Talonman007 : Kent Hovind Questions and Answers (Seminar Part 7A & B)
0:06:57 .... try to use the law to silence ... hmm, where is Hovind now? Was he like a bit prophetic about it?
0:24:46 ... why would it be ludicrous that stars are all within a six thousand lightyear radius or even much smaller radius than that?
There are basically only two problems with that.
The one problem of parallax is dealt with if you accept that angels can move stars (unless the stars ARE a kind of angels), see Job 38, a chapter you know very well. Also in Baruch ch 3, if you look at the last verse you may guess why Jews decided Baruch was not canonical.
In that case parallax is not parallax. It gives no information of how far away the star is. If earth is moving and star not, sun not, we have a known distance and two known angles and can calculate the rest to the star. Otherwise sun is moving and so is star, but earth not, and though sun and star move in time we known nothing about the distance covered by the star's movement. If we have one angle and no known distance we can calculate zilch about distance to star from that. We only know they are outside planets (the distance to which we can calculate, presumably, at least if light is infinitely fast, which it maybe isn't, or if daily movement were that of earth which it isn't either) because these sometimes cover this star and sometimes that star and are never covered by any star.
The other problem is star size. The closer stars are, with exact same visible size, the smaller is their real size. And that is a problem to EVOLUTIONISTS, because to them stars self ignited and Jupiter is too small to self ignite or it would have, so all stars must minimum be greater than Jupiter.
If stars lit by God or each star by its angel cannot burn by say fusion lasting for 7200 years - you'd perhaps say 6000, Hovind, we might disagree about how old Adam was when Seth was born, 130 or 230 - then CERN trying to make much smaller aggregates of H in plasma state fuse to He in plasma state is wasting its time.
0:35:51 "if you have two observation points" ... thing is, if Geocentrism is true we have not. Instead of one known distance between earth and earth at opposite parts of the year and star in the same spot, we have no known distance between star and star at opposite parts of the year and earth (i e our observation point, one and only) in the same spot.
deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
nova and Spanish
Latin nova is in Italian nuova and in Spanish nueva
what means "does not go" is "no va"
God does not need a place to live .... 0:33:01 .... He does since He took Flesh.
Where did He go after Ascension as witnessed by the Eleven? To the Heaven above the stars. There is also where He took His Blessed Mother after resurrecting Her. There is also where our bodies will go or have access after Judgement Day, for those of us who get a happy outcome on Judgement Day, that is.
And that is the one place He created before Earth, along with angels to people it. Angels are not omnipresent. No angel can be at two opposite ends of the universe at once and everywhere inbetween too. Their relation to space is maybe other than that of a body placed in it, but they have one and a limited one.
0:53:00 ... Red shift as Doppler effect ... in that case there is a Blue shift and a Red shift, right?
In Heliocentric theory we are always moving around the sun and at any given moment moving towards some stars and away from others.
Are those we are supposed to be moving away from red shifting more than otherwise? Are those we are supposed to be moving towards blue shifting, not shifting or at least red shifting less?
I wonder if Sungenis covers that in his upcoming film ...
1) Holy Bible is not actually saying Universe is billions of light years across.
2) On redshift again, if Qasar red shifts more than galaxy it is in, either it is not due to Doppler effect, or it is moving away from us faster.
If it is moving away from us faster, if it is within that galaxy it is not staying within it, at least not same spot.
In 1:24:21 for freshly killed seal found C14-dated 1300 yeas old a reference is given as Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971. Page 211.
Here is reference available:
Antarctic Journal of the United States
I go to 1971, volume 6 number 5 Sept-Oct 1971:
For page 211 I find this link:
Page 211 (the pdf is for two pages, 210 and 211), left column, last sentence of the last complete paragraph in the column.
"A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1300 years".
Title is "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land", it is by:
Wakefield, Dort Jr
Department of Geology
The University of Kansas
as you find up if you scroll up to p. 210.
Just saying because he has been accused of making up his references.
His next reference is to the article of which this is the abstract:
Sorry, it was not his next reference but the one previous to the previous one, now I am rehearing next reference ...
Now, on 1:23:32 he cites a citation that has been contested:
Contestation in a blog, which also gives complete reference.
Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300
Problem is I find no archives for the magazine as I do the search. Is Natural History a magazine that never existed? Or is it hiding old issues because that one would support Kent Hovind's claim? I do not know. I guess the second.
Here is the rebuttal of the blog:
"2.The radiocarbon dates for the Fairbanks Creek mammoth were allegedly published in September, several months before the first ever radiocarbon resultswere published in December. As such they are unlikely to be true otherwise they would be acknowledged as the first ever radiocarbon results published. "
Would they? Or is that naive?
The blog links here:
Which links to:
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/ (some problem with internet)
and which gives the reference for that site:
Much of the information presented in this section is based upon the Stuiver and Polach (1977) paper "Discussion: Reporting of C14 data". A copy of this paper may be found in the Radiocarbon Home Page
Now, I suggested that the publication might have been made up, if Hovind was a fraud (which I do not think he is anyway). The publication was not made up.
There is a dictionary called Encyclopedia Americana which is online, and it has an article called:
American Museum of Natural History*
That article has a section called
And that section has a first paragraph that goes:
"The AMNH's ongoing research provides the foundation for one of its other central missions, education. Its extensive educational programs seek to increase the public's understanding of current scientific theory and research, address issues affecting our daily lives and the future of the planet, and provide a forum for exploring the world's cultural diversity. In addition, the museum publishes a number of publications, including Natural History magazine and several professional journals."
I repeat the last words: "including Natural History magazine and several professional journals."
So, the publication is not made up.
* Grolier Online http://ea.grolier.com/article?id=0012930-00 (accessed December 14, 2013).
co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, December 14, 2013
... on Kent Hovind Q and A session, featuring Geocentrism on my part and probable evidence of his innocence
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 12:49 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment