## Friday, March 28, 2014

### ... on Coastlines and Fractals being No Challenge to Thomistic Concept of Mathematics

1) ... on Honesty of Numberphile / Cambridge University, Mathematics, 2) ... on Coastlines and Fractals being No Challenge to Thomistic Concept of Mathematics

Video commented on:
Measuring Coastline - Numberphile
[They have a logo which is a π, which is not a number ...]
Speaker and Calculator:
Steve Mould

Coastline per se
Sinuosity of rivers earlier mentioned may suffer from a similar problem?

A ruler getting into millimetres would be getting hundreds and millions of times greater than the ordinary scale?

I would say rather that the lesser the scale of the ruler, true, the longer you get, but the less is proportionally added. Meaning that even the first measure is a fair approximation.

[I was wrong, see further down.]

Besides, getting millimetres can never be a true answer of a coastline, since the water gets up and down on a scale of decimetres or even a metre or two, excepting tidal regions with even greater variation.

The variation of waves needs to be evened out by an average for a fixed as opposed to fluctuating coastline to exist at all. In tidal regions this can of course mean two coastlines. Inner and outer. But even those are not fixed, since along the month tidal variations vary in intensity. There you get an even greater area of averaging out.

You might answer that the actual length of a coastline without averaging exists and fluctuates.

In that sense, man cannot measure it. Man has not the resources to pick out a moment and measure the smallest details of the coastline at that precise moment. It has a length, and a finite length though. And what it is is known - for each moment - to God.

And the second answer for a coastline length was actually including islands - which are off the coastline. Might be part of reason why it is more than double.

Actually I tested by using Koch sequence as each step meaning *4/3 and got from 3 to 39 ... I see your point.

Let us add that God knows the length at each moment as measured in each possible scale (English feet, French feet, English inches, French inches, English lines, French lines AND French points, not to mention any un-known to man of which there are infinitely more - which may give an idea how Divine Omniscience means "infinita scire"). But man who can only measure with one unit at a time does not.

On fractals, metioned as a parallel
The parallel you make with what looks like a side of a Koch snowflake (yes, I had to look Koch up) ... two points.

The total is NEVER at once three and four times the detail.

The detail is a third of total length previous to adding it and a quarter of total length simultaneously to adding it.

Any fresh addition is an addition which may be made ad infinitum, in the sense there is no limit predetermined on how much you can add, except the practical ones.

And if we look at the computer simulation of a Mandelbrot sequence ... well the smaller details do not physically exist in the pixels until you zoom in.

Saying that the length of the circumferences of a Mandelbrot sequence are infinite is treating it as it never ever exists in reality.

Hardly a solid basis for redefining certitudes about more practical realities, as some Pyrrhonists would abuse it!

## Saturday, March 22, 2014

### ... on Flood Again (a Classic, but I like being Brilliant, and Evolutionists Kindly Allow Even Little Me to be So)

jammapcb
+jbooks888 except noah is not practical at all...! start using your brain... because its written does not make it so.... then use reality to test it.... and noah sinks!! lol﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why would Noah sink if the Ark was not overloaded?

Note that the Arc did not need to break waves, it only needed to function as a drifting lifeboat.

Even the Babylonians got that right, they only assumed that if a little life boat was a round coracle, then a big life boat had to have been a giant round coracle as well, but those are or were not buildable.

So, the Ark was not breaking due to crossing waves while navigating, since there was no human navigation. And God had calculated the Ark so it was, with all kinds of beasts, excepting fish, not overloaded.
Hal Barbour
+Hans-Georg Lundahl In order for the world to be flooded to a height of at least 17,000 feet above current levels (Mt. Ararat is 16,000 ft high) that would require an additional amount of water in the range of half a billion cubic MILES of water! and to accomplish this in 40 days and nights it would have to rain 15 feet per hour for the allotted 960 hours that makes up 40 days and nights. Nothing floating could take that kind of pounding, nothing. No wooden boat could take that, nor steel for that matter. Not to mention the problem of where this massive amount of water went after the flood. This is obviously a mythic story with no validity as a literal event.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) Ararat can have risen further up since then.
2) The Deluge Waters were not only by rain.

Therefore something floating might have taken the pounding required. If it was smaller.

Even if it was that big, God could have let it rain around the Arc, but not on it.

3) As to where water went, I have taken the view it went miraculously back into the sky, but I find merit in the view that just as Mountains rose afterwards, also Oceanic Basins sank, so that much water was drained down.

I also find merit in the view it may have disappeared even further down - since secularists have taken such a view about supposed former waters on the surface of Mars.

4) As to your conclusion, it does not stand up for the scrtiny of compared legends. If the "myth" (a word with many meanings) were in this case "fable" (i e made up), we would not find it all over the earth.
jammapcb
+Hans-Georg Lundahl ffs...... lack of genetic bottlenecking across the world today only 0.0002% of species on the boat lol

lack of genetic material for all of them including the ppl and the wife swapping gang bang boat when adultery is frowned upon (dick removal was the punishment in egyptian times) = retarded and incestual offspring =extinct

8 ppl to egyptian empire in 150 years (1.6 million ppl) not including hundreds of tribes which survived fine and genetics prove they were around when this sillly story was made up!

Salt water alteration would kill most of the sea life and fresh water life and also plant life on the land .... in other words its FUCKING RETARDED!!!!! dumb, not practical, insane, exaggerated beyond sense and reality... much like the religious dullards!

also the flood was 22 foot high of which is a local tsunami height on average.... 15 cubits = egyptian measurement (yet they were after noah??? and they didnt exist then right???) but they did of course!!

you live in a fucking cartoon world.. idiota!

so go figure﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
a) Bottlenecking exists.
b) I am not sure how long it took between Flood and first beginnings of Egyptian Empire.

I am sure populations can have risen pretty quick with so much land, and also that populations in any given new state can have started out small and risen quickly there.

c) Salt water alteration means the water would have become either lots saltier or lots less salty. I suppose neither, and I suppose certain species now adapted to salt water life were then fresh water.

Thank you for the insults at this distance, I would not have liked to meet you in person.

d) measurements existed before the flood, including obviously cubits.

Whether Egyptian, Babylonian or other post-Flood cubit is best closest to pre-Flood cubit, I do not know.

The Flood was not 15 cubits in all high, but 15 cubist high-ER than the highest mountains there were before the flood.
jammapcb
I missed this while answering his following
+Hans-Georg Lundahl no m8 alot of human tribes across the planet survived fine... and no there are little bottlenecks... of which none are incest based.... lol... we know this because TO Many species are dependent on specialized environments and are apart not made for! .. again such a flood would = global kill for land life... full stop and also the sea due to the impossible amount of rain water which is really evaporated sea/land water ;0).... nature is balanced ... that sad story is sooo not natural nor possible!
jammapcb
+Hans-Georg Lundahl global flood DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!! dumb shit!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the highest mountains from where this story came from... was a flat land lol.... so again tsunami lol﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
a) how do you know, beyond the text, where the story comes from?

I suppose you refer to Babylonic sources, who as I just mentioned are less accurate about form of the Ark.

But apart from that, if you have two texts from two different traditions on same topic, how do you decide which tradition behind the texts is the older one?

b) If Mesopotamia was indeed flat, it was also so long already then that a tsunami can be counted out, and it was surrounded by regions with mountains which were obviously higher than the flat region itself.
jammapcb
+Hans-Georg Lundahl because the babylonians had the same or very similar story of a boat and flood... considering they are older and also are nearby the hebrew versions.... the tablets are older m8.... at least learn something outside of one book ffs lol﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was aware that some tablets might be somewhat older than Genesis.

Obviously, they would be much older if you accepted the early date for Babylonian and Sumerian Chronologies and the over late date for Genesis (as if written around lifetime of Ezra rather than by Moses).

Note, "would be" and perhaps there are even such as are centuries older (Genesis around 1510 BC - year of Exodus - and I have heard oldest tablets are dated 1800 - 2000 BC).

Nearby the Hebrew version - yes, but that does not decide which of the versions is older.

In fact, may I remind you of it again, both versions agree that the Survivers' Boat was a lifeboat which did not need to navigate. But a real big one.

Now, Babylonian version makes it a standard version lifeboat - a round coracle - magnified immensely and it would really be impossible to build or hold together over a flood. An Arc would keep together if built like that.

So a general similarity does NOT by itself (independently of for instance realism) decide which of two versions is older and closer to or identical to original.

Neither does the earlier or later writing down between two traditions that rival each other, unless the difference is massive.
Hal Barbour
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You realize of course that there is NO geological evidence to support any of your assuptions, No biological evidence, as to how only two of any "kind" can repopulate the world and quite frankly your assertion of Mountains rising, no rain on the ark, water being just taken into the sky, is on it's face absurd. Any water that was on Mars is either below ground, and any above was evaporated when Mars lost the majority of it's atmosphere, something that did not happen here. You need to read some Joseph Campbell, he was a world recognized authority on Mythology and speaks to the phenomenon of world-wide mythology. These stories are called Archetypes, or collective mythologies oweing to a shared mythic mind. The flood myth is world wide but so are other myths shared between societies and cultures, there are myths that are not in the bible but are shared amongst other societies, does this fact say that these myths are also literal? Archaelogists found the city of Troy, this city was rumored to be a myth, but it was found, does that revelation show validity for Greek mythology?

Is it more likely that a flood story oweing itself to a shared archetype of the subconscious mind is the reason for it's world wide distribution, or that these societies ALL had a flood, at different times, because of different reasons, impacting different lessons and morals by a single author or god? I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and quite frankly your assertion of Mountains rising, no rain on the ark, water being just taken into the sky, is on it's face absurd."

To people disbelieving Miracles. As for mountains rising being absurd, you might want to disbelieve Geology as well.

"Any water that was on Mars is either below ground, and any above was evaporated when Mars lost the majority of it's atmosphere, something that did not happen here."

Well, below ground is one speculation on where it went.

If you can put up with that one on Mars, why not here?

"You need to read some Joseph Campbell, he was a world recognized authority on Mythology and speaks to the phenomenon of world-wide mythology. These stories are called Archetypes, or collective mythologies oweing to a shared mythic mind."

[Collective as created by same spcific collective culture, not anything about "same collective human mind" or suchlike rot, of course!]

Perhaps Joseph Campbell and you are sharing a collective demythologising mind?

Btw, if you speak of the guy who published Myths and Legends from all over the World, I have already read him.

"The flood myth is world wide but so are other myths shared between societies and cultures, there are myths that are not in the bible but are shared amongst other societies, does this fact say that these myths are also literal?"

As for example?

"Archaelogists found the city of Troy, this city was rumored to be a myth, but it was found, does that revelation show validity for Greek mythology?"

For Heroic legend staged around the time of the War of Troy plus the few generations before and after, say from Perseus to the Epigons, yes.

For the Theology in which the heroic facts are interpreted, no. But when it comes to the Flood Myths, there also the Theology is different and only the story is common, i e the story of what could be observed on Earth.

"Is it more likely that a flood story oweing itself to a shared archetype of the subconscious mind is the reason for it's world wide distribution, or that these societies ALL had a flood, at different times, because of different reasons, impacting different lessons and morals by a single author or god? I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam."

You forgot ONE alternative. That they are all remembering the same flood.

Some distorted the story in some ways. Others in other ways. Hebrews didn't distort it.

Babylonians distorted it by saying the god who wanted the flood, Enlil, is other than the god who saved Utnapishtim, Enki. That is a distortion for religious motive of ... frankly Satanism. Saying a rebellious divinity is a better friend of us than the Highest. they also distorted the shape of the Arc according to their knowledge of lifeboats.

Greeks were more into telescoping it with other stories. Three gods who visit Deucalion = three Angels who visit Abraham and Sarah. Saving Deucalion while destroying impious after visit = story of Lot. Deucalion and Pyrrha wondering how to repopulate the world = the pseudoproblem faced, as they believed, by the two daughters of Lot. Flood as a setting = story of Noah. Solution about "bones of your mother" = Adam came from the Earth. That solution involving stones = prophecy of Christ's words to the Pharisees "God can wake up sons of Abraham from these stones".

Norse Mythology places Flood before creation of Earth and Mankind. Giants before flood = Nephelim before Noah's Flood. Flood waters from Blood of Ymer killed by the gods = Babylonian creation story of Marduk killing Tiamat (note that Oden who told this to the Swedes and who presented himself as one of the three gods who did that was probably well aware of Babylonian Mythology). One giant surviving with his family = conscious contradiction of Book of Baruch (Oden lived about the time of Julius Caesar) where it says "not one of them found wisdom, not one" about the "giants of old".

Original story = Hebrew story. Original genealogies = Hebrew genealogies. Original timeframe = Hebrew timeframe.

Note here that Babylonians, Hindoos and Buddhists, Egyptians and Chinese have a vastly larger timescale and a tendency to minimise or deny the Flood. Celts, Norse, Greeks and Romans, and for that matter Shintoists have a vastly shorter timescale.

Greeks for instance place flood just about three generations before Perseus, who was three generations before Hercules, who was one genration before Trojan War. THEY face a problem how the world was repopulated after Ducalion and Pyrrha in time for the Trojan War.

Hebrew timescale = right in the Middle.

"I put my reasoning in the good hands of William of Occam."

I put mine in the good hands of God and I did so very long ago and will continue to do so.
jammapcb
+Hans-Georg Lundahl but god is a sumarian concept... also the egyptians went into it big style... what you say is a god... clearly shows you mans doing!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl yes but mountains take alot of time.... not instant results like you religious cling too! again unsound not realistic lol﻿
Hal Barbour
+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you knew anything about this flood mythology you'd know that these flood myths all happened at different times in the timeline of these societies, and the fact that there are flood myths that predate the Genesis account. If Noah and his family were the only ones left then why do we have stories of floods from other societies that have no recollection of him or his family? The problem of genetic bottleneck, the problem of where the water came from and where it went, the morality of drowning every single living being on the planet except an incessous drunkard and his family, the problem with the timeline of only 4000 years ago, the massive problem with the total lack of geologic record of any flood whatsoever. It's always by you folks that the bible account is the right narrative and the other myths getting it wrong, or distorting it. You go through great effort to get this narrative to fit an existing timeline, one established by science and go through even more gyrations to get a conclusion to fit the evidence, and don't. You prefer a world of magic and fantasy to reality, a world where god makes snakes talk and parts seas, and you put your "faith" in god all the while living in a house cooled and heated by the benefits of science, use a computer and take medication all here because people weren't satisfied with the pat excuses for answers that religions and christianity gives us. It seems you've traded your intellect for faith and logic for dogma, and if that's not bad enough, you're more than willing to disseminate it to others.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes sir, that is painfully obvious..........

[He is obviously totally right on the item I am "more than willing to dissemnate it to others" and that is also my right, and in a Century like this even a civic responsibility.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
jamma ... you said:

"mountains take alot of time.... not instant results like you religious cling too!"

What we do know with very great certainty is that mountain tops have been under water.

That speaks for a flood. Those saying that the Alps took miLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLions of years to form are of course flood deniers and not some set of impartial scientists that both parties look up to.

Hal ...

"If you knew anything about this flood mythology you'd know that these flood myths all happened at different times in the timeline of these societies,"

Have YOU any idea how precisely dates are among the things that change easiest in oral tradition?

In Germanic legend, for one thing we know that Odins stepgrandson Fiolner visited Froda of Denmark. But in the Heimskringla Fiolner is contemporary with Caesar Augustus. In Saxo Grammaticus the Froda who gets a visit from Fiolner is Froda Haddingson, Froda I, and it is instead Froda II, three to five centuries later than Froda I, who is contemporary to Caesar Augustus.

I find the Heimskringla version more believable, since in Saxo's version we have between the first two King Frodas the set of Kings Helgi and Hrothgar (brothers) with Hrothgar's son Hrothulf. Now, for one thing we know from Beowulf that Beowulf visited Hrothgar in Heorot (in/near Hlethre) and for another that Beowulf had an uncle called Hygelac, who is known from the Völkerwanderung.

So, Beowulf, hence also Hrothgar (and Helgi and Hrothulf) are around 500 A.D.

Other example. We know that Theoderic the Great and Ermaneric were Gothic Kings, we know there was a battle at Ravenna. But we also know Ermaneric was dead before Theoderic lived, so whichever of them was at the battle of Ravenna did not meet the other. BUT in German legend Ermanerich and Dietrich meet in the Raben battle.

So, dates and timelines can be very carelessly dismissed from facthood in any tradition unless carefully backed up by some other factor, like in the Hebrew example the Genealogies.

Meaning all these societies remembered one and the same flood, which happened at one and the same time, but most of them (if you do not trust Hebrews you could of course say "all of them") changed the timeline and often telescoped with other stories.

Shortening of a timeline happens by telescoping. Like the "lost" century that make Ermaneric and Theoderic "contemporaries."

Lengthening of a timeline happens by doubling. Like one Froda Haddingson becoming two or even more to make Denmark look Ancient.

"If Noah and his family were the only ones left then why do we have stories of floods from other societies that have no recollection of him or his family?"

Oh, they DO have recollections of him and his family.

Noah lived 900 years. He may have survived some people born after flood. And so Utnapishtim in Babylonian myth becomes immortal.

Noah was a just man, and an old man, like Abraham, and he repeopled earth like the daughters of Lot thought they had to. SO Deucalion and Pyrrha are both Noah and wife, Abraham and Sarah, and Lot and his daughters telescoped into one. The family situation resembles that of Abraham and Sarah most.

"problem of genetic bottleneck, the problem of where the water came from and where it went"

"the morality of drowning every single living being on the planet"

Is solved by:

a) God being their creator, so every single living being ows its life to God anyway,
b) The very great corruption or even ner total corruption just before the Flood.

Not just a corruption of morals, but "of all flesh", and I think transhumanism might not be far off the mark as God's motive.

"except an incessous drunkard and his family,"

You are, not unlike the Greeks, telescoping Noah and Lot.

Moreover, Noah was not involved even involuntarily in incest. And Noah was not a drunkard for getting drunk the first time he tried wine. He had done an experiment and had no idea in advance of the effect.

Are you one of those Occidental Eurabian Muslims who look down on any alcohol consumption?

Two more already dealt with, and you ignored it:

"the problem with the timeline of only 4000 years ago, the massive problem with the total lack of geologic record of any flood whatsoever."
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Had to take a break from above answer while answering one or two from the points raised below, while missing others:
jammapcb
+Hans-Georg Lundahl no m8... its cooling down magma which forms solid granite... and is formed that way.... the plates themselves are formed as well in sections of super hot separations.... of which are partially sealed up yet the whole surface is floating on magma... for it to form mountains at that speed would be devastating for life on top.... why you think earthquakes only happen in certain places???? plate shifts colliding together... literally saving up so much energy the weaker side gives way and bang.... there you have it... also the plates can symmetrically hit each other.. or one goes under forcing the other upwards to form a subtle mountain... thing is... IT TAKES ALOT OF TIME !!!!!!! regardless of the BS myths of old!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl it takes millions of years because all the evidences say otherwise.... and ONLY if there is a loss of material and gain at the same time... (which slows the formation right down due to lack of layers)

also the AMOUNT of layers under the mountains itself SAYS IT ALL!!!!!! it took millions of years for that reason!!!

folding rocks are not impossible if under constant pressure... its plain to see And test in a lab... and is the observable fact... not religious wishful thinking with limited data!!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl all these high quality materials take millions of years... coal and oil debunk the religious BS hands down!!!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl you rely to much on human texts... I rely on natures evidence for this one simple reason ... IT CANNOT LIE!!!! .

Religion is about pretending what is real.... I am after solid evidence from nature because it is there and without distortion from muppets like you!!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl but the timeline is much older... language is not that old!!!... but hominids existed without text and via only physical or proto audio communication! its a process of building upon the simple to the complex over a vast time.... seriously you people really are lost lol﻿

+Hans-Georg Lundahl the art on caves says it all... and they are FAR older!!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I rely on natures evidence for this one simple reason ... IT CANNOT LIE!!!! "

Well, I agree the physical evidence cannot lie, but as it is not verbal, it cannot tell the truth very clearly either.

It is an arduous task to evaluate what it means, whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist.

"you rely to much on human texts"

You rely too little on them. Not just the ones I call Holy and trust as divine, but even humanly speaking those I regard as partially in error.

"all these high quality materials take millions of years... coal and oil debunk the religious BS hands down!!!!"

Oh, sure ... you were alive all the millions of years while they took millions of years to form?

Any other guy, like the science guys, who was?

I thought for my part (but I am relying on human record here!) that this million of years type of science started getting going about two hundred years ago.

And that means that the guys who did it were NOT watching a process taking millions of years.

And your scenario as to how plates form ... no way José!

Magma in molten form getting out of the interior of earth and forming any kind of stone is these days not done on any scale like continental plates, but on the much smaller scale called Volcanos.

The truth is, no one has watched how continental plates (if such there be) and mountains rising high happened to be there.

Unless of course God did. And if He did not tell us any details of the process, He did tell about the timeline available.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Back to Hal now ...

"It's always by you folks that the bible account is the right narrative and the other myths getting it wrong, or distorting it."

According to YOU, it is not all but one myth distortng it a little, but ALL myths getting it TOTALLY wrong, without any very good explanation.

I have explanations for how and why this or that Pagan myth distorted this or that detail.

I have given testable parallels for them from Germanic legend. Which is so much more recent.

You have NO real explanation with ANY real parallel for ALL myths (including ours) agreeing but totally wrongly, on a global Flood.

"You go through great effort to get this narrative to fit an existing timeline, one established by science and go through even more gyrations to get a conclusion to fit the evidence, and don't. "

Some guys go through very many gyrations to fit Hebrew legendary truth to Modern non-legendary reconstructions of very dubious value. I do not.

Neither you nor jabba has dealt with the Geological evidence FOR a global Flood, which I previously linked to.

VERY brief resumé: if the LONG timeline were right, if Permian was millions of years earlier than Cretaceous and Cretaceous millions of years earlier than Miocene, you would suppose that somewhere on earth there were three layers of clearly different times. Like a Permian layer 30 feet under ground, a Cretaceous layer 20 feet under ground, a Miocene layer 10 feet under ground. WHERE on earth do you find that?

To the best of my knowledge, and I have been researching and I have done the research with NON-Creationist sources which you would call NON-biassed, this is nowhere on earth the case.

"You prefer a world of magic and fantasy to reality,"

You prefer a world of science fiction without magic to the "magic" included in recorded historical realities.

And I think that is the bottom line of our difference.
AronRa, btw,
owns the video and seems to have used that to edit my answers so as to eliminate my links to my own essay form material about lack of superpositions of very dissimilar faunas in clearly distinct layers of FOSSILS. I did post some such. But he edited so well I cannot recall where - unless edits of others were also meant to make me forget what I was answering or unless comments were hidden or deleted.
What I linked to but cannot find:
Creation vs. Evolution : Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2010/06/human-population-after-noah-racial-and.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

I linked to above in response to queries about supposed impossibility ofhuman repopulation after Flood (and parallel problems for other kinds), and for purported "lack of evidence" for the Flood / purported evidence for Geochronology (the two subjects tie together as exactly the same physical pieces of evidence is used as evidence for both scenarios - I am of course arguing the Evolutionist use as being less reasonable).
The video by AronRa
AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge

Against or in answer to which I recommend two articles on CMI:

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
by Todd Charles Wood
http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tutorial-with-examples-from-the-grasses-poaceae

and

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

## Friday, March 21, 2014

### In Agreement with CMI on Authorship of Genesis

1) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Rejecting Pelagius and Calvin, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : In Agreement with CMI on Authorship of Genesis

Video commented on
CMIcreationstation : Who wrote Genesis?
Scoop of video I did not comment on:
In the days of Wellhausen and Astruc, one major argument, since then very much discredited by clay tablets with cuneiform writing, was that in the days of Moses writing had as yet not been invented!
I
You mentioned Jean Astruc.

He was:
• medical doctor (specialised in syphilis)
• grandson of probable non-Catholics
• descending probably from Jews, since his last name probably refers to Jewish astrology (Astruc = born under a good star).

"Jean Astruc (Sauves, Auvergne, 19 March 1684 – Paris, 5 May 1766) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Astruc

"Antoine Augustin Calmet, O.S.B. (26 February 1672 – 25 October 1757),"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Augustin_Calmet

He was:
• son of a Farrier
• born in Holy Roman Empire
• Benedictine Monk (OSB = Order of Saint Benedict)
• derided by Voltaire for believing in ghosts and vampires or at least taking reports of them somewhat seriously.

Guess which if these IS cited in the Roman Catholic Bible Commentary of Father George Leo Haydock, 1859?

Right, Calmet. I have checked videos by Kent Hovind and seen him agree with Calmet.

And at same time as Haydock Bible, you find Barnes Notes. Guess which of the two proposes gap theory and local flood? Right, Haydock doesn't.

You also mention Julius Wellhausen. He was the son of a Lutheran Pastor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wellhausen

He lived about a century earlier than Ratzinger, and that man (born in a Catholic family) is nevertheless an admirer of Luther.

Btw, Wellhausen is well in favour with Lutheran Theologians in Lund.
II
Deuteronomy 34, here is what the Catholic Haydock comment says:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
DEUTERONOMY - Chapter 34
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id527.html

ibid. DEUTERONOMY - Introduction
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id493.html

Left column is comments, scroll down to ver 5, and then it refers to Introduction, see second link.
III
Excuse me, but just before 6:00 why is there a Swedish book open?

I could read the words "öfre bukregionen" (with the pre-1906 spelling öfre=upper, now spelled, except by me and similar buffs "övre")? It seems to be a medical book.*

The words mean "upper abdominal region" or "upper stomach region".

