The Evolution of Morality (1-5)
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUxmJR9a5Y
Commented on in sequence of main topic:
... AronRa claims Human Morality is Evolution's Making
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/aronra-claims-human-morality-is.html
Comment on above specific topic, and ensuing debate:
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- 8:14 positive claims require positive evidence.
Our eyes and inner ears (forgot what you call those curved tubes in three dimensions of curving) give us positive evidence, as far as not proven wrong, that earth is still and sun, moon, stars go around us each day, east to west, and that sun lags behind the stars a little each day, adding up to full circle west to east once a year, moon gets full circle west to east compared to stars once a month (lunar month and solar year, obviously).
Lucretius, who was an atheist did not deny this. But he was very inattentive as to mechanism behind these phenomena. When Ptolemy inquired further into the regularities, it was very obvious to everyone that although Aristotle was wrong on particulars, his proof there was a God pushing the univere around us east to west (or commanding stars to go east to west in a very perfect formation, if you go by Abraham's observation as given in Josephus) was right and Lucretius wrong.
Have you since then any positive evidence for positive claims like:
- Heliocentrism
- Big Bang
- getting from just after BB to formation of galaxies and solar system and planets around stars, especially around Sun
- abiogenesis
- microbes to man (or to dog or to cat) evolution?
- Other subdebate
- ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-abiogenesis-and-evolutionist-ideology.html - mathew2283
- You're a massive idiot.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- o k ... care to develop?
- mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Mate, you just claimed that the Earth doesn't move, that it doesn't orbit the sun and that there is no evidence to the contrary. You're an idiot.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- I claimed the Earth doesn't move, and that it does not orbit the Sun, so where is the EVIDENCE to the contrary?
In calling anyone "idiot" who disagrees? - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl That sentence makes no sense
+Hans-Georg Lundahl If the Sun orbitted the Earth, then we should get a full range of seasons in 24 hours. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- No, since the stellar day is a few minutes shorter than 24 hours.
Sun's compound movement is 24 hours. And this means compound between the movement of Heaven (stellar day = full circle) and a lagging behind.
Now, the lagging behind makes the full compound circle of Sun in real space around earth 24 hours long (those being by definition 1/24 each of the length of this compound movement), but it also constitutes a relative movement to the circle of the stars, the one called the zodiak, and it is the circle around the zodiak (which is not totally perpendicular to axis of universe, but goes north and south of the equator of heaven) that contsitutes the seasons of the Sun.
Next objection? Shall we take geostationary satellites while we are at it? I have been debating it with om Trinko for some near two weeks.
[Links to the debate with Tom Trinko, see above.] - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Err...no. In the Northern hemisphere it is summer currently because the Earth tilts towards the sun. If the Sun was moving around the Earth then tonight, it would become winter, because we would be tilted away from the sun. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- In "Summer" the Sun is further North when turning around the Earth. In "Winter" the Sun is further South when turning around the Earth. That explains exctly as much as a tilt of our (supposed) axis of rotation.
- mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
What causes the sun to be "further north"? Is the sun moving up and down in a year long cycle?
Problem with that idea is that the sun is always in the same relative position in the sky. Were it moving relative to the Earths north and south, it would be in a different position in winter to what it is in summer and that just isn't the case. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Is the sun moving up and down in a year long cycle?"
Yes.
"Problem with that idea is that the sun is always in the same relative position in the sky."
NOT even true.
Rising East and setting West of any location is twice per year, in Spring and Autumn.
Northern hemisphere, in Summer rising and setting are more NE and NW than purely E and W, and in Winter it is more SE and SW than purely E and W. The further North you get, the more marked this is. And yes, this means there is a point on which at Midsummer Night the Sun "sets and rises" due North. I have been in one such location, it is Gellivare in Sweden.
In the Southern hemisphere the variations obviously reverse the directions.
