orbits without God guiding them."

You speak for ignorance and superstition. Is that what you think Christianity is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to last of Akita)

Newton is indeed behind a Deist line of thought.

His famous admirer in France was the Deist Voltaire.

He was also - Newton - an Occultist.

He also when working out the two body problems behind his theory of solar system failed to refute an alternative theory, that of angelic movers.

This has not been refuted since either.

And of God as mover behind daily movement of sky.

Not refuted since then either.

Akita538

Worthless theories don't need refuting. They are ten a penny. I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your 'theory' about the stars work.

Given infinite resources, anything could be true. Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your 'memories' two weeks ago are fake?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your 'theory' about the stars work."

Angels are no more undetectable than electrons.

Each is detected only by the work it does and usually not directly to sight.

They are also part of the Catechism (in case you care).

They were also the standard theory about the physics before Newton (he should have cared).

I am not invoking fakeness of any memory or any direct observation.

Strawmannus maximus = fail.

Try again.

Akita538

Oh the irony - in falsely accusing me of using a strawman argument, you are employing one yourself.

I did not suggest that you had invoked any memory or observation.

My point was about the cheapness and insignificance of all your claims. There are an unlimited number of worthless claims that couldn't be disproved if infinite resources were employed to make them appear true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Point is that God has infinite resources.

We do not live in a Universe of limited resources.

And invoking the resources of God is very different from invoking the fakeness of observation or memory. Hence my charge about strawman.

You asked - namely - "Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your 'memories' two weeks ago are fake?"

Did you forget that?

"cheapness and insignificance" are an excuse for not arguing.

And once again, I am not suggesting infinite resources to make something appear true, but there are infinite resources behind what in fact is true. The infinite resources of God.

Akita538

You are invoking infinite resources to support claims which are too weak to stand up on their own.

There is an endless supply of "cheapness and insignificance". The distinctive and consistent quality of such dross is that it leads nowhere - it is terminally unproductive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very much not.

Geocentrism stands up on observation.

It can only be explained with the infinite resources of God.

Take away those infinite resources, you get Heliocentrism. It may not be able to stand its explanation correctly without the inifinite resources of God.

And it cannot be proven (so far as I have seen for ten years of debating) without assuming Atheism or assuming that "God does not want to show off".

As for "unproductivity", I agree I will not build machines based on angels. So?

Akita538 I (see II below)

Geocentrism stands up on observation if infinite resources are employed to create that appearance.

True. And so does ANYTHING ELSE! An infinite number of turtles? No problem. Everything being recreated every Thursday? Well, you can't prove it isn't, so it must be true!?!!?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, no, no.

That is not infinite resources of a creator. Those are infinite resources of deception.

Geocentrism is not created as appearance by inifinite resources, but as physical reality by infinite resources.

As appearance it is our basic observation.

As intuitive as "everything created last thursday" is counterintuitive.

Akita538 (i)

Infinite resources are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)

Infinite resources of creation are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of creation.

Such as every Christian believes God has.

Infinite resources of deception are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of deception.

Such as no Christian believes Satan has, such as no Christian believes God would apply.

Akita538 (ij)

Everything being recreated every Thursday perfectly matches what is observed but, since it is one of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions, few bother to make it.

Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism!) is just *one* more of that infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij)

Geocentrism is not a perfectly pointless assumption, it is a resumé of direct observation.

And I am not saying it is either made to look like Heliocentrism or even looks like Heliocentrism remotely. Heliocentrism is simply not what reality looks like.

Akita538 (continuing ij)

But observation does *not* support geocentrism: you admitted that yourself when you claimed that angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect which is evidence for heliocentrism.

You have certainly shifted your ground if you are now pretending that observation doesn't support heliocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said parallax actually supports Heliocentrism in good logic.

I did say parallax is one argument used for Heliocentrism.

I also said "parallax" is a misnomer, but not because of what it looks like, only because of what a certain interpretation wants to interpret it as.

Angels and God certainly took that into account though.

Why should they not have fun at modern "science" and its adherents, when there is so little between its observations and its conclusions as far as connexion goes?

Akita538

No, no, no. What you said was that angels moved the stars in just such a way as to *exactly* match the parallax changes predicted by heliocentrism.

Given the non-trivial number of stars involved, that would be strong evidence of deliberate and calculated deception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You speak as if God's Veracity involved a duty to a set of people set out on interpreting such and such a phenomenon wrongly and atheistically to prevent that set from getting any way with their false premise at all.