Have they anything to do with the Bible?

P. 18*

[Asterisk is not to footnote but was in book. Possibly to mark end or beginning of a fascicle or because in a supplement distinct from other pagination]

Epigastrium (gr) den öfre delen af underlifvet, (öfre bukregionen Re-

Two lines, end of page.

The book must be from after 1870's, pretty certainly.

Standard spelling of shorted stressed open "e" (much more French "è" than NZ "e" in "pen") changed from "e" to "ä" in the sympathies with Denmark over Sleswig-Holstein.

Swedish "gerna" became "gärna" because German spelling was "gerne", Danish spelling "gærne". So a book where "plants" is spelled "växter" rather than "vexter" or "wexter"** is post-1870's. A few lines above the two cited.

Did you put it there to see if I am a Swede and if I have a sane motive (like Conservatism) for spellings like "öfre" or "vexter"? Because just this morning I was confronted with a Swede in the homeless shelter. He even asked me to speak our language in front of the people.

In words with English w, Swedish used to have v/w. In words with English wh, Swedish used to have hv/hw. In words with English v (if Germanic rather than French/Latin), Swedish used to have f or fv/fw depending on whether next letter was space/consonant or vowel. 1906 THAT pretty simple stuff changed but the VERY convoluted spellings for either jod or sje-sound remained. Jod could and can be spelled yod in English loans, like yacht, with j or g or gj, with dj, lj which loose their first sound° ... and that remained.*** And so on. Instead of simplifying learning of writing, it only created an artificial gap between older generations and older print and newer generations and newer readers (the gap between newer print and older readers who already died is of course not artificial).

PLUS 1906 Sweden gave the Nobel price of Literature to Carducci, who had written an "Inno a Satana" ... so would you consider me mad for preferring a pre-1906, perhaps even pre-1870's spelling when changed pronunciation the same time was not at all the issue?

* Actually, probably more general biology, since mentioning "växter" = plants.

** Using w for v was mostly in connexion with printing in blackletters ("fraktur", those that were most usual in Germany up to 1940 when Hitler forbade them, but are also used in Austria). If you printed in normal antiqua, you usually used v. Possibly a personal taste of printers identifying variously more or less with Germans.

*** Older pronunciation of G before soft vowels, of GJ, of DJ = English J which is not a real Jod, but a Jeem. Is still used in Finland to pronounce this, and in Finland also LJ has an audible L.

° I actually forgot to mention the spelling HJ, where H was lost from pronunciation very early, just as in HV. Both H are heard in Icelandic, neither in most Swedish dialects. Now, "hjerta" = heart, was respelled to "hjärta" in 1870's, but kept the H in 1906. But "hvad" = what, was respelled to "vad" and became orthographic as well as phonetic homonym of "vad" - ankle or wade (since a place in the river where water reaches ankles of grown men, though the words are not homonyms in all forms, related but not same, "en vad" = "an ankle", "ett vad" = a wade / a bet). As "hval" = whale, der Wahlfisch, became of "val" = choice, die Wahl. The ONE point of 1906 spelling reform certainly was to divide generations.
IV

Can you see a parallel with the Lazarus who DID rise from the dead, but not to convert a rich man's brothers, but for the sake of his sister's confession?

Well, there were people there who DID NOT believe. They decided to kill both Lazarus and Jesus.

And those guys were among the founders of Judaism as we know it today.
V
9:57, about editing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Confer Pius XII in Humani Generis 1950, paragraph 38.*

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Notice the last words?

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

This is pretty much a disavowal of the impression previously given by his Bible commission in answer to a Bishop of Paris, but it is worded politely. And (this is the tragedy), that one document has been taken as a warrant for pursuing the other stuff mentioned in the paragraph, as if "this may be conceded" referred to all of above. But mentioning a set of statements from a previous document of less dignity, picking out one and saying about that one "this may be conceded" and adding to that that it was done under inerrant inspiration is not the same as conferring licitness status on all statements in that previous document.

* Cited ("ultimately") from:

Papal Encyclicals Net : Pius XII : Humani Generis
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

And cited through my own article against Hutchison's misreading:

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchison
http://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2014/03/one-group-member-promoted-hutchison.html
VI
12:05 ... would you then say that when God reveals his name as JHVH to Moses, He was repeating what He had already told Adam?

Because that would explain why Moses' mother was named not Elisabeth but Johsabeth.
VII
13:21 "unique"

Wellhausen hypothesis was in 19th C Germany not unique about Ancient Literature. Same approach was - alas - used on Homer. But on Homer it is SO discredited since then.

Wellhausen has also found a parallel in Bultmann - so taken down by CSL﻿

So, Wellhausen and Bultmann have had a since discredited companion in Homeric scholarship. Here is a guy who thought that the "Ur-Ilias" (Original or _Primordial_ Iliad) was simply the Achilleid and that in the original ending Achilles DID treat the body of Hector about as badly as the body of Ahab was treated in the Bible:

Wikipedia : Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_von_Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

Here are people, who if he counts as a Bultmann, would count as CSL on the question, as mentioned in my Philologica blog (after me reading them):

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Showing posts sorted by relevance for query walter leaf.
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/search?q=walter+leaf

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Showing posts sorted by relevance for query bowra.
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/search?q=bowra

## Wednesday, March 19, 2014

### ... on the Whereabouts of Hell Fire and Other Points on Seismology

1) ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists), 2) ... on the Whereabouts of Hell Fire and Other Points on Seismology

So, what about plates in the oceans getting denser and sinking for that reason, thereby letting waters from flood sink into them?*

And, another matter, how exactly is the density of the one or other kind of plates known? Is it just a case of "if higher up, then floats better, then less dense" according to the view plates are all floating on magma?

This I was asking someone a month ago. However, the beauty of internet, although he did not answer, is that someone else was answering at least part of that point yesterday and today:

[After I wrote above I have added material from at least another day:]

XGralgrathor
No, it's mostly a matter of seismology. Sound waves travel at different speeds depending on the density of the medium they're travelling through.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure, but each sounding of the earth quake waves would be kind of, on the modern theory, past travelling through more than one layer, so how would one tell the different speeds from each other if having only direct access to a mean speed?
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kind of like the same way a computer can build a three dimensional model from a returning radar signal. It's technical, and a bit too mathy for me, but it's accurate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, the returning radar is at one single speed, so time = distance.

Here we were talking about different speeds.

You see the difference?
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure there is a difference. But the basic principle is the same: you can use the returning signal to build a model of the matter encountered. How this works exactly, you'll have to ask a seismologist. Suffice to say that one can build a more of less accurate model of parts of the Earth's interior - at least in terms of density. Of course the exact constitution, the compounds and elements of which the various layers of differing density consist, remain a matter of theoretical prediction. But as the subject here is density, that doesn't really matter right now.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except that I already noted a key difference where you say "the basic principle is the same".

What the returning signal is "telling" is the time it took for the signal to travel through exactly one medium to an obstacle and then back after reflexion from that obstacle through exactly same medium to the radar.

I can very well see how this would involve a capacity for a seismologist to calculate mean speed and therefore mean density, since distance between epicentre and seimologic station is already known.

My question was how one got from mean density and mean speed to a succession of speeds varying around it and to a set of different densities.
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"My question was"

And I cannot tell you exactly how such a model is produced. But it has to do with reflections as much as differing speeds. Thankfully, I don't have to know the details; I'm happy to let geologists, seismologists and engineers break their heads over the problem of producing accurate models. I'll just read with great interest their latest hypotheticals and note the decreasing margins of error.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Decreasing margins of error may be due to getting more and more exact as to fact, but also to getting wronger and wronger in a more refined way.

Reflexions ... hmm, those are directed outward, how are they evidence of what is below a plate?
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, here's an idea: start out by reading Wikipedia on Seismology, and work your way towards a better understanding of the principles involved from there. I mean, even if there are people here who know how it all works, you can hardly expect them to dump it all in a comment section, right?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have been able to make comments 50 lines long or longer.

Youtube comments are as much the product of users as wikis, except that youtube comments allows tracing each contribution immediately to source an dtherefore following a debate.

I will however look the wiki up. And when having done so, come back here.

Here is one thing I found:

"Because seismic waves commonly propagate efficiently and interact with internal structure, they provide high-resolution noninvasive methods for studying Earth's interior. One of the earliest important discoveries (suggested by Richard Dixon Oldham in 1906 and definitively shown by Harold Jeffreys in 1926) was that the outer core of the earth is liquid. Since S-waves do not pass through liquids, the liquid core causes a 'shadow' on the side of the planet opposite of the earthquake where no direct S-waves are observed. In addition, P-waves travel much slower through the outer core than the mantle."

