Thursday, October 31, 2013

... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, 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
Answering my
God can have created the world any way He wanted to. etc.

600 years before Christ, the Bible stated: “In the time of those kings (Rome), the God of heaven will set up a kingdom... that will never be destroyed” it will “fill the whole earth." It will be built "not by human hands". Daniel 2:31-45

This Kingdom of God began in Rome in 33 AD with the resurrection of the Messiah and FILLED THE EARTH. 2005 Christians (millions): Europe 560, Latin America 480, Africa 360, Asia 313, North America: 260. Total: 1/3 of mankind
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, I agree.

But it was not exactly on subject.

If you have heard some kind of rumour I am no Christian or that I am a Jew or something, that rumour is wrong.

I was right now writing about cosmology, about the way God created the universe - like I believe He put the Earth in the middle and immobile.
Alex Romanov
Geocentrism? seriously?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If not - why?

What is your refutation of Sungenis?

I suppose you know the Saignac effect and Mitchelson Morley (was that the name?) as well as he does?

What is your explanation?
[first a debate with an earlier answer, then back to Alex' answer]
Wiki : Foucault pendulum
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, my explanation as a geocentric to that is that the pendulum is influenced by some kind of forces (say gravitational or similar) from the universe orbitting Earth.

Now, what was your explanation to the Saignac and Mitchelson experiments, again?
pwahh. You have zero understanding of the requisite physics. Pulling suggestions like that out of your ass is not how science is done. How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at billions of times the speed of light. Do you even realize this is required by your geocentric conjecture?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at ..." (more than speed of light).

Omnipotence of God.

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

"Do you even realize this is required by your geocentric conjecture?"

Not billions of times unless I accept the distances.

Which I do not.

But faster than speed of light. Yes. Possibly (have heard it would be about Neptune which would be speed of light limit each day around earth).

Geocentrism is not a conjecture as much as an observation.

And your take on speed of Sirius around earth each day depends on denying it and treating "parallax" as parallax and as a basis for trigonometry.
do you think the earth is 6000 years?? Take a look at this...

infidels. org/library/modern/dave_matson­/young-earth/additional_topics­/supernova . html

This page shows proof that sn1987a is about 170,000 light-years from us.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did. [i e remove spaces]

Here is the assumption:

"Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring."

Assumption - we "have" distance between nova and ring. We do not, the distance can be much smaller than assumed.
Do you live in a universe where the sped of light is changing by any significant amount? The time between the nova and the illumination of the ring tells us how far away the ring was. What part of that do you not understand?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That assumes that the nova and the ring were related by precisely the speed of light.
Yes, it does. You are right. It could very well be the ring is not much bigger than the star, just one year closer to us than the star and lined up exactly between us and the star such that the and facing head on toward us so that it only by the freakiest chance gives the impression that it's a circumstellar ring.

I don't know why I bother.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Or it could be the ring came into existence one year after the nova?

At unknown distance?
To this of me above:
Now, what was your explanation to the Saignac and Mitchelson experiments, again?
(first answered by) ExtantFrodo2

This page shows why you obtain a null result from a Saignac interferometer about a rotating center.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The page cannot be found


New page about Sagnac:

mathpages . com/rr/s2-07/2-07 . htm

Quote from page about Sagnac:

"Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naïve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naïve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory."

And both are consistent with ballistic and naïve ether theory if Geocentrism is true.

That is Sungenis' point (I have that one from him, creds where due).

Thank you for mathpages!
To this of me above:
"How about you explain how the stars can circumnavigate the earth at ..." (more than speed of light).

Omnipotence of God.

Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover.
So you invoke magic to explain why the physics fits your notion of being contrary to all experiments. Get out!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not invoking magic, you are abusing words.

Anyone who believes in God would have to agree (if he is logical) that this is possible.

Anyone not believing in God has the problem of an at least somewhat anti-intuitive contrast between universe as it is and universe as it is seen.

Also, none of this explanation is "contrary to all experiments".

They can say man could never turn the universe around the Earth, they cannot say that of God and as far as I know they are not saying it.

One is saying that God is doing it: what we see with our eyes every day and especially corroborated by inner ears telling confirming Earth is stable.
Sure, with an omnipotent god type thing - anything is possible. So why talk about science? If you choose to invalidate every science that is contrary to your whimsy, then just don't bother trying to talk in scientific terms at all because you have thrown that out the window.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are not dealing with a Universe which according to the most basic OBSERVATIONS is Geocentric while you believe it is really the opposite, like an Earth rotating and orbitting a sun which orbits a galactic centre, which orbits perhaps centre of universe - and all that.

With God I can believe the Universe is what it looks like. From here, from our senses, not from an Atheist's conclusions.

I am not throwing science out of the window.

I am saying science will not work without an omnipotent God.

Just as a doctor in Lourdes seeing a miraculous cure (like sudden cure of tubercular peritonitis before antibiotics could cure those and with complete restoration of already damaged tissue) is acknowledging an Omnipotent God precisely because he does believe the medical science.

A miracle does not equal "nothing can be excluded" but "all just natural causes are excluded".
To which I got two answers
  • ExtantFrodo2 α
  • ExtantFrodo2 β (which is shorter and will be given first)
ExtantFrodo2 β
You see lots of crutches at Lourdes, but oddly no artificial legs.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Malchus got his ear back, when St Peter had severed it by a sword.

St Lucy got her eyes back.

Lourdes has nothing similar, but the Church of Sts Cosmas and Damien (in Constantinople, I think) has.

A man with one leg got out with the leg of a dead negro who needed it no longer (in centuries when such technology was not humanly possible, in case it would be so now).
ExtantFrodo2 α
Yes you are. When you say "the natural explanation can be superseded by god performing a miracle" you have basically thrown science out the window. You now pick and choose at your whim which thing you will explain by miracle or not. No rhyme or reason. Pure folly.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I lift a pen I am not saying that is a miracle.

When a pen I am not lifting is falling or lying on something, I do not say that is a miracle.

When a natural explanation accounts for all and contradicts nothing known, I stick with a natural explanation.
No you don't look how you invoke angels to explain natural phenomena. You don't, so stop lying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
But an angel is created.

A pen moving because it is held by a hand and a pen moving because it falls to the ground are equally natural explanations.

And an angel holding a star is a more natural explanation than the two forces of inertia and gravitation evening out in circle after circle four and a half billion times.

Remember water drops in video? Fifteen times before they got onto knitting needle with electric charge. Not five billion times.
remember the difference in scale? Billions of times larger. I guess that means nothing to you.

HTF is "an angel holding a star" = "a natural explanation". You can't just make up definitions for words as you please just like you make up explanations by invoking an omnipotent being or his unobserved minions.
To which I answer twice:
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl A
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl B

Hans-Georg Lundahl A
The difference in scale makes BOTH attraction AND intertial momentum so much greater.

But the problem was not whether it was a small momentum balancing a small attraction or a big momentum balancing a big attraction, the problem is that momentum balancing attraction in the small scale works out as very unstable orbits.

Why should greater scale make the orbits so much more stable? It is still two forces balancing each other, not one movement without acceleration.
Hans-Georg Lundahl B
An angel holding a star is no more unnatural or supernatural than a man holding a pen.

Those are capabilities that go with the roles.

Angels are not unobserved, and if an omnipotent being exists and is true explanation of some things (like immediate explanation of day and night through rotation of universe), your methodology is likely to land you with a false one.

And no, God turning the Universe around us is is perfectly supernatural to me. God is not created. Unlike angels.
On earlier answer
with observation saying Earth is Geocentric:
Yeah, I've heard what your observations consist of "rotation of the earth is not detected by the inner ear". Of course not. It isn't fast enough. We could put you in a sealed windowless house on a turnstile that rotates once every 24 hours to show you that your inner ear wouldn't clue you into it actually moving. It works through inertia and momentum of the fluid there trying to remain in place as the sensory follicles rotate around it they are dragged out of position. What's the threshold rate?

Second, if the head experiences sustained accelerations on the order of 10 – 20 seconds, the hair follicles return to the “zero” or vertical position and the brain interprets this as the acceleration ceasing. Additionally, there is a lower acceleration threshold of about 2 degrees per second that the brain cannot perceive. In other words, slow and gradual enough motion below the threshold will not affect the vestibular system.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are explanations for Earth seeming still even if it were both rotating and orbitting the Sun.

This does not preclude that if I believe Geocentrism I am believing that the Earth is as it seems to be.

I was not challenging you for direct proof from senses, but, if I had, explaining the lack of proof would not be a proof.
(second answered by) Akita538
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would rather say your explanation of Saignac and Michelson experiments are non-extant than weak, so far.

Unless you agree with somewhat more farfetched explanation of the paper linked to.
[Back to Alex' answer]
Alex Romanov
buy a telescope.

observe a cephid star and the Sun's position relative to it, and your own.

I hope being able to visibly observe the Earth's rotation is proof enough.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are abusing the word "observe" for "observe inverse of and therefore conclude".