As for the rest, I copied out relevant parts of earlier dialogue from the blog post.

• You:"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."
  
  
• Me:"Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. "
  
  
• You:"The 'proper movement' would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth."
  
  
• Me:"It would not be exactly calculated to deceive observers on earth, except if they had a clear reason to believe the stars did not move on their own.
  
  But since Geocentrism is the default and common sense interpretation of our daily observations, and it involves stars moving daily around us, we would have no such reason.
  
  It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss."
  
  
• Maybe clearer: by the false premise they introduce.

Akita538

I'm saying calculating hypocrisy involving angels is still calculating hypocrisy. : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Calculating a course of action justified in itself (like angels dancing in time with the Sun while holding their stars) does not become hypocrisy because one can also calculate the fact that x, y and z are going to get it wrong and use it as proof of an error.

For instance, God and the angels knew perfectly well how Astrologers would take Venus in the Virgo part of the Zodiak seen from Earth, yet the fact that Astroogy is wrong does not make God and the angels hypocrites just because Venus is sometimes in Virgo.

Why should they owe more to "modern science" than to superstition? What if modern science (on this level, not those relevant for building cars or computers) is a superstition?

Answered twice (for original separate parts)

• Akita538 A
• Akita538 B

Akita538 A

Why would you of all people think that astrology is wrong? You appear to have exactly the mindset for superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit with an added touch of sophistry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You appear to have the kind of mindset that is required for "reasoning" by association rather than by reasons - and for establishing guilt by association.

Father Brown (if you know the sacerdotal colleague of Sherlock Holmes) was asked why he did not believe the story of a curse.

"My business is to believe some things and so not to believe others".

I am sure St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine and St Jerome whom I am basically agreeing with appreciate your assessment properly.

Akita538 B

Utter hypocrisy. They would not happen to falsify the appearance accurately by chance. The only conceivable motive would be deceit.

Since no belief about the material world is part of Christianity, then the motivation would have to have some other source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is it is not my version but your version of the facts which gives us a falsified appearance of the facts. Parallactic movement means "illusion of movement in other object due to unnoticed movement in observer".

Doing it *accurately* is a matter on why it agrees with the annual movement of the sun (in a minority of stars!). And that is a matter of "dancing in time" with the sun if I am right.

Heliocentrism is no part of Christianity. Geocentrism may be so. At least in Holy Writ & CF.

Akita538

You are not right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

About which of the items and how so?

Unless you prefer to conclude your part of the debate.

Akita538

You said 'that is a matter of "dancing in time" with the sun if I am right'. Well, it isn't so you aren't right.

There is no evidence of the deception that you describe, so we have no reason to assume that it occurs. Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism by God's deceit) is just *one* of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Our main reason is that our eyes and inner ears give us a prima facie evidence for geocentrism.

Our next reason is that geocentrism philosophically entails Theism (for daily movement of all heaven) and if I may coin a word angelism for at least the planets.

Our third reason is that if planets move as observed around an earth that is still they form a floral pattern so as to indicate aesthetic motives being involved.

Hence: so called "parallax" is not mainly fake "such" but art. Of angels.

Akita also answered my earlier words:

You speak as if God's Veracity involved a duty to a set of people set out on interpreting such and such a phenomenon wrongly and atheistically to prevent that set from getting any way with their false premise at all.

Akita538

By 'wrongly' you mean 'honestly'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I mean wrongly.

People were bent on finding parallax because already - mistakenly - believing Heliocentrism. Then the phenomenon was found.

And was interpreted as parallax.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita "But observation does *not* support geocentrism")

Parallax is evidence of angels. Don't you know? Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons. Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth. HAZZAH! (Watch the idiot actually use this BS)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons."

I do think angels are in tune, I do think they are good dancers.

"Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth."

To the Sun, actually. Earth is not moving so nothing can conform to any movement of it.

And no, on a larger scale it is Sun which conforms nearly to stars rotating around Earth each day.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita "But observation does *not* support geocentrism" again)

"angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect"

"Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover."

Insanity runs deep in this one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Watch it, one of your quotes is from myself, one is from Akita's resumé of me.

I did not say the angels faked the parallax effect. I said they did what is mistaken for a parallax effect.

Not same thing.

ExtantFrodo2

Sorry that you think so. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry about your logic.

They would be same thing if primary purpose of those movements would be us mistaking them for parallactic ones.