 Plus a diagram: File:Earthquake wave paths.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthquake_wave_paths.svg

On diagram nothing is shown as passing through inner core.

THIS is a breakthrough for me.

A) It means we have no evidence from seismology of what exactly inner core is. The Christian theory that Hell is in the exact Middle of the Earth is not affected.

B) It means there are liquids. Wave of such and such a nature does not pass through liquids, and is found at such but not at such other angle from epicentre. So, there are liquids. On which some thing or some several things do "float" in some sense. Which is indeed what the Bible text would predict we find.

Here is more where that came from:

[Nearly, actually another article linked to from it. Namely:

Wikipedia on Structure of the Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
]

"The average density of Earth is 5,515 kg/m3. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3,000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core. Seismic measurements show that the core is divided into two parts, a "solid" inner core with a radius of ~1,220 km[3] and a liquid outer core extending beyond it to a radius of ~3,400 km. The densities are between 9,900 and 12,200 kg/m3 in the outer core and 12,600–13,000 kg/m3 in the inner core.[4]

The inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel. It is not necessarily a solid, but, because it is able to deflect seismic waves, it must behave as a solid in some fashion. Experimental evidence has at times been critical of crystal models of the core.[5] Other experimental studies show a discrepancy under high pressure: diamond anvil (static) studies at core pressures yield melting temperatures that are approximately 2000K below those from shock laser (dynamic) studies.[6][7] The laser studies create plasma,[8] and the results are suggestive that constraining inner core conditions will depend on whether the inner core is a solid or is a plasma with the density of a solid. This is an area of active research."

I have no problem believing there is a great density prevailing in Hell.

And since the "solid" inner core "is not necessarily a solid", this is no proof against Hell being there, as Christians have always thought.

That was pretty good news - not for those who are in Hell, but for those on the surface (not yet finally saved, not yet damned either) who are to decide on "science or religion or both".

In this case, it would pretty much be both.
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"THIS is a breakthrough for me"

The fact that a simple diagram demonstrating a principle does not contain the information you require is a breakthrough for you.

Okay.

"It means [...t]he Christian theory that Hell is in the exact Middle of the Earth is not affected"

[Mild expletive] You mean there are Christians who actually hold such a ridiculous idea? Wow. They must be best friends with the Flat Earth society.

"It means there are liquids"

Really? You wouldn't tell.

"Which is indeed what the Bible text would predict we find"

I'm not even going to ask 'where'. You just lost all credibility. But you've gained a fan!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is a great density prevailing in Hell."

I'm sure nobody would have a good time in Earth's inner core, kid.

"this is no proof against Hell being there, as Christians have always thought"

I'm gonna waive my suspicion that you're putting up a comedy act for the duration, and ask you this: which Christians would that be, boy? Not even creationists dare come out which such silly ideas. And their ideas are already plenty silly.

Thank you. You've made me laugh on this dreary day at the office.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

The diagram DID include the most basic information that I required.

"You mean there are Christians who actually hold such a ridiculous idea? Wow. They must be best friends with the Flat Earth society."

Not really. Saying Hell is in the CENTRE of the globe is quite incompatible with Flat Earth Cosmology.

Me before:
* It means there are liquids
You:
* Really? You wouldn't tell.
Me now:
* I simply wanted to know HOW we knew.

"I'm sure nobody would have a good time in Earth's inner core, kid."

A good reason not to get there, i e not to sin!

"which Christians would that be, boy?"

Dante.

As said, Dante thought the very centre of Earth, which in his sci fi book on theology / individual eschatology called Divine Comedy was reached by Virgil and Dante after going through the nine circles of Hell, was occupied by Satan, in whose mouth were Judas Ischariot, Cassius and Brutus.

Note that this is not one of the details in Dante's world view which Pope Benedict XV in 1921 even slightly indirectly questioned. Here is what he wrote, it is shorter than the Divine Comedy itself:

IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM
On Dante
Encyclical or Pope Benedict XV promulgated on April 30, 1921.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15summo.htm

Then Dante was not inventor of this thought, he merely voiced what was commonly accepted. Here is where St Thomas of Aquino deals with it:

Summa Theologica > Supplement
Question 69. Matters concerning the resurrection, and first of the place where souls are after death

I answer that, Even as in bodies there is gravity or levity whereby they are borne to their own place which is the end of their movement, so in souls there is merit or demerit whereby they reach their reward or punishment, which are the ends of their deeds. Wherefore just as a body is conveyed at once to its place, by its gravity or levity, unless there be an obstacle, so too the soul, the bonds of the flesh being broken, whereby it was detained in the state of the way, receives at once its reward or punishment, unless there be an obstacle. Thus sometimes venial sin, though needing first of all to be cleansed, is an obstacle to the receiving of the reward; the result being that the reward is delayed. And since a place is assigned to souls in keeping with their reward or punishment, as soon as the soul is set free from the body it is either plunged into hell or soars to heaven, unless it be held back by some debt, for which its flight must needs be delayed until the soul is first of all cleansed. This truth is attested by the manifest authority of the canonical Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; wherefore the contrary must be judged heretical as stated in Dial. iv, 25, and in De Eccl. Dogm. xlvi.

That was a quote from above link, if you scroll down to "Article 2" and within that to "I answer that". Note the words:

"And since a place is assigned to souls in keeping with their reward or punishment, as soon as the soul is set free from the body it is either plunged into hell or soars to heaven, unless it be held back by some debt, for which its flight must needs be delayed until the soul is first of all cleansed."

Soaring up or plunging down in a Geocentric universe mean above the stars, for Heaven, below, perhaps far below, Earth's surface, for Hell.
XGralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The diagram DID include"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Saying Hell is in the CENTRE of the globe is quite incompatible with Flat Earth Cosmology."

I'm not going to make fun of you. I'm not going to make fun of you. I'm not going to make fun of you.

O … yes I am going to make fun of you.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Dante."

Of course. And what century did Dante live exactly? Do you know what else they believe in those times?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That was a quote from"

Really? That's nice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"O ... yes I am going to make fun of you."

You can try.

"Of course. And what century did Dante live exactly?"

I think he lived past the year 1300, but I am pretty sure he was born before.

"Do you know what else they believe in those times?"

• a) Roman Catholicism (in Western Europe, including in such countries as have since become Protestant) ...

• b) the theology and philosophy of ... did I mention him perhaps? ... St Thomas from the town Aquino in Italy ...

• c) giving money to beggars as opposed to giving money to Salvation Army who give tea or coffee to beggars (and if they need to wash, a time at their laundry on a waiting list with two weeks) ...

• d) using marriage to make children (you know, the Duggars and Cukierskis are not quite extinct yet) ...

• e) and some more, but will that do for now?

Btw, just so you know it, not sure if you count it as making fun of you or as making fun of myself, here is at least (for now) up to my last comment:

+XGralgrathor
as to rereading the comments, I think you need to reread mine if you want to have a clue.
Xixulon Gralgrathor
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't need to try, and you're doing all the hard work for me. Hell, you've even copied our comments to another blog!

Okay, so obviously things like heliocentricity aren't all that important to you. Well, no matter, I'm sure you'll manage without.

"I think you need to reread mine"

Everytime I need to have a good laugh, I will, rest assured.﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Heliocentricity is on the contrary very important to me - as a prime example of learned men gong wrong. I think that Tyson was right in claiming Bruno was pioneer (after very old ancients).

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Sometimes Luther Got it Right!
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/03/sometimes-luther-got-it-right.html

If you chuckle, I will not be offended.﻿

* My introductory comment post was on a discussion having, beyond one seismological bifurcation, which the answers have not fully answered, nor yet left a total enigma, on another topic on a video called:

AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge

Against or in answer to which I recommend two articles on CMI:

A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
by Todd Charles Wood
http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tutorial-with-examples-from-the-grasses-poaceae

and

Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors

## Tuesday, March 18, 2014

### ... on Someone Apparently Taking me for a Jew

Video commented on:
XXSASSTERXX1 : Lost Worlds - Persepolis
Amir motlagh
Easily the greatest civilisation of all time. It's only been undermined by westerners because of it being from the east.﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it has deserved destruction for trying to undermining the West and failing.﻿
Amir motlagh
Did you not watch the video you sad/jealous loser, I didn't even insult westerners why you are you soo aggressive. Besides to an extent it did succeed as the first declaration of human rights was by cyrus the great which westerners are adopting as we speak. We set the principles of western society as much as you like to deny it the history sources never lie. As much as you tried to erase persian civilisation from earth, it still some how survived. Let me add alexander did the persians a favour for burning persopolis, cause if he hadn't the remaining structures would have not survived as it was buried under the ashes which it was later uncovered. So in your face bitch, go back to your barbaric Anglo Saxon history where you were hanging like monkeys on trees while we were living in gold and luxury.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You certainly did insult the West.

You claimed it had undermined the Persian Empire. It had no resources for that. It was being undermined by Persian Empire and resisted with heroism and with success.

As to the video, it is in certain parts inaccurate, see my comments closer to top of comments, where I refute some premisses of those making the video or the programme shown in it. I am around five minutes into the video btw.﻿

"while we were living in gold and luxury"?

Greeks never denied Persians had gold and luxury!

On the contrary, they thought that being SO preoccupied with gold and luxury was a sign of a barbarian mind.

Alexander saw a philosopher in a tun. "What do you ask of me?" - "That you step aside."

He did.﻿
Amir motlagh
I didn't mean to insult the west, I meant our empire was built on the principles of equal human rights for everyone. So who ever was ruled by the persians could believe whatever they wanted. Besides alexander was nothing but a ruthless conquerer who deeply respected the persian kings more than even his fellow Greeks. When your own history sources are now realising how great persian civilisation was how could you deny its greatness. Alexander by the way wasnt great as shown in this video he was a barbarian who burned persopolis for no reason. On the other hand cyrus the great is the only one who deserves that accolade. His even referred to in the Jewish holly books as a messiah and was the first to declare human rights how could you undermine that. This declaration of human rights is currently used in the UNited nations situated in New York . Sorry your ignorance is interesting.﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"equal human rights for everyone"

Also between Haman and Mordochai? Check that out with the Book of Esther!

"Besides alexander was nothing but a ruthless conquerer who deeply respected the persian kings more than even his fellow Greeks."

Possible.

But in front of Greeks, he had to respect Diogenes in a way that Haman did not respect Mordochai.

"When your own history sources are now realising how great persian civilisation was how could you deny its greatness."

I am not denying the greatness of the Empire. I am denying it is civilised or rather civic in the way that word is traditionally used in the West.

"His even referred to in the Jewish holy books as a messiah "

As a shepherd, yes. As "a Messiah"? Where so?

Even if Cyrus deserves honour, in a way Constantine deserves in later days, this does not mean all Persians or Persian rulers were as good as he.

"and was the first to declare human rights how could you undermine that. This declaration of human rights is currently used in the United nations situated in New York ."

I was indeed ignorant of the fact - if such it be - that the United Nations declaration of human rights, which is against the Ten Commandments in certain particulars, notably a right for all without exception to believe what they want and practise it as long as it does not conflict with the UN - merely human - list of "Human Rights" goes back to Cyrus.

Sure you are not insulting Cyrus?﻿
Barry Cooper
+Amir motlagh Its a shame that the only place in the middle east who sticks by the declaration of human rights is Israel. Islam has brought a terrible darkness in the east. Would be great to see islam reformed﻿
Amir motlagh
+Barry Cooper forgive my ignorance but u mean raping and invading and raiding the people of paleatine and their homes is human rights. Interesting, well that's your opinion and I respect that. My opinion however differs, I think iran is the only country in the world that conforms to human rights, im guessing u are jewish. I personally like jews and have Jewish freinds. They are quite fond of iranians surprisingly as they are great full to iranians as cyrus the great freed them and set the foundations of human rights but even they admit what Israel does in Palestine is illegal and barbaric. Good luck mate! Happy red Wednesday to everyone.﻿

+Hans-Georg Lundahl how could I be insulting cyrus. His regarded as the greatest man on earth by many historians whether western or eastern, jewish or muslim or christian. It was cyrus the great that freed your people in babylon and allowed the the countries under his rule to keep their own faith and belief. He declared human rights which you can evidence of it if you look up cyrus cylinder or go to the British museum which kept under heavy security due it its significance to the world. Why are u sooo jealous that u put in time to argue over facts. U really must hate the fact that iranians had the greatest imact to the world of civilisation. Good luck mate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Somehow it seems you regard me as a Jew.

You speak of him "freeing my people in Babylon".

I am a Christian. Constantine did for us what Cyrus did for our predecessors which were Jews before Christ came.

And Constantine, as far as I know, never called himself "king of the earth".﻿
Amir motlagh
Even if you are Christian your religion derived from the persian religion zolastrian check it on the internet. We worshiped the one and true God when your people were worshiping statues and goats. And many regard cyrus the great as a messenger thats how influential he was. Stop denying his greatness jealous boy.﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl (resuming my answer, without at first noticing the one just above)
+Amir motlagh
As to my question if you were sure you were not insulting Cyrus, I meant that UNO and its list of rights is heretical and barbarian.

I mean I am not sure Cyrus was as wrong as the modern world. I am only sure he was not as right as Constantine and Theodosius, as Justin and Justinian, as Charlemagne and as Alfred of Wessex. Because he was no Christian.﻿

[After seeing his last post:]

+Amir motlagh
I have debated people claiming that Christianity and Judaism are derived from Zoroastrian religion. People with more culture and less prejudice than you seem to want to show forth.
Morpheus Mcknight
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Greetings and salutations my friend! How are you? and thank you for your compliment.You would be correct in your assessment in that I am not a prejudice man but I am also a cultured man who appreciates history,archaelogy,and the study of religion.I believe in justice and fairness for all people.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, are you looking for a debate?
Amir motlagh
Not really, the greatest civilisation of all time will never be forgotten no matter how much you or your ancestors try. It was almost erased by Alexander, the muslim invasion, mongols but it still managed to strive and be remembered as an civilisation that contributed love, peace and humanity to the world. Long live peace.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
• 1) It has not been forgotten, we have not tried to get it forgotten.
• 2) It has, alas, contributed other things also, not just peace. Like a striving for world domination, where Greece of Demosthenes played a role of prevention. Like an alliance with Molochist régime of Carthage, where Rome played a role of preventing indirect Persian domination through Carthage in the West.
• 3) By calling it "the greatest" you forget that Christian Rome made more for peace, more for humanity, more for individual liberties than ever Persia.
Amir motlagh
• 1) fair enough, but i meant by some
• 2) maybe
• 3) Persia is older and more ancient than both Rome and Greece, hence it did set the principles of peace and posperity in the world which other dynasities and empires followed and i beilive it was the only empire that did not have slaves unlike the Romans and the Greeks (the brutiality of the Gladiators in rome and greek states enslaving each other). So i still beilieve that it is the greatest. But you did bring up good points. Good luck mate i better stop this freindly discussion as its persian new year tommorow and i need to prepare lol!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Enjoy!

We are enjoying what Greeks and Romans borrowed from you!

(Oh, gladiator games were abolished by Constantine, btw)
+Amir motlagh , I am glad I wished you happy Persian New Year!

Look what I found:

http://ppt.li/kt

Since United Nations is not protecting the unborn, I think that comparing Cyrus to UNO was disparaging to him.﻿﻿

An investigation into the ancient abortion laws: comparing ancient Persia with ancient Greece and Rome.
by arman Zargaran

## Saturday, March 15, 2014

### ... on Honesty of Numberphile / Cambridge University, Mathematics

1) ... on Honesty of Numberphile / Cambridge University, Mathematics, 2) ... on Coastlines and Fractals being No Challenge to Thomistic Concept of Mathematics

Video commented on
Numberphile : Pi me a River - Numberphile
"Top des commentaires"
When I am logged in
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Has no one found other data?

Reminds me of a problem I have.

Now, if Earth rotates around Sun and Mars rotates around Sun, while Sun has a relatively stable position, different orbits, different "years" (if you consider a Martian year as not an oxymoron) ... you should be able to predict how the parallax of a near star like Alpha Centauri differs on Mars as opposed to from Earth.

If alpha Centauri is however as near or as far as Sirius, in a more or less footballskin like sphere of fixed stars (with some thickness, but not at all as much as to overawe the distance between us and nearest stars), moved by an angel, as a pen is moved by a hand, and same being true of planets and Tycho being right and Kepler wrong about most basic geoemtry of universe, then observing its parallax from Mars would give another value. Or shape. Or .... you know.

Thing is, according to NASA we have already put astronomic equipment on Mars, one has already been checking "how do the constellations look from Mars", but as to my question, whether for parallax or even for aberration, I have heard no answer since 2011 when I posed this question.

HGL's FB Writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for obsolete because disproven, incorrect, science
Ichijoe2112
Wake me on Tau Day....
Cannonbo
if you were to try and get an average of all the rivers in the world, you'd have to discard any rivers near modern human settlements. so many rivers have been straightened or diverted by man...
Danijel Drnic
Squaring the circle .. headbands equal to the square of the same rubber cubes.
"Top des commentaires"
When I am NOT logged in
Ichijoe2112
Wake me on Tau Day....
Cannonbo
if you were to try and get an average of all the rivers in the world, you'd have to discard any rivers near modern human settlements. so many rivers have been straightened or diverted by man...
Danijel Drnic
Squaring the circle .. headbands equal to the square of the same rubber cubes.
Johann Blake
Rivers and Pi

This is a rather unusual puzzle concerning nature. What does the mathematical value of Pi (3.14) have to do with rivers?

Apparently, if you take the length of a river and divide it by the the direct distance from the start of the river to its end (as the crow flies) - a value known as "sinuosity" - the value will be close to 3.14. Presumably, if you took all the rivers of the world and calculated there sinuosities and averaged them all out, the value would be 3.14.

Nobody has actually done enough tests to see whether this is true, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be. Virtually everything in nature either has Pi thrown into it or or is based on fractals. Just more evidence of "Creation by Design".
Other debate
lower down, visible even now, partly:
TheInterlang
Did the Bible really say Pi = 3.0, or is that verse supposed to be a simple approximation?

If people are protesting evolution and the theory of relativity, why aren't they protesting Pi=3.14?
J00rcek
It is a passage where the author describes how Solomon's temple was built and it says:" Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference." While I believe that the author simply didn't care for exact measurements, I also believe there were some extra-zealous people who would take it as a fact (and enforce it). One more thing: Bible rarely mentions fractions of a cubit (i.e 1/3 of a cubit, 1/2, 1/4) so you can guess authors didn't care for the "scientific" approach. If the lenght of measurement rope was, let's say, 31.4 cubits, they would just round that down to a closest cubit. Mind also they didn't really care for standards (ie exactly how long a cubit is) so a cubit for one mason (or metal worker) could be different from another one.

Long story short, it is probably just an approximation so don't fret over it. There's more than enough really nonsensical (is that even a word?) and illogical stuff in the book we should be asking questions about (both from scientific and philosophical point of view)
Gamer Phile
because pi has been proved and most people believe that then they did not have the knowledge that pi = ~3.1415. But people still don't believe the fact of evolution for some reason or another.
Can you guess
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The verse in question might be saying neither, since dealing with different parts of same circular object. You know rims and such.

Ten cubits across at the rim. Thirty cubits around a bit lower down - where object was more slender. A bit difficult to measure "across" further down than at rim.﻿

## Monday, March 10, 2014

### Just in *c a s e* someone takes me for a Nazi

Video commented on:
looknowtv : Mars Curiosity NEW FACE Footage
Jere Reini - 20 janv. 2014
thats fake its maked onbeach or in desert﻿
Adam Buckner - 21 janv. 2014
Clearly it is fake
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 8 févr. 2014
well, what if what was shown on TV about Armstrong and Aldrin on Moon was fake too?
Adam Buckner - 9 févr. 2014
The first problem is that the video is too crisp to be from the rover number two is that the face was only seen on black and white footage distorting the image slightly number the is that this footage is not from mars it's on a beach or on a dessert as Jere Reini said the terrain would be more red and the thumbnail does not use red sand hence being obviously fake
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 11 févr. 2014
Now, this is not the "famous face on Mars" btw here it is:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] : Unmasking the Face on Mars
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1/

What we saw on this footage looked like a buried head of a Spanish statue of the Virgin.
Pause
for about a month (February 11 - March 10)
VillainousLombardo - today 14:46
no shit jere !

[Thought he was saying "no shit here" was wrong, did not look at first commentator]
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 15:13
have you learned English orally?

"jere" for "here" - or is that just the h and the j being side by side?
Villainous Lombardo - 15:22
dipshit im saying JERE the guys name LOOK up ^ clown !
Villainous Lombardo - 15:22
+Hans-Georg Lundahl clown nazi
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 15:34
Who?

Clown, that is your mistake, but Nazi, no.

Fascist, yes, of certain non-Nazi and even Anti-Nazi loyalties. Austrofascist is for instance Anti-Nazi. Dollfuss has been called "Mussolini's friend and HItler's enemy" and there is even a book with that title.

Franco in Hendaye made Hitler pay for humiliating Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden. After Hendaye Hitler said he would rather be an hour with the dentist than another hour with Franco. Besides, Franco was against Azaña, a man not too unlike Hitler.

So, "Nazi", no thank you. That is beyond mere mistakes. That is an insult.
Villainous Lombardo - 15:35
no clown nazi ! i was replying to JERE wkwkwkwk thats why your german bitch ! english is for english speakers ya nazi what a clown wkwk tries to pull me up on a word ! lolz idiot !! dickhead look who made this post ! a guy named jere you clownfuck﻿
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 15:38
I was not trying to pull you on a word, I thought you were testing me. And I am still no Nazi. Sorry about jere, I was not attentive since it is about a month since I saw comments on this one. But Nazi, no.
Hans-Georg Lundahl - 16:17
And "German" is no insult to me. But I am not, I am a Swede, born in Austria. However, Germans are usually not Nazis either.

## Saturday, March 8, 2014

### ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham

 series: Creation vs Evolution : thunderf00t ... did you actually say that? (part 1) thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2) Trivium, Quadrivium 7 cætera : Thunderf00t on futile questions Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham
First video commented on:
Thunderf00t : Why 'feminism' poisons EVERYTHING
There is this male chauvinist, very conspicuous such since claming men are sexually mature from medium age 14 plus a few month and women already from age 12. He is also claiming ideal first childbirth for a woman is before age 30, while men can make children (including a first one) no problem when far older than that.

He happend to come across a wikipedia article he found inaccurate and change it.

Or two. Or three. Or ... but not on this subject. Ergo, wiki is invaded by male chauvinists and needs to be invaded by female chauvinists.

I seem to recall that tactic from some video where someone wanted viewers to balance some votebot.

Second video commented on:
Thunderf00t : Why do people laugh at creationists? (Part 41, Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate)
Introduction:
Article cited by Ham and Thnderf00t:

PLOS Genetics etc. [see link, I am giving it, not claiming I read it!]

Apart from returning to one diagram from it, there is some back and forth again and again, the video is - not unlike my own blogs - somewhat rambling.
I
Bible falsified by claim about drinking poison? C'mon, I survived watching the feminists on your video, didn't I?

[See link with my comment above.]

But seriously:

Marc 16:[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.

Take up serpents, verified by St Paul after a shipwreck at Malta.*

Acts 28:[1] And when we had escaped, then we knew that the island was called Melita.* But the barbarians shewed us no small courtesy. [2] For kindling a fire, they refreshed us all, because of the present rain, and of the cold. [3] And when Paul had gathered together a bundle of sticks, and had laid them on the fire, a viper coming out of the heat, fastened on his hand. [4] And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging on his hand, they said one to another: Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, who though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance doth not suffer him to live. [5] And he indeed shaking off the beast into the fire, suffered no harm. [6] But they supposed that he would begin to swell up, and that he would suddenly fall down and die. But expecting long, and seeing that there came no harm to him, changing their minds, they said, that he was a god. [7] Now in these places were possessions of the chief man of the island, named Publius, who receiving us, for three days entertained us courteously.

Note "entertained us" - i e the author (St Luke) was with St Paul and witnessing all of it. Including the snake detail.

"Benedict was acquainted with the life and discipline of the monastery, and knew that "their manners were diverse from his and therefore that they would never agree together: yet, at length, overcome with their entreaty, he gave his consent" (ibid., 3). The experiment failed; the monks tried to poison him. The legend goes that they first tried to poison his drink. He prayed a blessing over the cup and the cup shattered. Then they tried to poison him with poisoned bread. When he prayed a blessing over the bread, a raven swept in and took the loaf away."

Wikipedia : St Benedict of Nursia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_of_Nursia

So what? He didn't actually drink it, right?

Some verb forms can denote inchoative action, an action that only starts. Ask a Greek expert if it is the case with

πιωσιν **
G4095
vs 2Aor Act 3 Pl
THEY-MAY-BE-DRINKING

As to the Latin, biberint***, I am not sure. It is not a form I use often myself or find often in Medieval Texts (I am not much into Ancient ones, and it is not very often in the Vulgate either). I would have to ask.

If it can be so used, then St Benedict by setting out to drink poison and surviving fulfilled the promise.

St Patrick was involved in both kinds of situation. He chased the snakes from Ireland.

Putting hands on sick and healing them is however so often occurring throughout Church History that it has been fulfilled in perhaps a quarter of the non-martyr saints and some martyr saints as well.
II
It has not crossed your mind that scientific estimates of how big bottlenecks were are meant to be in conflict with the Bible - as anyone likely to agree with the Bible is culled out from, not all, but very many faculties of natural science.

So, if evolutionists say the estimated bottleneck was 20.000 individuals, that may mean there were two of them.

Small populations = genes spreading faster through gene pool - well, that means that the speed between bottleneck and us you get from a big population during bottleneck is slower than that from a small population during bottleneck, right?