You do not observe Earth's supposed rotation by that.

You do not observe, though you might conclude (in my not so humble opinion wrongly) Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun from that.

I am not exactly into what a Cephid is. I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails. And on a Christian view, they can.

Pagans like Aristotle agreed but alas identified that with Pagan gods. (And this was before parallax became an issue).
Alex Romanov
"You do not observe Earth's supposed rotation by that."

"I am not exactly into what a Cephid is"

Okay. "if angels can account for stellar movements" You make this claim on the basis of?

Anyway, if you don't quite know what a cephid is, how exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that observing it, doesn't unequivocally prove the earth's rotation?

". And on a Christian view" Any evidence of the validity of this view? what separates it from saying, Malak can do so and so, in the Islamic view?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not saying observing it would not unequivocally prove Earth's rotation, but I add that.

I was saying observing it is not observing Earth as rotating.

I do not know what Malak is in an Islamic view, and I do not know if there is on this simple metaphysical level any difference between Christianity and Islam. There are obvious ones on Theological levels.

Okay. "if angels can account for stellar movements" You make this claim on the basis of?

"if angels can account for stellar movements" is not a claim. Here is the claim I did make:

I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails.

I base it on logic. If A or B account for C, C cannot conclusively prove either of them unless the other is excluded somehow.
This was answered thrice:
  • Alex Romanov (i)
  • Alex Romanov (ij)
  • ExtantFrodo (iij)
Alex Romanov (i)
"observing it is not observing Earth as rotating"

Again, I'll repeat my question if you aren't aware of what it is, how can you confidently state what it's observation doesn't imply?

Interesting point on Islam and Christianity, since both Muhammad and Jesus claimed to be exclusive paths to their own respective gods, and widely differed on religious precepts eg: In Islam drinking alcohol is a cardinal sin, The christian claim that Jesus is the son of god is rejected, which version do you prefer?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
I am a Christian.

Muslims being wrong on Christology and on Morals does not mean they are wrong on a simple thing in metaphysics like what angels can do.

My words:

observing it is not observing Earth as rotating

Your words:

How can you confidently state what it's observation doesn't *imply*?

Do you agree you did a misnomer in using "observe x" when you meant "observe y which implies x"?
Alex Romanov (i, second round)
"Muslims being wrong on Christology and on Morals"

How do you assume it's them that's wrong, and not you?

"Do you agree you did a misnomer"

If you insist on breaking down an unequivocal conclusion sure? by that logic, you can't say you observe your computer screen, the light excites your retinal cells, which implies there is a source of light, which based on it's consistency implies words, which also "seem" to be a computer screen
Hans-Georg Lundahl (i, second round)
I insist that between observing Cepheids and concluding Earth either rotates or orbits there is no "unequivocal" or rather no compelling conclusion.

Unless you start by ruling out God.

And I can take the discussion on what Theology is correct another time, here is about Metaphysics where we and Muslims are equally right.
This was followed up
by some filibustering:
Alex Romanov
Also, if the geocentric theory is true, why do the crop circles left by alien visitors always feature the largest sphere as the center? would you say the Earth is the largest object in existence?
Hahaha, how appropriate. Genius.
Alex Romanov just gotta give the irrational a taste of their own medicine. lol
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you tried to be irrational (as if I were so and you were giving me my own medicine)?

Explains why your answer made no sense.
The filibustering was just one part ...
Alex Romanov (i - 1)
" insist that between observing Cepheids and concluding Earth either rotates or orbits there is no "unequivocal" or rather no compelling conclusion"

I noticed that, but what I'm genuinely curious is as to what led you to that conclusion when you're unaware of what Cepheids are?

"here is about Metaphysics where we and Muslims are equally right."

So are the muslims only correct when they agree with you? or are there cases where they have it right and you don't?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you want my take on Muslims, invite me to debate against a Muslim video inviting Christians to debate. If you merely want to make the point we both think each other right only where we don't think each other wrong, that goes for you in relation to either of us too.

As to the serious question: a tiny observation of far off stars cannot in itself overrule a daily observation of what Earth shows itself like and what skies look like over Earth.
Alex Romanov (i - 2)
Also, I see you didn't quite explain how if geocentrism is the correct model, the gravity assist technique, which is wholly reliant on a heliocentric model, that too a very specific one, works?

Or the moon mission? which also based their calculations on a heliocentric solar system?

Also, what if all humans moved to another planet, and abandoned Earth, would the universe continue to rotate around it, or would it rotate around the new planet?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Moon mission only needed accuracy about relative movements of Moon and Earth. And either way you calculate you get the relative movements correct.