Neither I as a Geocentric nor you as an obvious atheist would agree to that.

ExtantFrodo2

So the only thing you object to is the "faking" part of it. How fucking sad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The only thing I object to is the faking part.

Sad or not for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to previous of Akita)

"The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible - it was created by men, long after the bible was written."

Wrong.

"Men did not create hundreds of millions of year's worth of rock and fossils,"

Did not create rocks or fossils, but the millions of years interpretation.

"or light travelling from billions of light years away."

Did not create the light but the billions of light years away interpretation.

Akita538

The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean "Bible alone" is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

That is something other than "the literalist interpretation" of the Bible, which is found in it.

Jesus clearly endorsed Young Earth Creationism. Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Akita538 II (see I above)

By 'unproductive', I meant that it will not lead to any new knowledge, just a series of new evasions and 'fixes' to prop up a worthless assumption.

If we abandon your assumption that God is deceitful, then the evidence clearly denies the possibility of geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Angels are not an ad hoc just for this.

2) I am nowhere assuming that God is deceitful.

I am assuming He allows those who wish to make overinterpretations in atheistic modes to deceive themselves.

3) Geocentrism on the contrary assumes God is truthful and gave us a view of the Universe corresponding to what it really is like.

V (on my original)

trueleroix

"However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory."

Joking, right?

"These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis."

Seriously, why did you type this? Are you trying to get a rise out of someone?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Instead of asking "joking", what is your refutation?

trueleroix

You're not fooling me twice. Why don't you tell me some of the basic refutations of what you typed. You can start educating people instead of pretending to be a dumb ass (which is being a dumb ass in it's own way), and I won't have to type them for the millionth time. How bout it? Join the productive folks that actually like to share information?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides.

The refutation against Geocentrism is ... do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?

I am productive and sharing information, you are not.

trueleroix

"The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides."

OK, that one works.

"The refutation against Geocentrism is ... do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?"

OK, I think you mean Mr. Spock from Star Trek. Dr. Spock writes about babies. Common error, not a big deal. Yes, those are two characters from fiction, but I don't see what they have to do with refuting geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant the Spock from Star Trek.

The thing is these fictional characters are the closest thing Heliocentrism has in parallel to Columbus' and da Gamas very practical demonstration of a Globe.

And as for Eratosthenes demonstrations of globe, well, they are less direct, but what we have like that against Geocentrism is clearly more dubious than Eratosthenes once I look at it.

Did you ever look at it?

Akita538 (before trueleroix could, see below)

I notice that your own church has no problem with real astronomy or evolution.

Perhaps you are not really a catholic but part of a fantasy sect? : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Perhaps you are not really informed about the acts of the magisteria, but manipulated by things like interviews and allocutions of considerably less value than the judgement of 1633? :)

I also notice you put above not in answer to my words about Church Fathers or about the St Augustine quote, but in a totally different debate on whether I can be and have been proven wrong on a purely scientific level.

I resent that and take that as deliberate obfuscation of the debate.

Akita538

The views about astronomy of the church *you* claim to belong to are highly relevant to *your* claims about astronomy. Got it now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You should still have put the answer in the subthread where it was relevant. I dislike cluttering a debate by mixing subthreads.

St Augustine did not claim Heliocentrism was part of what even infidels know or that Christians denying it make themselves ridiculous.

He was a Geocentric like all other Church Fathers.

And if you wish to go further to St Thomas Aquinas, look up Prima Pars, Q 70 I think it was Article 3.

I am agreeing with that. And it has not been condemned by the Church.

trueleroix

Against geocentrism? We don't have cases against true facts. We don't debate true facts. You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you. Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn't know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you."

You are not proving Heliocentrism true.

"Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn't know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?"

Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a "basic fact".

Magorax

Wrong. Fusion in stars is an observation. Ever head of Spectroscopy?

Furthermore, it is an observation entirely consistent with and borne out by quantum mechanics, which is by several orders of magnitude, the most precise model we have for how matter behaves.

Stellar nucleosynthesis is by any measure you care to name a "basic fact".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would say presence of elements one of which can fuse into other (say H and He) is born out very well by spectroscopy.

Even that is a conclusion. And fusion is in itself a conclusion of that conclusion.

Now, the point was, do you have similar arguments against Geocentrism as you have for fusion in stars?