This means that a bottleneck longer ago and with greater population just after is equivalent to a more recent one with less population just after.

Btw, same goes for human variation after Flood.

Thank you for making my point again.

Sure you are not a very clever creationist under cover?
III
Golden Jackal.

Three scenarios more probably than your humourous quip.

• Diverged from dogs after Flood.
• Noah took it mistakenly for another kind than dog.
• Noah took it correctly for another kind than dog and the Evolutionist diagram is wrong.

Ken Ham said the diagrams were similar, not identical.
IV
Now, as to "iron chariots defeating God" ...

Search:° God was with them iron chariots

 No verse contains all the words in the query: 'God was with them iron chariots' ... Hit #8 Deuteronomy 20:1 If thou go out to war against thy enemies, and see horsemen and chariots, and the numbers of the enemy' s army greater than thine, thou shalt not fear them: because the Lord thy God is with thee, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.

Now to Judges 1, verses 17-19:

Haydock Comment for Judges Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id565.html

17 And Juda went with Simeon, his brother, and they together defeated the Chanaanites that dwelt in Sephaath, and slew them. And the name of the city was called Horma, that is, Anathema.

18 And Juda took Gaza, with its confines, and Ascalon, and Accaron, with their confines.

19 And the Lord was with Juda, and he possessed the hill country: but was not able to destroy the inhabitants of the valley, because they had many chariots armed with scythes.

Now to the comment:

Ver. 17. Sephaath, near Maresa, where Asa defeated the king of Arabia, 2 Paralipomenon xiv. 9. It was also called Sephata, and afterwards Horma. (Calmet) --- Septuagint, "they anathematized it, and utterly destroyed it, and they called the city Exolethreusis, "utter ruin." (Haydock) --- Whether they had engaged themselves by vow to do so, or they treated the city in this manner in thanksgiving for the victory, is uncertain. (Menochius)

Ver. 18. Gaza, &c. These were three of the principal cities of the Philistines, famous both in sacred and profane history. They were taken at this time by the Israelites; but as they took no care to put garrisons in them, the Philistines soon recovered them again, (Challoner) or perhaps the villages and territory were only seized by Juda; the cities being too well defended. Josue had not attacked them, Josue xii. 3. Josephus says that only Ascalon and Azotus, in the plain, fell into the hands of the Israelites; and the Roman Septuagint reads with a negation, (Calmet) which is inserted by Grabe in his edition as an interpolation, or as a peculiarity of the Alexandrian manuscripts, "and Juda did [not] possess Gaza with its dependencies, and Ascalon....and Accaron....and Azotus, with its fields around." (Haydock) --- The situation of Gaza, Ascalon and Accaron in the plain, would seem to secure them from being captured, ver. 19. St. Augustine and Procopius admit the negation. But the original and all the versions reject it, so that the children of Juda must have had possession of these cities at least for a short time. (Calmet) See chap. xv., and xvi., and 1 Kings vi. 17. (Menochius)

Ver. 19. Was not able, &c. Through a cowardly fear of their chariots armed with hooks and scythes, and for want of confidence in God. (Challoner) --- Hebrew does not say expressly that Juda could not: quia non ad expellendum, &c. He had not the courage or the will. With God's assistance, what had he to fear? Were these Philistines with their chariots, more terrible than the giants in their fortresses? --- Scythes. Hebrew receb barzel, "chariots of iron." (Calmet) --- The Roman and Alexandrian Septuagint have "Rechab was opposed to them." (Haydock) --- The edition of Basil adds, "and they had chariots of iron," as St. Augustine (q. 5,) reads. A double translation is thus given. (Calmet) --- These chariots were calculated to cut down all that came in contact with them. (Curt. iv.) (Worthington)

Ah, saw those comments first after the signal Ver. 19? Could there be a reference to Deuteronomy 20:1?
V
Wrong size, time and (since local) place for Flood.

Sure, check out in ten years if Londoners have made a Flood legend that is GLOBAL out of the LOCAL flooding, will you!

Rather we take floodings like that one as evidence, by their being so numerous, that this is not what Genesis 7 talks about.
VI
Ah, you have noted that pre-Flood elephants and tigers had the sense to avoid dinosaur company?

Wow, what about drawing that conclusion then!

CMI : Modern Birds with Dinosaurs
http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
Conclusion:
You know, the reason he throws out all those details which you simply have to notice at closer inspection is that if you went there you would notice the Bible is inconsistent with reality.

Little correction of detail.

It is evolution which on closer inspection°° is either at times found to be inconsistent with reality or with good logic.

Notes
* Melita is the ancient name for Malta.

** Marc 16 in Greek and interlinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar16.pdf

*** DRBO : highlight for Marc 16:18 in DR/Vulg parallel texts
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=16&l=18#x

° A very good search engine on http://drbo.org

°° Creation vs Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for obsolete because disproven incorrect science
http://petitlien.com/creageo

## Thursday, March 6, 2014

### ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski

 series: Creation vs Evolution : thunderf00t ... did you actually say that? (part 1) thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2) Trivium, Quadrivium 7 cætera : Thunderf00t on futile questions Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham
Video commented on:
Thunderf00t : Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 13).
My comment, over diverse parts
The reason we know the writing in the sand is human is that we have seen people writing in the sand, and also because there is no known natural phenomenon that produces such features.

Well - this is for integral Biblical Creationism, not for ID - Adam seems to have seen God create a few more trees and animals he had to name.

Plus there is to day no known natural phenomenon that produces the genome from scratch (reproducing is quite abnother matter).

Your example this time with the sands of the beach, exactly as the other time with water fitting in the glass, shows you have a lack of logic.

You argue - in my analysis - as follows:

"ID says that amino acids do not know how to combine into RNA, DNA, proteins, unless "told" by previously existing organised material, which means the first material needed a designer.

But I answer that in that case sand would need a designer to combine to a beach.
But we know there is no such designer. ID would admit as much.
Therefore, amino acids do not need a designer either."

In the general philosophical idea of ID (a k a 4th or 5th way of St Thomas Aquinas) the fact of sands combining harmoniously to form a beach do argue a designer too. Perhaps not as convincingly as DNA or as planetary orbist according to Tychonian Geocentrism. But beaches have the exact same designer.

Not just according to Catholicism. But according to what Catholicism claims was knowable to Aristotle & c:o. In other words according to what is knowable independently of confession.

And your parallel with the fire god is not very bad either - not very damaging for our case.

You cannot demonstrate there are no such things as fire spirits. When St Hippolytus wrote about the three young men in the furnace, he called the fire intelligent for not burning the three men but instead burning the executioners who looked down.

In other words, fire to him was certainly in a way material, but not exclusively.

Nor does Thomism teach that fire is an exclusively material phenomenon. As for those worshipping fire or sun or moon or stars, St Thomas likened them to poor men approaching the royal castle and mistaking lackeys for the king because they wear bright clothes.

So no Thomist arguing for design of stars - as observed! - moving as observed! - would need to feel any shame about someone not having a purely materialistic explanation of fire. Of courses, certain details of the material explanation currently accepted may be right. But that does not mean fire is working all on its own.

It is not a parallel where the ID argument would give a wrong answer, which is what you are trying to make it out as.

And I would not laugh at the stone sorting pixies either ...

Now, when you mentioned the one party behaving funny in the trial, here is about the other party.

I know that Kenneth Miller was involved in the trial, against them.

BUT, was he involved playing on the fact he was a Catholic?

And, more specifically, a TRADITIONAL Catholic?

If so he was a clear fraud.

New blog on the kid : Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/responding-to-miller-staying-with.html

New blog on the kid : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 2
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-2.html

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 3 - Correspondence with Ken Miller
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-3.html

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Ken Miller (part 4 of Staying with Father Murphy's God)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/correspondence-with-ken-miller-part-4.html

Another funny thing about the trial.

YOU mentioned that Dembski had talked broadly about the affiliations of the judge. Now, behind these open affiliations, like George W. Bush, there could be somewhat more discreet ones, like Skull and Bones. But here I am only spinning on what you gave in video, of course.

Now, I totally agree that the judge argued badly. Maybe just because he was unduly impressed by a "traditional Catholic" calling ID a fraud, when the traditional Catholic was rather what real Traditional Catholics would call an Apostate. Maybe so.

But it could also be that George W. Bush was lying when he bawled "teach the controversy", and was authorised or ordered by Skull and Bones or something to let Dembski down and pass no word to the judge. Or he could have been so clumsy as to do precisely that - on purpose - if the judge would have integrity enough to react against that.

Now, if in such a climate Dembski et al. stepped down in the last moment, that reminds me of Mafiosi trials where witnesses and victims withdrew statements in the last moment.