Humans will not move to "another" planet, since Sun, Mercury, Venus are too hot, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn too cold. Plus all except Moon moving too fast.

As to gravity assist technique, explanation is wanted before I answer. I am no prophet.
Alex Romanov (ij)
Also, were the sun revolving around the Earth, why is according to you, that the background observations do not remain constant? if the Earth is not rotating, but is fixed why are all cosmological entities eg: star's pulsar and nebulae viewable from any point on Earth, at recurring equal intervals? are all of them rotating around the Earth as well in your theory or do you have another explanation for why your night sky is what the other side see's 12 hours later and vice versa?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij)
All heaven is rotating around earth, and only God has the power to make it do so, which is why this observed fact - unless you can prove the observation to be illusion - is prima facie a proof of God.
Answered twice
  • Alex Romanov (ij, second round)
  • shayne g
Alex Romanov (ij, second round)
I see, so you feel the entire observable universe, all the galaxies, stars planets etc are rotating around Earth then? just to be clear? Everything out there is rotating around our planet?
Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij, second round)
Everything is rotating around Earth somewhat faster outside than one circle per 24 h. Suns lags behind and makes one circle in exactly 24 h.

That is Classical Geocentric Cosmology. Has been believed and taught as fact for longer than your Heliocentric stuff.

Planet is for earth a misnomer.
Alex Romanov
I see, so, everything, regardless of distance from Earth, is moving at a speed around the earth, such that it appears to make a little over one circle per 24 hours?
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Stars move considerably faster. One circle 23 h and some 50-ish minutes.

Sun moves exactly one circle 24 h.

Moon moves slower 24 h and 50 minutes.

Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc which have retrogrades move erratically.
Answering (as said)
All heaven is rotating around earth ... etc.
shayne g
So how do you explain retrograde motion lol! I think you will need to look it up you may not have heard about it ?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all, it is only relatively retrograde.

If you abstract away the overall westward movement of all heavens each day there is one such. But if you look at it concretely, each planet is going westward along with the sky. Retrogrades mean a slowing down of that.

I explain them exactly as Tycho Brahe did. Sun moves directly around the Earth westward each day and along the Zodiak eastward each year. Venus & Mars and the rest move around it and move as fast, or faster or slower on the whole.

So much for the geometric and temporal, i e properly astronomical explanation of retrogrades.

As to the physical, it is not a problem for angels to achieve this. If their powers given by God are adequate for the task.
Coolguy Canuck
Evasive waffle. Mars appears to go backwards against the celestial background.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Supposing it to stand still.

As it rotates around Earth, Mars is concretely rotating with it but at certain times slowing down and lagging seriously behind.

And this is due to the fact Mars rotates around the Sun and its double movement, the daily westward and the yearly eastward (i e the Sun lags behind the daily movemnt of the stars).

Precisely as I was saying in the comment you found evasive.
shayne g
Retrograde means going backwards .... I told you to look it up! You could have found a grown up to help you if you had trouble! Saying Mars is slowing down or going backwards a little bit, is like saying your crackpot theory is only a little bit dead ....Dead is dead, thanks for the laugh!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And I told you retrograde is only what it is if abstraction is made from the daily movement of the universe, i e if it is regarded as not occurring.

You could have looked that up (you might have needed a better source than wiki, though).

During retrogrades each night such and such a planet will be behind what it was the night before. But there is not a moment, as far as I know, when it will stop still and turn eastward.
shayne g
Well as i told you you need to look it up! You say that as far as you know there isnt a moment in time that it will stop still and turn eastward well i am informing you that there is a time it does. It and i am not getting my info from wiki. I observed it myself in 2007 by going outside and watching it over a few months just as you can do next time it happens.You may even find the dates when it will happen again on wiki lol!
Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe you (until I check). I was wrong.

Slight modification of my explanation, this means that the orbit of Mars around the Sun is sometimes so much faster than the daily orbit of Sun around Earth that Mars not just slows down but really moves backwards.

Nevertheless, that also is within the possibilities of angels guiding the heavenly bodies.

No need to abandon Geocentrism just for Retrogrades.

Wait ... you said "over a few months" ... I thought you went out and saw an hour when it stopped going westward and turned eastward same night?
shayne g
Don't you think angels have better things to do? The much simpler explanation is the bible and koran are completely wrong!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think the angels have above all one thing to do: adore God.

In Church, during Mass, there are servants whose specific task it is to carry candles. But like the others, they adore God.

The angels that carry stars are like the servants that carry candles.

Did not find any answer about whether Mars was turning east on a specific night when the rest of the sky continued west - or whether the specific orbit of Mars eastward from day to day at one point turned westward and then turned back east after a few nights or weeks or months.

Did you concretely at a specific moment see it turn?
(To the part about servants in Mass)
shayne g
Churches are funny!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In that case, maybe so is the universe.
ExtantFrodo2 (iij)
I do know that if angels can account for stellar movements, then argument from parallax fails.

Wrong. Try this...

If angels can account for stellar movements, AND angels exist, then argument from parallax fails.

See what a big fucking "if" that is?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If they did not exist they could not account for stellar movements (including "parallax").

I was just reading in anglo-saxon about the one who stayed Abraham's arm.

If God had not existed, how come every trait of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (including Isaac saved / Jesus resurrected) was reapeated about Christ?

Or if angels had not existed, why did a car run over a child without harming it and the child saw a man lift the wheel which no other person saw that man?
tina webber
......... because that [...] never happened
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is of course the atheist's option.

Never mind if it makes sense about what we otherwise know about the texts and their background.

Genesis and Gospels are not novels by a modern fantasy writer. They were from the first believed as true history by communities concerned.

[Forgot to refer her to Mother Basilea Schlink's collection of Guardian Angel stories where I got the child under the car wheel from. Not a collection of fantasy stories either, but if not genuine it would be deliberate deceit. Which I find less probable in this case, not being an atheist.]
Do they run degree courses in Retardation somewhere, or do you just happen to be, you know, naturally retarded?

The cap fits whether you actually believe all that crap, or whether you're just being a Poe.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, that kind of filibustering (and modern "education" seems to encourage it when it comes to YEC and Geocentrism) is a very good explanation why Heliocentric and Evolutionist paradigms suffer no more than they do from rational opposition.

What was it Dawkins said about a YEC (who was a scientist)? Holds ears and says "la la la" - fits your behaviour right now.
Poe it is then. Gotcha!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If it makes you feel any finer ... *grin*
I do like it when people of religion can actually give a good and solid argument without even bringing their religion into the argument at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you love when Dawkins can actually give a good and solid argument (if that ever happens) without bringing in his evolutionist beliefs?
Evolution is not a belief system.

It is a scientific theory* supported by numerous amounts of data.

*A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you claim that for things like common ancestor of cats and dogs, of mice and men, of mammals and birds, of frogs and fish, of animals and plants ... not to mention abiogenesis, well, then you are mistaking a belief system for a theory.
Evolution is a belief system in the same way that 'bald' is a hair style and 'Off' is a TV channel.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That one worked lots better with "atheism" instead of evolution.

I even granted it insofar as "atheism" per se does not specify whether you meant "evolutionary atheism" or "theravada buddhist atheism" or for that matter Demokritos' steady state eternal universe atheism.

But for any specific of the three, the case refuses to work.
Atheism is Atheism: Lack of, or disbelief, in a God or gods.

Everything else is separate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Which is why Evolutionism is not a mere negative as Atheism is.
Only creationists like the term 'Evolutionism', because they're trying to make it sound like a belief system.

Mainstream science doesn't use that term.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mainstream science in those fields does not use that term because it is infected by the thing.

Meaning that good science is a minority in the issues concerned.

Not that a field can be concerned without an issue being concerned. Biology is concerned as a field, but most issues in biology are not concerned.

But even supposing evolutionism were good science, it would still be a system of doctrine in which one believes rather than a lack of opinion.
It doesn't use the word because science isn't an '-ism'.

The scientific method makes an assertion based upon falsifiable testing.

If it is a validresearch, other scientists should be able to perform the same experiment.

If the same conclusions are not met, then it is called into question.

An example is Dr Andrew Wakefield's assertion that MMR can cause autism.

The study was called into question and have be proven incorrect.

Evolution hasn't been called into question in 150+ years
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure. Being infected by Evolutionism you accept it as science.

Even if you were right, it would not be a non-opinion or an opinion just against a thesis like atheism considered in itself. It would be a system of doctrine.

Evolution is being called into question time after time by Creation Science. On proofs and on explanations.

And "fish developed eyes from photosensory spots tied to cirkadian system" is not testable as Ohm's law in electronics is.
Answered twice
  • john clewes i
  • Cliffjumper24 ij
john clewes i
LMFAO. Creationist science???? The two terms are totally incompatible,hence there's no such fucking thing.!!!! In case you hadn't noticed, EVOLUTION is firmly established as a proven peer reviewed scientific FACT,accepted even by your own pervert ridden cult,and like it or not,the subject IS being taught in schools the world over,which with any luck should mean the next generation WILL avoid the indignity of becoming a universal laughing stock.!!!! EVOLUTION is,so get used to it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Creation_science

"In case you hadn't noticed, EVOLUTION is firmly established as a proven peer reviewed scientific FACT"

I did notice "mainstream science" is largely infected by "evolutionism". Your wording adds nothing about that social acceptance except that unlike me you accept it as the due to that idea while I do not.

"EVOLUTION is [...] accepted even by your own pervert ridden cult"

The pervert ridden part are the psychiatry accepting part, since traditionally perverts were not sent to shrinks but defrocked. They are also much of the evolution accepting part.

"the subject IS being taught in schools the world over,which with any luck should mean the next generation WILL avoid the indignity of becoming a universal laughing stock.!!!!"

Universal laughing stock before whom? If it were not taught there would be no "universal" consensus (and there still is none such) before which creationists could be a laughing stock.

"EVOLUTION is,so get used to it."

"We are the Borg. You ... will ... be ... assimilated."

Oh yeah?
Cliffjumper24 ij
There is no such thing as 'Creation Science', because it isn't 'science' at all.

Science can only test empirical, natural claims..... and creationism is giving 'supernatural' reasons that can't be tested.

Creationism is taking the bible, replacing the cover to one with a science book, and putting it in a library in the science section.

It's done in an attempt to unconstitutionally sneak christianity into US schools.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[1] If Creation Science were not testable, that would make it no worse than Evolutionism.

Science can test claims about what we observe.

It can sometimes test claims about explanations of what we observe.

Therefore it can conclude that certain things we do observe do not have natural explanations, because those offered are tested and found faulty.

Therefore it can conclude for supernatural explanations.

[2] The Constitution does not say the Bible cannot be taught in schools belonging to the States.

As far as I know none belong to the Union (below University level).

Even there the Bible is not a specific religion in the sense the Constitution was originally understood by its earliest citizens. Unlike for instance a Trentine or Belgic Catechism (Catholic respectively Calvinist).
First part answered twice
  • Michael Brown (to the first part)
  • Cliffjumper24 (also to the first part)
Michael Brown (to the first part)
Atheist concluded that science = everything ought to be explained atheistically.

Evolutionists are investing nature with a creative power thus the concept of mother natures having presided over an atheistic evolutionary process.

Nature or the creatures being invested with an evolutionary dynamism is traceable to ancient paganism. Darwin has only repackaged and served the myth under the cover of science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
True enough.

If Darwin cannot be said to have done so consciously, it is very true for the Darwin reception.

Before Charles went on board the Beagle, he was not a Young Earth Creationist, but already an Old Earth non-Biblical philosopher. And therefore Evolution became his solution to the supposedly successive faunas of Lyell.
Michael Brown
The scriptures are not referring to the earth being young.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The passage in itself does not specify how long that lasted.

But Mark 10:6 makes it clear it cannot have been any larger portion of history.

From the BEGINNING of creation ... (or of the world)...
Michael Brown
The earth had already been there when God started his creation.

You are just underestimating the power of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent creator God. If He were to withdraw his Spirit all life would be annihilated. Naturalism is investing nature with miraculous creative power moulding new species through a tedious evolutionary process like turning apes into men, land mammals into whales or turkeys into penguins..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not underestimating the power of God.

I am affirming his veracity.

You lied.

"The earth had already been there when God started his creation."


In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. Creation was already around when Earth got there.
Michael Brown
In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.

The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

If that stage had taken long time (or been preceded by long time) Adam's and Eve's subsequent creation would not have been, as it was, in "the beginning of creation" from which "God created them man and woman."
Cliffjumper24 (also to the first part)
Creationism takes data and twists it to meet the presumed facts that it wants to find in the first place.

And when proper scientists look at it, it has been found to be unscientific (not meeting the 'scientific method').

So... how old do you believe the Earth/universe is?

What are these things that "do not have natural explanations"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Evolutionism takes data and twists them to meet the presumed facts that it wants to find in the first place.

    And when Creation Scientists or even other Evolutionist Scientists look at it, it has been found false, according to either Evolutionist or any Scientific method.

  • 2) Earth and Universe were 7200 years a bit more than a decade ago.

    Christ was born Anno Mundi 5199.

  • 3) Three at least on a general level:

    • a) Biological life, its occurrence, its organs, its diversity (especially when considering mammalian chromosome numbers or the diversities that are hard to bridge in exterior fashions).