MoiAussi

You're an idiot. I don't think I can add anything much more constructive than that. It's a conclusion, borne out by the observation of your posts on this thread. Thus, by reversing your own twisted logic, that translates as being what sane people would regard as a fact.

Yep! you're an idiot. Quod errat demonstandum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are bad at latin.

Quod non erat demonstrandum, sed quod demonstrasti.

As for the rest, I was asking you [actually someone else] to apply the distinction between "basic observation" (observation was my wording, not fact, since a fact not observed can be basic in the other realm of explanation) and "conclusion".

Will you admit that fusion is a conclusion?

And will you defend the conclusions against Geocentrism?

MoiAussi

Fusion is a fact. It can be performed. Don't start with the Descartesian mumbo-jumbo about the uncertainty of existence. That is totally outside the realm of empirical science; and renders any of your arguments pointless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am very much not into Cartesian mumbo-jumbo about uncertainty of existence. You are bad at Logic as well as about Latin.

I know fusion as observed in CERN is a fact, if it has been performed (for how long, though?).

I know it involves H + H > D, D + D > He.

I know spectroscopy shows H and He are present in Sun.

Still, fusion in Sun is not observation, but conclusion (from these facts, through parallel being probable).

Now, prove Heliocentrism if you can. That was the main issue.

trueleroix

"You are not proving Heliocentrism true."

Of course I am not. I already know about it. You need to do this for yourself.

"Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a "basic fact"."

Well, it is a basic fact, and I'm not going to "make a case" for something you can easily look up. Do this and we can talk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How can a man believing Heliocentrism false "need" to prove it true?

Your stance does not make sense.

As for fusion happening in stars being a fact, someone just made a case for it. I am not rejecting it.

I was asking him and am asking you to make such a case against Geocentrism if you can.

Or one like the one I did myself against flat Earth.

You agreed you had no Columbus or da Gama, since Han Solo is fiction.

Where is your counterpart to Eratosthenes? Do you have a good one?

trueleroix

Look it up. Prove yourself wrong. Get back to me. I don't have time for this. You have the internet. Don't be lazy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not being lazy.

I did the research (in the book and internet resources, not in the observations or calculations). You trust others did it for you.

That is what I am challenging.

"Prove yourself wrong."

I actually tried to find out if space probes proved me wrong.

So far I have not seen they must do so.

[Catholic Answers Forum : Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism]

trueleroix also answered this one of mine

"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel.

trueleroix

OK, that was quite a bit of typing before you went for the certain reveal of your status. I really want to know why you do it though? You know that there are real people saying things almost as stupid as this character you are portraying. Why must you supplement them with your imitations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My name here is Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my blogs is also Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my last passport which I no longer have is Hans-Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl.

Do a google for Hans-Georg Lundahl with keywords like "angelic movers", "heliocentrism", "geocentrism", "trigonometry" if you like. If you know French, add French translations to the searches for key words.

When you have done that, come back.

trueleroix

Why would I look this up? You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap. I don't want to know all this personal stuff about you. I suggest you refute what you have written so far. It will be a good exercise for you. I am not a mental health professional. Good luck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap."

OK, with that attitude, when can the debate begin?

"I am not a mental health professional."

I am not asking for one.

"I don't want to know all this personal stuff about you."

I am not writing (mostly) about me. I am for instance writing about why Geocentrism is true. Note that even if I were wrong that would not be about me, but about my arguments.

You are not near refuting them.

trueleroix

Me, refute geocentrism? No, you refute geocentrism. I don't need to do this exercise.

VI

Akita538

"What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West"

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

trueleroix

Dude, the guy said that angels do the parallax imitation movements. I'm dead serious. You can scroll down and see.

Akita538

I know. I know - that just is what they are like - they make life easy for themselves by making up whatever shit happens to fit their current purpose.

Honest people, on the other hand, are expected be perfect and infallible and do all the work!

trueleroix

He was challenging me to refute his claims. I'm like dude, you have the internet? You want me to type whole chapters of astronomy and geology texts in these 500 character boxes? Lazy bastards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to Akita538)

The point is: if you had real understanding about Heliocentrism being true, it would not be work for you to refute me.

That is why I do not take you for a very honest person.

If I asked you to refute flat earth, you would have no more trouble than I had. If I asked you to prove 2+2=4, you would have no trouble.

But I ask you to prove what you believe and you go like "what a load of work" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to trueleroix)

No, not whole chapters.

Just the salient arguments in them - insofar as you believe them.