This is of course also what the "tilt of earth axis" would predict. - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl So the Sun is, for no real reason, moving up and the down as it orbits the Earth. What is the mechanism that moves the sun move up and then down?
And if the Earth isn't tilted, how do you explain the Polar Night? - Hans Georg Lundahl
- Polar Night and Polar Day are the extremes of the variation I was just talking about.
The Sun is moving "up and down", and I did not say it was "for no real reason".
I would identify the so called or so illcalled "mechanism" of this moving North and South as an angel guiding the Sun's material body.
St Jerome would have such an angel being the soul of the Sun, whereas St Thomas Aquinas prefers it to be simply holding and moving the Sun, as a man might hold and move a lantern.
Either way, the movement North and South of the Sun, are subject to a will. That executes the orders of God who wants winter and summer to exist so we can live longer. In a world without seasons, we would soon starve to death, I presume. - mathew2283
- So magic then. It's fucking pathetic mate. Every branch of human inquiry says you're wrong and as soon as you face something yore idea cannot explain "god did it" grow up
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "pathetic" and "grow up" and "so magic then" are not arguments.
"So magic then" would be an argument within the naturalist paradigm, but it isuseless against us supranaturalists.
That doesn't mean we will refrain from using it as an argumentum ad homines (not to be confused with fallacy argumentum ad hominem) in a manner of "stick to your own rules".
The other two are outbursts rather than arguments. - Arca Jeth
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not going to argue with you that the sun revolves around the earth. I think you are just trolling. - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl When you invoke magic, there is no counter argument is there? You have called on magic to explain something that doesn't happen and cannot happen to plug a gap in your "theory"
At this point a rational adult would consider that perhaps having to make things up and use magic to justify them probably meant that they are wrong. You won't do that. No amount of logic or evidence will penetrate your wall of cognitive dissonance so discussion becomes pointless.
What is even more pathetic is that what you are using magic to describe doesn't actually happen anyway, you just need it to happen to fit your model.
I'll ask again, can you support your position in any verifiable way?*
Something else. Andormeda is 2,500,000 light years away. For it to be in the same position in the sky every night, it needs to travel 15,700,000 light years in 24 hours. This means that that galaxy is travelling at about 5,700,000,000, times the speed of light. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- I have not called on magic. I have taken as explanation something YOU would call magic.
I have not tried to explain something that cannot happen. I have tried to explain or rather successfully explained insofar as you are at all listening something that can on my view very well happen and is happening all the time. Except for Joshua's Long Day.
Can YOU support your Heliocentric position in any verifiable way?
Calling wills as causes "magic" will not do it.
You see:
- on your view causes are 1) matter and energy, 2) matter and energy complicated by biochemistry, 3) matter and energy complicated by biochemistry in such ways as to form a mind;
- on my view causes are 1) God, 2) other minds created by God, 3) matter and energy created also by God to be controlled by Himself and by other created minds. Biochemical complications of matter and energy are, in the human case, so to speak a bridge between categories 2 and 3.
"Andromeda is 2,500,000 light years away."
According to Heliocentrics.
As a Geocentric, not accepting the halfyearly 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri as mirroring our own movement, and as a supranaturalist, believing angels can move the matter God allows them to move, I have no need to accept those kinds of distance measures.
I think this disposes with the rest of your argument. - on your view causes are 1) matter and energy, 2) matter and energy complicated by biochemistry, 3) matter and energy complicated by biochemistry in such ways as to form a mind;
- Niels Steigenga
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Sun is moving "up and down", and I did not say it was "for no real reason".
I would identify the so called or so illcalled "mechanism" of this moving North and South as an angel guiding the Sun's material body.
St Jerome would have such an angel being the soul of the Sun, whereas St Thomas Aquinas prefers it to be simply holding and moving the Sun, as a man might hold and move a lantern.