    • b) Mind.

    • c) Geocentrism (which is an observation that only atheism could disprove).

    • Add to that on more specific occasions:

      d) All the recorded miracles.
He answered
the three points separately
Cliffjumper24 1st point
Things that are supernatural cannot be tested... which means they are not falsifiable... and therefore means it is NOT 'SCIENCE'.

So there is no such thing as Creation Science... it just doesn't exist.

It's that simple.

Creationists have a conclusion, and try to find evidence to support it, and selectively leaving out evidence that doesn't support it.

That is the opposite the scientific method..

You didn't answer my question on how old you think the universe is anyway.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wrong, wrong.

I just explained how supernatural causes can be tested by their natural or miraculous but at least in-natural and observable, testable effects.
That's NOT SCIENCE... and as you admitted.... Creationism isn't science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The effect is science. The impossibility of an alleged natural explanation is science.

So the conclusion of a supernatural cause is scientifically concluded.

I was not admitting Creationism is not science, I was citing you to point out circularity of your reasoning in defense of Evolutionism.
Cliffjumper24 2nd point
Sorry, you did answer it...

The centre of our galaxy is 26,000 light years away.... the nearest visible galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away.

We can SEE these things, with telescopes.

If there universe was 7200ish years old, the light wouldn't have reached us yet!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We can see the stars with telescopes.

We cannot see "our galaxy" as a whole with our telescopes, as from the outside. Presuming it is there, we would be in its inside.

We cannot see the light years, they too are conclusions rather than observations with the telescope.

We cannot therefore conclude any light reaching us would not yet be reaching us if its source was only 7200 years old.
Yes, we can't see all of our galaxy because we're in it.... that's what the milky way is.

Since you have no understanding of the basic astronomy of THIS solar system, it would be a complete waste of my time trying to explain about the age of stars and wavelengths, and the speed of light.

By the way, if the speed of light wasn't a constant, and something real and testable.... there wouldn't be electricity, or computers.

That alone is proof the universe is more than 7200 years old.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not denying the speed of light. I have reserves on that as for outer parts of universe where stars are rotating around us faster than the speed of light here, but I was saying we have no knowledge of any star being so many light years away.
Cliffjumper24 3rd point
a: Evolution explains it, and hasn't been disproven scientifically (creationism isn't science) yet, despite the data from comparative genome testing, which would probably have been the biggest threat to the theory if it was wrong.

b:This is the Argument from Consciousness.

We can see from observation that consciousness exists, but making the presumption that 'your god did it, rather than some other god (Vishnu, or Thor) pushes the burden of proof on you.

C: Astronomy, it's that simple!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
a) Evolution has not been disproven scientifically - Creationism is not science.

Oh ... any argument disproving evolution IS creationist. Ergo it is not SCIENCE. Ergo if evolution has been disproven it was NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ... duh.

Try again.

Besides, you forgot your usual distinction between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

b) "We can see from observation that consciousness exists, but making the presumption that 'your god did it, rather than some other god (Vishnu, or Thor) pushes the burden of proof on you."

This includes a complete refutation of materialistic atheism.

The anti-confessional point at the end bypasses that Christianity DOES take the burden of proof for its God being the true Creator and true giver of Mind. See point D, recorded miracles.

Those and that point are beyond mere creationism.

c)Astronomy has not disproven geocentrism.
Cliffjumper24 (on point a)
Creationism hasn't 'proven' anything... it hasn't submitted any papers that have withstood scientific scrutiny, primarily because it isn't objective due to a presumption of the facts it already has decided is correct.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The so called scrutiny Creationism's papers have not withstood (nor been demolished by, but which has in fact ignored its papers) is not objective due to a presumption of the facts that evolutionists have already decided are correct.
'Creation Science' is science in the same way that a 'fake gun' is a gun.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
We know some Catholics are so much more enthusiastic for Evolutionary so called science than Pius XII allowed in Humani Generis ... he allowed precisely teaching the controversy.

Now, what we do not know is that such Catholics are still Catholic.
Cliffjumper24 (on point b)
Gravity isn't materialist.... but it exists.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And gravity does not explain the mind.
Akita538 (on point c)
In the same sense that "everything was created last Thursday" hasn't been disproved. Like millions of other propositions that have *nothing* to recommend them. Geocentrism is just one of those millions, along with stacks of invisible turtles supporting the earth while resting on nothing in particular (or possibly a pink unicorn.)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, not at all in the same sense.

