... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate, Second Half

Duplet: ... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate 1) First Half, 2) Second Half

To Kent Hovind (speaking about the Flood)

Psalm 104:5 - one of St Robert Bellarmine's proof texts in the 1616 Galileo trial. (It is numbered 103 in Catholic Bibles).

To Jaymen Dick

1:14:29

There was a time at which the official teaching of the Church ...

• "... was Flat Earth" - No. That is bad history.
  
  Church men saying Columbus could not sail were not arguing he would "fall off the edge" but that certain zones were unsurvivable to man and therefore impossible to travel through.
  
  In the direction south it was though human life was not reaching as far down as the Equator, because there it was too hot. Even black man would cease to be able to survive before one reached it. This was before Stanley and Livingstone.
  
  This was not official teaching of the Church men, it was their secular scientific erudition. In the West, the obstacle was thought to be strong winds.
  
  
• "... was Geocentrism." - Yes. And this has never been reversed.
  
  One can possibly say Geocentrism is [since the Settele case, 1822] no longer obliging as after 1633 trial, but not that the reverse has become obliging.

1:14:37 "Major leaders of the Church who were right on many Theological issues - Calvin and Luther for instance ..."

Major leaders of a totally illegitimate secession from the Church. And wrong on many Theological issues, as one can expect of children of Korah.

Here are some Haydock commented chapter links refuting among others these two:

Great Bishop of Geneva!
Does Haydock - OT - take into account what Beza and Calvin wrote? And others?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-haydock-ot-take-into-account-what.html

Does Haydock - NT - take into account Beza and the Reformers?
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-haydock-nt-take-into-account-beza.html

And the Catholic Church definitely did not make a flat earth part of its teaching.

To Kent Hovind

The earth - 1:15:55 - may be centre of the universe, but not of the solar system.

Am I hearing some Tychonian cosmology here?

To Tycho Brahe, I am not quoting, but giving him in a moment a snappy formulation - the Earth is still and centre of three diverse daily orbits: Moon, Sun, Stars. (With the lagging behind of inner orbits, making Stars double the Sun every year and double the Moon every Month).

BUT there is a solar system, of which the Sun is the centre. Earth is in it, but not of it. It is moving, Earth is still, but only one body in it is moving directly around the Earth and all other bodies in it are moving around that body, moving around the Sun.

This is obviously what St Robert Bellarmine was scientifically defending against Galileo's conclusions. [1616 trial, he had died before the 1633 trial.]

To Jaymen Dick

1:22:49 The 40 other methods are all more accurate than C14?

How do you even accurately assess a half life with them?

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html

1:23:24

"It is easily demonstrable in a lab ..."

Sure. I am not denying decay of atoms.

Problem is the unjustified transition between atoms decaying at an observable rate like for very rapid decay, at a calculable rate as with smoke detectors using Americium 241 which has a decay rate of a half life of 432.2 years, to Carbon 14 where the decay rate is more deducible than directly calculable from observed data on same sample (it has the half time of a half life so long ago that historical datings from back then are less than certain) and from there on to decay rates probably much less certain and certainly less directly observed. AND on top of that from there on to assumptions about initial states that we cannot know (except insofar as knowing by the word of God we have a short history and certain assumptions must be wrong since giving us too long a history).

I have a feeling Jaymen Dick is making himself stupid so as to avoid seeing atheist scientists using Uranium or Thorium based methods as the kind of real stupid they actually are.

1:26:07

Geologic column accepted by ALL the major disciples of science? What has a doctor got to do with it? What has an electrician go to do with it?

What have zoologists and botanicists, excepting the palaeo-versions of the sciences got to do with it?

Do palaeo-zoologists really support the Geologic column as much as they accept it?

Check out this miniseries:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
[Use links within, just under title, to get from that message to others in same series.]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

To Kent Hovind

1:28:28

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not bee erected first."

And Hovind, just before that, had given the column too much of its due. I e more than it.

In GC it is palaeozoic, palaeozoic, palaeozoic layers up to nearly the top where there are cenozoic ones. Not yet sure if that means top above palaeozoic ones, or if it involves a move sideways too. I nearly think that latter is the case.

Certain fine adjustments within the palaeozoic field may have gotten their names from GC. "This must be Carboniferous and this Silurian, in GC one of these index fossils was found a mile above the other."

BUT saying Permian and Cretaceous fossils have different dates because where they were in the huge pile called GC is not even true. There are no Cretaceous fossils in GC, as I recall, and if there are Permians ones that would be Permian shellfish just as GC has Silurian and Carboniferous shellfish.

Where you get to Permian land living fossils, they had no place or depth in GC.

Karoo is very instructive, it has both Permian and Triassic fossils. Not one place where the Permian ones lie beneath Triassic ones. Everywhere it is differnet assemblage zones - side by side in a huge area.

Probably reflecting where herds of different beasts - Moschops is a funny looking one, perhaps less funny in reality while it lived - herded together in the wake of the Flood that surprised them.

To Jaymen Dick

1:39:19

Here it is already clear where Jaymen Dick stands.

In Edgar Andrews' book From Nothing to Nature BOTH views are presented. I got it as a twelfth birthday present. Ma knowing I was going up against Evolution theory being taught in school.

I immediately preferred the more strict interpretation of the days - meaning Sun, Moon and Stars did not even exist till day IV. I saw no problem at all with God providing visible and lifegiving light before creating light sources.

The problem comes with Heliocentrism.

Earth rotating could in pure theoretical possibility have been the reason why the light gave night and day ... but what does it then mean that God divided the darkness from the light? Of course, God could have withdrawn light from one half of the Earth, the one opposite Jerusalem (or where it would later stand), where He created Adam.

The real problem is the annual orbit. How would earth for three days be involved in an annual gravitation motorred orbit around a heavier object not yet in existence?

So, obviously I had a motive for Geocentrism. Narnia was good, but even better, since not flat earthed, Middle Earth by JRRT. A certain paragraph in his Letters made an impression.

New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/a-relevant-quote-from-tolkien.html

Years later I read St Thomas Aquinas, saying basically the same thing as Tolkien had stated in Silmarillion and in that letter to Naomi Mitchison.

Some years after that convinced me there was no optical evidence for Heliocentrism either.

Meaning there is no problem left with the Genesis account as it stands. AS WELL AS disposing of Distant Starlight Problem.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

1:45:18

There is much meaning in Death and Resurrection of Christ that is not apparent at first glance. True, indeed enough for a lifetime, to those who study it with their whole hearts.

BUT no new discoveries during adulthood contradict in the slightest what appeared at first glance.

Do you see the difference?

1:46:02

I agree, for once, totally with Jaymen Dick. Evolutionism is totally inept at backing up the Abiogenesis Theorem and at least very important parts of the Evolution Theorem.

I am not seeing any chance of Kent Hovind disagreeing either.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology
[Again a miniseries, this time straddling two of my blogs, links within, as stated above.]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-abiogenesis-and-evolutionist-ideology.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
[Miniseries, linking to accompanying letter with links to its parts.]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Pidgins are no more Primitive Languages than Robinson Crusoe had a Primitive Culture
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/02/pidgins-are-no-more-primitive-languages.html

1:47:34

"Every new discovery they make points to a Creator, not away"

Lots of new discoveries are also substantiating Geocentrism, if you really look at them.

And therefore God as an active upholder of the Universe continuously, not just a Creator in the distant past.

BUT the Heliocentric formulations given by astronomers do tend to point - at least to the careless - away from the Creator.

Though I did have a hard time believing gas would consolidate through gravitation and form a star at age 8. But I was not immediately asking if God did it. I was rather later much more satisfied intellectually with God did it than with Laplace's Hypothesis.

To Kent Hovind

1:48:39

Kent Hovind cites Jacques Monod.

Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex organisms … the struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected ; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.

[Jacques Monod, The Secret of Life, interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Company, June 10, 1976.]

I agree, of course. In the main. On a very general level. I agree that "natural selection" is a physical evil. That deliberately using it in an unfallen world would be a moral evil. He got some things a bit wrong, though.

Note that Jacques Monod abused the phrase "natural law" to mean "law of the wilderness" or what Locke called State of Nature.

St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle meant something quite other by the words Natural Law.

He is also using the words "our modern ethics" to mean partly what Natural Law would require or at least approve in protection of the weak, and partly, perhaps, though it is not made directly apparent here, pushing "non-selectivity" too far. As well as other selected items from the Natural Law. Too far meaning at the expense of other aspects of the Natural Law. Which not only states that the weak, as in children, should be protected, but also that it is with very few exceptions the family that should do so.

To Jaymen Dick

1:53:38

"These are generations, these are indefinite long periods of time."

This is reading "generations" as it is often used contextually, when saying "generations later" as in great grandson of great grandson later. But there it means generations of human beings.

Generations both in that other context and here come from the Latin for "coming into be" in passive (generari) or "making to be" in the active (generare).

I suppose the Hebrew Toledoth has a similar meaning. At least, the most basic meaning cannot be the time it takes for a human son to grow up and engender a human grandson and so on to the great grandson of the great grandson.

It is not of specific men after Adam, but of Heavens and Earth and all that was in them that this is the "generations" i e the order in which they came to be. Meaning a pretty clear exclusion of Day-Age theory like moves like Sun created before Day one, but made directly visible in itself on Day four. Or insects created along with plants rather than two days later.