Either way, the movement North and South of the Sun, are subject to a will. That executes the orders of God who wants winter and summer to exist so we can live longer. In a world without seasons, we would soon starve to death, I presume.
wow do you have any evidence for that "mechanism" of the angel. - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl So you dismiss the argument out of hand
HubbleSite : FAQ : How do astronomers measure the distances to galaxies?
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=45&cat=galaxies
That method works whether the Universe revolves around the Earth or doesn't.
Andromeda IS that far away. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- @Niels
"wow do you have any evidence for that "mechanism" of the angel."
Do YOU have any evidence of earth turning and tilting?
The same phenomena are explained either way.
I can understand the angel being distasteful to an atheist, but you can hardly ask a Christian to agree with that.
@Matthew, quoting from site you gave:
"Astronomers measure the distance to a galaxy in the same way we estimate the distance to an oncoming car by the brightness of its headlights. We know from experience how much light a car's headlights emits, so we can determine how far away the car is."
We do not know from experience how bright a galaxy is in absolute light emission. Only how much light reaches us.
"To measure the distance to a galaxy, we try to find stars in that galaxy whose absolute light output we can measure."
There is no such thing, since any estimate of absolute output depends on measure of light reaching us and on estimate of distance between output and reaching us.
But THAT in its turn depends, for the nearest and to Heliocentrics "clearest" cases, precisely on parallax measuring.
SO, this measuring method or supposed such is dependent on reliability of parallax measures.
[Note how his next answer does not take issue on this, but only mocks me for not being a believer in scientists:] - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You should really tell the scientists who measure these things that they don't know what they are doing and that their methods don't work, because they seem to think they do....OR accept you are wrong...either works, just let me know when the highly educated men and women who have spent years studying cosmology laugh in your face.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, we have given it and you have dismissed it on the basis that magic makes other things happen.
The seasons should occur daily if the sun orbits the Earth. You have no mechanism to explain why we don't see this.
The retrograde motion of the planets in the night sky cannot be explained if the Earth is stationary. You haven't even attempted to explain this.
The Lunar Cycle should occur daily if the Earth is stationary and the Sun orbits the it. It doesn't and you cannot explain that.
You cannot explain the vast speeds celestial bodies are required to move to be in the same position every night. You can only say the way distance is measured is wrong.
You cannot explain why the further things are from Earth the faster they travel according to your model.
You cannot explain why the North star appears stationary with a geocentric model. - Hans Georg Lundahl
- "they [the scientists] seem to think they do [know what they are doing/the methods they use work]"
SURE.
But they also think before taking the light intensity method of distance "measure" that some absolute light outputs have been measured by a method of relating light reaching us to distance in its turn measured by their primary method: parallax. Which turns on Heliocentrism.
"The seasons should occur daily if the sun orbits the Earth."
Already answered as a totally spurious argument. Night and day are results of daily Westward movement of Sun around Earth, WITH Zodiak plane, Seasons of its Eastward movement back through Zodiak plane, which goes up and down [I meant North and South, of course].
"The retrograde motion of the planets in the night sky cannot be explained if the Earth is stationary. You haven't even attempted to explain this."
I did not see you mention this before.
Planets dancing around sun are sometimes moving back through the Zodiak plane, as is Sun, but sometimes also moving forward through it.
And there, as with Sun and Moon, "mechanism" is the wrong word, angels are good dancers, but they have wills and wills are not called mechanisms.
"The Lunar Cycle should occur daily if the Earth is stationary and the Sun orbits the it. It doesn't and you cannot explain that."
Explanation parallel to that of Sun.
Except that the movement backward through the Zodiak plane for one thing takes about a month and for another is not alone responsible for phases, there is also relative position in relation to Sun.
"You cannot explain the vast speeds celestial bodies are required to move to be in the same position every night. You can only say the way distance is measured is wrong."
I did say the way you measure distance beyond "solar system" is wrong, but even within the distances I concur with the speeds are vast.
Neptune would, if itself in aphelium away from Earth while Sun was in apogee, and I do not know if those are the present positions or not, have a speed a third that of the speed of light.
Now, the explanation for this speed is God turning the universe, more precisely the aether Westward on a daily basis.
"You cannot explain why the further things are from Earth the faster they travel according to your model."
Yes, I definitely can, they are within a continuous æther that God is turning around us like a spintop.
"You cannot explain why the North star appears stationary with a geocentric model."
I can do that quite as well too.
It is close to the axis of the daily spinning.
Now, your tirade was a fine piece of rhetoric for a liar. But answering your points one by one exposes your dishonesty. Unless it is simply the impatience of a fanatic. - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Liar? Me?
You dishonest little twat. Your entire theory relies on unobserved things that don't happen and could only happen by magic. The planets DON'T move backwards and even if they did how? Angels again?
You are either a troll, utterly stupid, or so fanatically dedicated to your religion that reason and evidence will not penetrate your mind. Remember this. Denying evidence makes you dishonest. Jesus doesn't like that, does he? - Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Angels again?"
Planets are like all heavenly bodies ruled by such, yes.
Planet Sun (yes, Sun and Moon are two of the Classic Seven Planets) circles earth. Planets like Mars and Venus are conducted by skilful dancers making epicircles.
"Your entire theory relies on unobserved things"
Your[s] relies on unobserved telluric rotation, unobserved telluric orbit around sun, unobserved other contradictions to the immediate testimony of the senses.
Note, one could consider flatness of earth an "immediate testimony of the senses", but unlike Heliocentrism its contradiction, a round earth, is observed in all the voyages all over the globe, even if one were to doubt pictures from moon or from satellites. - Niels Steigenga
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Do YOU have any evidence of earth turning and tilting?"
That's shifting the burden of proof. My question was Do you have evidence for the angel. Even if I can't proof the earth is tilted or turning, that doesn't give your angel any validity. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy.
"The same phenomena are explained either way."
Yeah, one is explained by gravity, the other by angels. The difference is that gravity is demonstrable, angels isn't.
"I can understand the angel being distasteful to an atheist, but you can hardly ask a Christian to agree with that."
I find angels not distasteful like I don't find fairies distasteful, but I find it silly of someone to propose it as an explanation for anything while not providing any evidence.
And what about retrograde motion of planets? - Hans Georg Lundahl
- "That's shifting the burden of proof."
Not quite no. You see, by accepting that earth is not just tilting but turning you accept somthing you have never seen, except from:
- a) diagrams (on paper or animated or either on internet);
- b) pictures taken from moon, where apparent turning of earth could very well be due to real turning of moon round earth and dito for pictures taken from satellites.
But it is what you think you have to accept in order to not believe a "silly" thing like an angel.
Similarily, an angel per planet and an almighty God for all the Universe is what I have to believe to keep believing my senses.
"Yeah, one is explained by gravity, the other by angels."
So far we have not discussed gravity at all.
As you brought it up, how good is your evidence gravity would be able to keep planets in orbit for billions of years?
Static electricity keeps water drops in orbits for fifteen orbits. Up where there is no gravity interfering.
As you brought gravity up.
You know there are different models of it?
Aristotle, Newton, Einstein.
Aristotle has ALL gravity point down to centre of universe = earth and all gravity on earth to point down to centre of earth.
If man walked on the moon, then this is maybe wrong. But I have not ruled out all "special pleading" about man walking on the moon and Aristotelian gravity being right anyway. There is also the detail, do we know the story is true? A camera gives no all round view. Theoretically the story could be faked.
The other two models are fairly well with Heliocentric model of solar system - until you start asking questions.
For instance: if an angel even theoretically could influence any orbit of any heavenly body (and no Christian will really rule that out, without outing himself as an apostate), how can its orbit give us assurance of its mass? And without such assurance, how can we verify that the mass of each planet corresponds to the orbit according to either Newton's theory or Einstein's refinement of it?
On the other hand, assuming such gravity is true, this will not automatically stop angels from making the orbits go where they want.
And so we lack - except atheists who think angels are silly - any measure of the mass of planets. Estimates, based on view of size and surface matter, that is another thing. BUT that is not what the masses of the planets are based on, since more than once modern cosmology thinks a planet has a core of different density than its obvious surface material.
"The difference is that gravity is demonstrable, angels isn't."
Neither is demonstrable immediately as the one sole cause of planetary movements. Until you consider the stability of orbits. Then you should ask the question whether mere chances of gravity and inertia only by themselves could produce an orbit that stays the same for billions of years.
Even apart from that, yes, angels are demonstrable.
A few years ago (11 or rather 12) in XXth Arr. of Paris, a Saturday or Friday a café owner was shutting his café. The cloth above the terrass should have been rolled in, but precisely that very time it was stuck, really really stuck and finally the café owner did not bother.
Sunday a boy fell from a window several floors above the café (it was a skyscraper, 12th or more floor, I think). The boy fell into the extended cloth, bounced, and a rugby player walking by caught the boy in his arms.
He survived and wasn't even seriously hurt.
I am not buying this was just a chance.
And of course there are all the angels throughout Bible and Church history.
Plus a few in Pagan histories which though identified as gods may well have been angels of the one true God. Like "Hermes telling Aigistes he had to desist from Klytaimnestra" or same "Hermes" telling Calypso she had to give up Ulysses, that could very well have been angels (of course the words "Zeus" uses about the occasion, referring to one, ordering the other, in "debate on Mount Olympus" are pure poet's fancy - no man was there to hear it).
"And what about retrograde motion of planets?"
As two angels take their heavenly bodies along a daily spiralling path, every day close to perfect circle around earth, along with aether turning, namely Sun and Moon, AND they also take these in a path backwards against the turning aether, along the Zodiak plane, which is elliptic and the various distances from earth of which account for inward and outward movements of the daily slightly spiralling near perfect circles, other planets are also taken on daily near perfact circles around earth each day BUT their path along the Zodiak plane in diverse periods, neither Solar years nor Lunar months (which latter is not exactly the time the Moon takes along Zodiak plane, since phases depend also on angle of Sun), and, here is the point, these other paths are ellpitic not directly around Earth, but instead around Sun which is making its double path (daily and yearly) around Earth. That accounts for retrogrades. And that is Tycho Brahe's explanation, a bit mended by that Italian astronomer. Riccioli. Almagestum Novum. - Arca Jeth
- Got a few of his comments suppressed as spam, I restored them. This is why I respond only now. HIs three are from 9th, 10th, 11th of July, I respond 16th.
- I
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
You really can't be serious, even the most hardcore extreme creationists don't believe that the sun revolves around the earth. This has been settled science for centuries. - My response
- +Arca Jeth settled science for centuries is less of a criterium than whether it has very good proof or less good proof.
- II
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
You seem intelligent, but at the same time you are fucking retarded. Do you also think the earth is flat? - My response
- +Arca Jeth I do not think the earth is flat no.
As to evidence, there is plenty of evidence from voyages that Earth is round. There is much less evidence - in fact none at all as I have seen so far - from space voyages that Earth is moving aorund the Sun.
As to evidence from Moon landing the Earth is turning, it is evidence easily returnable. - III
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Dude, you need to seek professional help. People are committed to mental health facilities for believing things more logical than what you just wrote. I am not trying to be a dick, but try and get back to reality. - My response
- +Arca Jeth "People are committed to mental health facilities for believing things more logical than what you just wrote."
If THAT is so, that is an argument against the "mental health facilities" as you call those horrors.
Plenty of other arguments against them too. - Niels Steigenga also had one in spam filter
- Do you know about retrograde motion (weird motion of planets relative to the background stars)
Retrograde Motion
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
Starwaders : Retrograde Motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piBBQTkoQ9c
BBC : Mars Loops The Loop - Wonders of the Solar System - Series 1 Episode 2 Preview - BBC Two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbynKfNfHk4
Is that because earth orbits the sun and the retrograde motion is observed when the earth passes by another planet orbiting the sun at a lower orbit rate or is it god because he wants to confuse us? - My belated response
- +Niels Steigenga Before looking into your link[s]*, neither. I have already answered in my other answer. Sorry did not see it before, since it was today I discovered that your comment had been hidden as spam.
Sun gets around Earth, West each day, East each year. It is in each moment, thus for both day and year, the centre of each planet orbitting it, while they also participate in the daily rotation of the universe.
And each planet is therein guided by its angel.
This was, by the way, as I forgot to mention it before, the standard theory about heavenly motions up to Newton's time. How come he made no effort to refute it?
He gave an alternative theory, he did not prove it was better, and he did not prove the other theory wrong. In fact he may probably have thought the angelic theory right. In that case he wanted to propose another theory to draw away attention from it.
Yes he was a Christian - of a sort. He was Arian and he was Rosicrucian. And perhaps it was his interest as a Rosicrucian to get the attention of the public off angels.
* I thought they were only one before responding. - Matthew
- Got two comments caught.
- I
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Right, firstly the Sun does not move as you claim. Secondly it is not physically possible to move a physical object through force of will.
So what you describe is impossible.
To get around this you invoke Supernatural entities for which there is no evidence of their existence and imbue them with Powers that defy all physical laws.
Yet you deny this is magic. - My response
- +mathew2283 Sorry for belated response.
Geometrically my theory about the movements makes exactly as much sense as yours does.
It is not impossible to move an object through will.
I moved my fingers several times, and I willed them to move where they moved. [Grosso modo, excepting one mistype.]
In Christian metaphysics, standard version, no spurious sectarian deviation, God can move ANYTHING through His sheer will. Angels can move anything through theirs insofar as it is an object over which God gave them that power or allowed them to momentarily assume such - they are limited locally.
And human souls regularly move human bodies - insofar as these are able to move. - II
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here is something else.
BBC : Learning Zone : The looping movement of Mars in the night sky
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-looping-movement-of-mars-in-the-night-sky/9827.html
How can Mars move this way in the night sky if the Earth is stationary and Mars orbits it? - My response
- +mathew2283 As to the BBC clip, the problem you take up is identical to the one taken up in three links by Niels, and my answer is also identical.
Mars does not in its periodical movement East through the Zodiak directly orbit Earth, but only indirevtly insofar as it directly orbits Sun, which in its turn directly orbits Earth.
It is in the Westward, daily movement, that all orbits Earth. - mathew2283
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if Mars orbits the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth, that doesn't explain the retrograde motion of the planets in the night sky. Mars would still only appear to move in one direction.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Mars is moving in only one direction if we consider the daily movement westward. It is the periodical movement eastward that is interrupted by such zig zag. Let me quote a link for you:
"Over the course of a single night, a planet will move from East to West across the sky, like any other celestial object near the ecliptic. [...] If observed from one night to the next, however, a planet appears to move from West to East against the background stars most of the time. Occasionally, however, the planet's motion will appear to reverse direction, and the planet will, for a short time, move from East to West against the background constellations. This reversal is known as retrograde motion, and is illustrated in the following animation."
Note that the animation ONLY takes into account the position of Mars at midnight in relation to stars. Dates shift from Oct 13, 1996 to Jul 26, 1997 BUT it is always 12:00 am:
Retrograde Motion
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
Actually one Geocentric explanation for it is already given - the Ptolemaic one. The Tychonian differs from the Ptolemaic in general by identifying Sun with the excentric of each planet. The Riccioli explanation changes circles to ellipses that are only close to circular. But EITHER explanation is here given as not taking the daily rotation into account. Whether the daily rotation is that of Universe Westward around Earth or that of Earth Eastward around itself, this rotation has to be added before fully understanding what is concretely observed.