Astronomy and geography have both proven that Earth is round. Astronomy has proven that Jupiter has Moons. Astronomy has proven that at least some planets - or rather all but one body, which we have reason to identify with Earth - circle the Sun.

But Astronomy has not proven and cannot prove that Earth circles Sun rather than other way round. Has not proven and cannot prove that Earth rotates rather than Universe around it.

Geocentrism is observed.

If anything is a pointless assumption it is precisely denying our eyes and inner ears telling us Earth is still and denying our eyes saying Sun and Moon move (in relation to Earth, yes, but to an Earth which eyes and inner ears tell us is still).

Only atheism could "prove" that pointless assumption, by making the obvious Geocentric alternative physically impossible.

St Thomas Aquinas was not amusing himself with pointless assumptions, I share Geocentrism with him.
Cliffjumper24 (also on point c)
It absolutely has.

Not only is the pole star not perfectly at the pole, not only is the tilt related to the seasons, but the order of the planets is NOT:





The Sun



Saturn... etc
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As for order of planets, Earth is Earth and therefore not a planet.

Venus and Mercury and Sun align either way from Earth. And sometimes Sun is also between them.

I do not see in these things any disproof of Geocentrism.

Explain one of the points as a proof against Geocentrism if you can.
Answered twice
  • Cliffjumper24 A
Cliffjumper24 A
It took a few moments to type this reply because I was laughing so much that I had to double check I hadn't left a puddle on the chair!!

It's only because your completely uneducated ideas are classed as 'Religion' that you can say the nonsense you do without being subjected to mental health treatment.

I'm surprised you can eat foot with a fork without doing yourself a serious injury!!
Answered twice:
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl i
  • RFC3514 ij
Hans-Georg Lundahl i
It is because people like you can denigrate candour,and threaten with that kind of mistreatment, that your ideas flourish due to fear of being mistreated unless one shows oneself "understanding" ...
RFC3514 ij
"The Earth is not a planet"

You realise what this means, right? He's posting from almost 2000 years ago! Who knew they even had access to YouTube back then?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, my near countryman (or countryman of my ancestors), Tycho Brahe, lived about half a millennium ago.

So far his solution has not been disproven - unless you can show spacecraft did so ... somehow ... (watching Earth move from the Moon does not count, since Moon would be moving around Earth).
Are u stupid? If the Sun could orbit and make way through between Venus and Mercury, we would be literally toast, because of the proximity... I took less than 2 minutes to answer you, and I already debunked you.
Answered twice
  • Hans-Georg Lundahl α
  • ExtantFrodo2 β
Hans-Georg Lundahl α
You thought you debunked me.

Where does the proximity come in?

I accept the distance calculated by taking angles to Sun, to Moon and to Sunlight refelcted on Moon.
ExtantFrodo2 β
Watch him say that angels make the sun as hot or cold as necessary depending on how close it is to the earth and call that "debunking you". LOL
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, if the Sun was closer back in Henoch's day, I suppose it was cooler too.
People never thought earth was flat, it was just said by the Church, and so they write about it. But every inteligent man back in medieval time knew earth was round. (sorry for my bad english, I am a French student on History and I wanted to add something about what he said).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"it was just said by the Church"?

"ce fut juste préconisé par l'église"?

No, the Church did not say the Earth was flat!

Throw Michelet out of your Historic library when it comes to Church and Middle Ages. He is a hack.

Every intellectual in the Middle Ages knew the Earth was round, but that was thanks to the Church.

Some non-intellectual but intelligent people thought it flat, because they did not use the schools of the Church but stayed at the farm or fishing boat.
Answered twice
  • elarios77 (i)
  • Cliffjumper24 (ij)
Nah actually it was because one important man of the Church told it was flat, and so the intellectual in the Middle Ages did the same to look more close to the Church. I may have told this the wrong way the first time my bad.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, but you are wrong about history.

St Cyril said the Earth was flat, St Augustine said it was round, St Basil said he did not care.

St Augustine was more attended than the other two in this respect.

"and so the intellectual in the Middle Ages did the same to look more close to the Church"

Which ones of them?

Not St Thomas Aquinas. Not St Francis of Assisi. Not St Dominic of Guzmán. So, who?
Cliffjumper24 (ij)
The bible says the earth is flat, not the church.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Neither the Church, nor the Bible.

The Bible says it has circles, but does not specify if they constitute a rim of a disk or a globe. It says "terra" has four corners but does not specify whether in context that means Earth as a whole or just the Mainland / Continent (which, as a matter of fact, had four corners until England and Ireland were cut off making it five and Australia was cut off making it six, two opposed to each of these islands).

No comments: