Continuing Previous

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

34:28 Sir Isaac Newton indeed wrote on Daniel and Revelation.

As said, he was an Arian. It seems he carried some ire against the Council of Nice, (or of Nicaea, with a more Classical form), since it was Roman. And he was very anti-Catholic. Probably he carried the Reformers' ire against Papal Rome to the point of both misreading history and prophesy to demonise it and becoming an Arian as a consequence thereof.

39:40 I suppose the extreme magnitudes will involve astronomical estimates of distances of stars etc.

Here are some guys who heckled me so intensely - some of them together and some not on the discussion here - I had to leave the group, and first one gives an answer to my complaint which is somewhat of a give-away:

HGL's F.B. writings : At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/at-leaving-group-creationism-discussion.html

Here is one guy who was nearly civil, but had a slow comprehension on one issue, or two:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/08/can-someone-help-bewildered-man-out.html

One of them being that angels push stars and planets about, and here is part of what Riccioli - a Jesuit astronomer - had to say on the matter:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

And this has an obvious implication about non-necessity of taking parallax as parallax, possibility of taking so called parallax as proper movements induced by angels dancing in time with the Sun. And therefore not showing any clear indication of distance at all (it could be very much smaller than the distance along zodiak covered by the Sun at six months distance). And that means the universe could be vastly smaller than thought. Just as certain observations about unreliability of dating methods means it can be lots younger than thought outside Creationist community.

Million, billion, trillion. Two systems around, US and French (both used in UK, I think).

Million = 10⁶
Billion = 10⁹
Trillion = 10¹²

OR

Million = 10⁶ Milliard = 10⁹
Billion = 10¹² Billiard = 10¹⁵ (word also means Snooker, I know)
Trillion = 10¹⁸

Actually Snooker is Billard - a derivative of Bille, marble. But it is pronounced nearly as Billiard.

44:32 Nearest star 4.5 lightyears (I had recalled 4 lightyears) away.

This depends on considering Earth rather than that star as changing position.

And its being the size of the sun depends on two kinds of observation:

• direct observation of apparent size (or as direct as compensating for Airy effect allows);
  
  
• supposed indirect obervation of distance: which depends on Earth rather than star changing positions between June and December. Despite us seeing the contrary.

So, stellar sizes are a moot point to Geocentrics.

45:01

According to Heliocentrics (or those of them who do not interpret Negative Parallax as positive parallax but less of it than medium parallax which is if so wrongly registered as zero parallax), indeed the stars start appearing four and a half miles outside the three and a half foot radius of Pluto.

IF you take proper account of Negative parallax (which Heliocentrics usually do not do), and are still Heliocentric, the -0.9 arcseconds parallax would really be +x parallax. The zero parallax would be x + 0.9 arcseconds parallax. The alpha Centauri parallax would be x + 1.66 arcseconds parallax, thus perhaps half the distance you cited or even nearer.

IF on the other hand all supposed parallax (negative and positive) is actually proper movements of stars, if angels are moving them about (the Classical theory of Celestial Movements), the only indication for how near the nearest star can be (at least in direction of Pluto/Kuiper Belt) is beyond Pluto and Kuiper Belt.

All fixed stars could be between "two and three metres away from the centre" - which would be Earth, "an inch away" from the centre of Solar System, inside which Earth is, but of which Earth is not.

46:41

Universe being finite was a XX^th C. discovery?

It was on the contrary a commonplace before Kant and some other guy (who considered universe was a disc of finite thickness, but infinite radius).

And since it was a commonplace, there was a reason to attack it.

Now, to Kant the Universe having a beginning was "a paradox". His "reason" was against the revelation, and he concluded in favour of a double standard of truth. A beginning and creator being a moral postulate, but a non-beginning and non-ending being more in tune with observations and rational considerations of them.

So, between Sun and alpha Centauri, the gravity is negligible? Even negligibles add up to something if there is an eternity for them to do so. Therefore, I would analyse Kant's rejection of Universe having no boundaries as partly an attempt to expose each star to opposing gravities from other stars.

Partly it was probably simply a difficulty in visualisation.

But Universe being Finite was a commonplace with Geocentrics and pre-Newtonians.

Before 49:18

Nucleus volume to atomic volume ration 10¹⁵.

"Mostly empty space".

Two caveats:

• a) Nobody has seen a nucleus. Even atoms can only be seen as bulbs in electronic microscopy (using electron rays that have no wave width, as one supposes).
  
  
• b) Is the space between nucleus and electron shells really empty? Or is it for instance full of aether, a continuous rather than a particle based matter?
  
  How come empty space can transmit forces between masses and charges?
  
  Is lightness absence of nucleus matter or presence of aether?
  
  Are the qualities considered as "subjective" ones by modern science situated in the aether?

I am not buying for undisputable fact that we are mostly empty space along with all around us. That is one model and I do not think the other options have been rejected for failing a real test.

"It seems very solid, but it is an illusion. A very effective illusion. We are the victims of an electrical simulation, a digital simulation." 49:18

God is truthful.

Your conclusion depends on atomic models to be correct (though noone has seen a nucleus) and complete (as if aether were disproven). And it contradicts God's truthfulness.

Note, even if what was the solid barrier was really more electric forces than solid nuclei, it would still be solid as per the fact it was often impenetrable. That would not be an illusion. But even so, could electric forces really exist so far outside nuclei while being suspended on no aether?

A Heliocentric might have to grant it as per Michelson Morley. To Geocentrics another interpretation of Michelson Morley is open. And if I didn't already mention I have that one from Robert Sungenis, I take the opportunity to do so now.

50:25 Quantum Theory, three stages:

• Atomistic aspect of Epicurus (insofar as it means atomistic approach to visible world rather than negation of the invisible world, the latter also being an Epicurean tenet, but irrelevant)
  
  
• St Isidor of Sevilla promotes it as one valid or probably valid concept (obviously when it comes to the material world, a Catholic Bishop is not denying the spiritual one)
  
  
• Niels Bohr.

Another question is whether the atomistic quantum theory is really true or not.

If you cut a length of 1 cm by 10^-33 (was it?) in half, instead of getting two halves, it looses locality.

With such smallness, it would perhaps be dubious and even highly so, if the experiment has ever been made. What kind of knife would you use to cut? What kind of pincers would you use so the "lost locality" is not simply lost pieces?

50:54 "there is a smallness beyond which we cannot reduce, and we discover we are in a digital simulation"

The parallel with pixels is obvious. In any picture, you can chose how many pixels it has and whatever your choice, say 300 pixels in width, you cannot squeeze detail for 301 pixels in width anywhere.

There are two problems with such a solution:

• 1) have we really validly discovered that smallness or is it a problem with measuring apparatus as to smaller smallnesses?
  
  
• 2) if our reality is indeed quantic, like pixels, how does this make our reality a simulation, unless you also postulate that the real world despite this must have an Aristotelic Continuum?

I would consider two solutions more probable than your conclusion.

• A) Either God created the real world in which we do live (though it gets more real above the stars) as an Aristotelic Continuum and the Planck length reflects a limit in our measuring apparatus, which is different from the world as such being pixellated.
  
  
• B) Or God actually did create the real world, at least the material one, in quanta, and this as such is not an indication of its being unreal or a simulation.

Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

The Myths of Science - Challenging the Myths of Astronomy - Chuck Missler in The Electric Universe
J.W. Blankenship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA

Raising my hand at 6:48 (metaphorically). I was an amateur astronomer at age 8.

7:34 "they talked about the Flat Earth which they had no excuse ..."

Chuck Missler, is YOUR idea of Medieval Learning based on Washington Irving's highly misinformed novel about Christopher Columbus?

7:47 "everything revolved around the Sun" - you mean the Earth, right?

Perhaps God is paying you back because you have been praying for me to make ridiculous miswordings?

If you haven't, someone has.

7:54 [Ptolemy] "was eclipsed of course by Copernicus with his" [Heliocentric theory].

OK, if you really mean what you say, Geocentrism (and specifically Ptolemy's version, I would not go that far) is sunlight and Heliocentrism (or at least Copernicus' version) is Lunar induced Darkness?

Thank you, if you really mean that. But probably you do not, alas.

There is no 4th orthogonal situation.

Saint Augustine confirms it from Theology's side, God created three dimensions to hint at the Blessed Trinity.

Jews who have intellectualised more dimensions than three have mixed dimensions properly speaking with categories. Time is another category than space (or place) with its three dimensions. They have obviously called unnecessarily many concepts dimensions in order to get away from the hint from the Creator He is one God in three Persons.

8:46 Aether, you mentioned Michelson Morley refuting its existence.

You forget that Michelson Morley has an alternative interpretation: Geostasis, Earth not moving.

12:46 Wonder how many have been encouraged to believe even such a thing as Heliocentrism because of Swedenborg's seances?

He's a countryman of mine btw. And before anyone concludes I get my ideas same way he got his, no, I read St Thomas Aquinas - as if he were relevant today. He is.

20:04 Gravitons were predicted by Einstein, but never actually observed.

What about photons? If we agree light is a physical phenomenon, there are two theories that are possible: photons, which have never been actually observed and - aether. With Geostatic interpretation of Michelson Morley, aether in which light is a wavemovement (just as sound is/is related to* in matter: gas, liquid or solid), becomes and option.

21:20 or just before.

Dark matter necessary to explain why such and such a galaxy holds together? Since gravity wouldn't suffice otherwise?

And you to conclude "well maybe sth other than gravity is involved here?"

Indeed! The wisest word you said so far, I would say!

Well, Geocentrism also seems to be true until you say that gravity cannot explain a Geocentric solar system according to Tycho Brahe's model.

Maybe sth other than gravity is invoved here. Like angels moving planets around sun itself moved by an angel around Earth. And all of it moved westward each day by God turning the aether around.

Not saying this due to any interviews with men on Saturn, me no Swedenborg, only a Swede. Saying this because it makes sense. Better sense than dark matter and better sense than Heliocentrism. Also read it in St Thomas Aquinas.

24:44 I disagree with a theory never being totally proven, because I disagree with Popper's definition of the method.

State that "everything everywhere is every day only half as big as it was the day before, and every natural law and force and mass is adpated so it evens out".

That can go on defying being disproven forever. So can solipsism. The problem is they are absurd and have no positive shred of evidence for either one of them.

Geocentrism is not absurd (except to one brainwashed in the modern theories and told all arguments for them and none for Geocentrism) and there is a definite though provisory evidence for it: sense evidence.

If one agrees there is a God and there are angels, Geocentrism can go on being disproven on the physical ground. Also parallax is not necessarily such.

If you look for optical evidence to challenge geocentrism it would be sth like "confirm distances gathered from parallax by observing the parallax on Mars." One discrepancy heliocentrism fails. No discrepancies after many tries, geocentrism might not be disproven but starts looking a bit fishy. No tries have so far been made as far as we know.

Or do the space missions to outside solar system show the apparent zig zag that Heliocentrism would predict if Earth was moving in and out of Origo of the trajectories?

Hard to find out actually.

One man gave me a source, I tried to look it up, it was not verified and not even answered at my request for confirmation.

25:32 Shannon's non-verifiable statement is not meaningless. It is absurd, but not meaningless.

Spirit not being matter cannot be verified apart from the obvious arguments for it. Like spirit has as positive definition conscience and will, we know that we are both that and body and we know there are bodies that show no conscience or will, ergo, spirit is in us conjoined with body somehow, but is not body as such. Therefore, as bodies are capable of not being spirit, spirits are capable of not being body. APART FROM this obvious argument there is no verification of this, except spirits moving bodies without a human body intervening, an occurrence which is rare and can be denied if you have not witnessed it.

So, Shannon's law would be a subreptitious attack on things spiritual.

Not meaning it applies to them properly understood.

Now, IF you admit there is spirit, THEN there is no way to verify heliocentrism from astrophysical considerations, apart from optic ones. That would make Shannon's law call Heliocentrism meaningless. BUT we know it has a meaning because we are aware of it. So, Heliocentrism being absurd is better terminology than Heliocentrism being meaningless.

27:59 Deductive and Mathematical

1) Deductive logic is exactly the same logic you need to use when falsifying anything.

Armstrong and Butler go into a room, shut the doors, you hear some very queer sounds. Butler comes out, has no blood on his hands or clothes or anything, no shot was heard, he points inside and you see Armstrong lying there in gore splattered all over the place.

Hypothesis: Butler did it.

Falsification: If Butler had done it, it would have been at short range since there was no shot, and killing a man at short range, by cutting up his stomach will certainly splatter on oneself. BUT Butler is clean, SO Butler didn't do it.

This is a modus tollens (If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A.) and Modus Tollens is a method of deduction. If it doesn't work for the universe, why would it work for the violent death of Armstrong.

2) Mathematics is not just a man made model. Some of it is, as when test results are regularly approximated (and very off results perhaps ignored) to make it look neater.

But basic mathematics as such, things like whole numbers or pi, are not man made. They are there even without our doing.

33:48

1) Planets in elliptical orbits, with the Sun at one of the foci.

Obviously, as Riccioli pointed out, that could be excepting the planet Sun, which also has an elliptical orbit, with a stationary Earth at one of its foci.

2) Sun's radius vector sweeps equal areas in equal times.

As obviously for the planet Sun, that would be Earth's radius vector.

3) Square of periods as cubes of mean distances.

Also quite possible in Geocentric terms.

34:15 Isaac Newton** was hardly a more serious Christian than Swedenborg (not a fan of either, btw). Isaac was an Arian, did not believe Divinity of Christ, and an Anticatholic. He was also a soothsayer - astrologer at least, but I think he dabbled in other things too.

His optics are one thing, but as to Classical Mechanics, in its relevance for the question, well, the thing is the standard theory then was that angels were moving the celestial bodies about (since 1277 when the theory celestial bodies had souls of angelic spirit type was forbidden by Tempier in Paris and much abandoned). So, he gave an alternative explanation. But he did nothing to refute that one.

_____________

* Marin Mersenne, a Catholic friar, was wisely not deciding on whether sound was the wave movement which gave a subjective by product of a hearable quality, or whether sound actually objectively was a hearable quality accompanied by the wave movements. He's the father of the science of acoustics, for those that do not know.

** Mathematics, certain things man made ... sure. Differential and integral calculus is man made.

... on Origin of Palestinians, Specially Christian Such

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on Origin of Palestinians, Specially Christian Such, 2) New blog on the kid Perfidy of Hamas ... does not totally justify Tsahal.

WHAT IS PALESTINE? WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?
Changeling9au
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ReF4UUa4E

1:10 The Philistines had centuries earlier ceased to exist as a separate entity.

They were mostly assimilated as Jews or Benjaminites, less into the Ten Tribes. A traditional Samarian accusation against Jews was Jews were Philistines or King David was a Philistine robber. He was indeed sometimes living among Philistines while taking refuge from King Saul.

1:20 "They had conquered Kingdom of Judah and called it Judaea."

Rather, they called the South part Judaea, the Mid part Samaria and the North part Galilaea. Idumaea was partly South of Judaea, into Sinai Peninsula, partly East of it in what is now South Jordan. It means the land of Edom, Esau, and of his descendants.

2:15 The Roman Empire is supposed to have attacked The Law because it could, supposedly, encourage revolt among oppressed.

It is not even true that the Hebrews in Egypt were revolting slaves. They were not revolting, they were getting liberated because God fought for their freedom. The Ten Plagues of Egypt ended with Hebrews taking riches from Egyptians, but that was after God had imposed the ten plagues and Pharao had granted that despoliation to avoid an eleventh one.

No where in the Law of Moses are revolts per se encouraged. The Book of Judges was hardly known to Romans.

2:42 After an act described as Genocide Hadrian forbade Jews to enter the area and got Greeks settled there.

Was his ban effective?

Was his ban just against the Jews who had taken up arms - or also against the Christian Church which during First Jewish War had fled from Jerusalem to Pella and which had come back?

What was the net effect between Greeks and Hebrews (remaining Jews/returning Christians) by the time of Constantine?

3:13 (The minute and seconds correspond to the year of Constantine's victory)

ALL the Christian history between Hadrian and Turks is simply glossed over as of no importance to the story of who the Palestinians are.

But it is on the contrary all important.

When Chosroës II entered Palestine as an invader, Derwas Chitty describes one of the effects as Palestinians Christians "returning" to ancestral Judaism. These were then leaving when Chosroës got beaten and are ancestors of Persian Jewry. I dispute his terminology, since OT religion of Moses' Law is NOT Judaism, and they did NOT return to the Temple that was there before the first Jewish War. BUt I do not dispute the fact. The Christian population in Palestine, when Chosroës invadeed it, had clearly a consciousness of its ancestors having waited for the Messiah and of having used the shekel and of having had Herod as a bad and cruel king. Otherwise those Judaising among them would hardly have thought they were returning to the religion of their ancestors.

When Omar came, one Beduin tribe went to the monastery they had been used to worship at, and told them they had been forced to become Muslims, but were still friends of the monastery.

Obviously it is idiotic to presume the Christian population of Palestine during the Christian Roman period was mainly descending from Greeks implanted by Hadrian. Greeks do not identify with Jewish Antiquities as ancestral to them. And Greeks do not like Persians. And Greeks are not Beduins.

As for the idea of these guys having arrived with Omar, how did they know the monastery?

There is a notorious fact there is a Christian Palestinian population. It cannot have arrived with Omar, since those arriving with Omar were Muslims and a Muslim population cannot have been allowed to become Christians in large numbers - except where there were Christians to protect them.

The Christian Roman population of Palestine was HEBREW. If not exclusively, at least in notable proportions.

A man who ignores the information available in Derwas Chitty's book The Desert a City (mainly on Egyptian monasticism, but I am citing the information from chapter on Palestinian monasticism) should not be talking for a minute on the subject of Palestinian origins. But even without it, the origin of Christian Palestinians should make the man pause. So far it hasn't.

3:18 From the 16th Century, in the Ottoman Empire, there was no administrative or political entity called Palestine.

Jerusalem did not cease to be Jerusalem when it was called Aelia Capitolina.

The argument offered is a true, but an irrelevant fact.

3:29 Brits revived the name Palestine. 3:39 1920 and 1922 the borders are very different. OK.

So?

Palestine 1922 definition still means the land Judaea, Samaria, Galilaea. And there is still no evidence that its population did not descend from those living there in the Days of Jesus, Our Lord.

3:56 Philip Hitti claims there is no such thing as Palestine in History.

"Hitti was educated at an American Presbyterian mission school at Suq al-Gharb and then at the American University of Beirut."

Presbyterians were hardly teaching him the real facts.

Besides, if he admitted that Palestine corresponded to Biblical Hebrews, he would logically have had to admit Lebanon (his country) corresponded to Canaaneans North of Galilee.

Next the video cites Zahir Muhsein:

"Making Zuheir Mohsen uniquely both a PLO leader and an official in the ideologically Pan-Arabist Syrian Ba'ath party at the same time. As such, he stated that there were "no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese", though Palestinian identity would be emphasised for political reasons."

He was a Pan-Arabist. And a Secularist. Why would he admit the Hebrew and Christian roots of the Palestinian population?

His words were of course also cited in the wiki, from same interview in Trouw.

But if Palestinians had ceased to be different from Jordanians and Lebanese and Syrians, this does not mean there were no distinct origins.

By the way, the cessation of differences was a three way affair:

• Mutually among Christians (already in pre-Islamic times, earlist probably with present day Jordan, i e Edom, Moab and Ammon, which may be the reason rabbinic literature calls Christians "Esau" but the process continued under Islamic Domination hardening to Tyranny, under Crusaders, after return of Islamic Tyranny)
• Mutually among Muslims (with some addition of families from Arabic Peninsula)
• From Christian to Muslim (and, under Crusaders, a little in reverse direction).

This does not mean there is no longer any continuity between Hebrews of Pre-Christian, Roman, and today's Christian Palestinians of the area.

8:56 despoliation of landscape under Ottomans - confirmed.

Chesterton wrote the English were before the Balfour plan very popular with the Palestinian Arabs of both Christian and Muslim confessions - because they brought water there. When they made a man of Jewish origin administator and opened the area for Jewish immigration, there were Protest Rallies.

9:12 Majority Muslims (70% I think, as in Jordan), i e Minority Christians (30%), of the Palestinian population.

With 10% Jews that makes 63% Muslims and 27% Christians in the area.

Muslim identities were opposed. Christian identities were at least divided into Catholic and Orthodox.

The basic identity of a man was a religious one. During a century or more since, it has been secularised a bit.

But those who lived there have hardly become as secularised as Jews arriving from Europe, USSR, USA.

1859 "The Muslims of Jerusalem do not exceed a fourth of the entire population"

OK, that quotations does not automatically make Jews it majority back then. I mean Jerusalem can have had a Christian majority or relative majority, or Christians and Jews can ex pari have been more numerous than the Muslims.

1878 - resettlement policy with Circassian and Algerian Muslims.

OK, does NOT say Christian Palestinians come from this resettlement policy.

14:00 Effendis selling lands.

The problem is in part when mere tenants were villages but their land owner sold the land anyway.

I had heard from a Swedish Jew on a forum they were often landowners in Beirut or Cairo. To me that means, they would hardly care if the village was forced to leave due to their land having been sold.

In cases of villages having been there since 1880, it may matter less but it matters some. In cases of villages having been there since hundreds of years, it matters more.

I do not think a land owner renting his land to a village can morally sell it to anyone except if the new owners agree to let the village of tenants stay. Evicting a village to sell one's land is a crime. Evicting a village for having bought land is a crime.

Of course a buyer might ask villagers to huddle, telling them they want a corner for some new settlers. But hardly to leave.

I had not heard the story of Effendis playing the double game of threatening small landowners, buying up their land cheap, selling it dearly to Jews.

Perhaps it is true. But perhaps it is also true that usury had put undue pressure on owners to sell lands. If they were indebted. Of course, Husseini's answers to Peel, as quoted, do not specify if it was through debts and usury the landowners were forced to sell or through conjectures.

... on Atheism or Christianity, Which is Arrogant?

In answer to the opening of the video:

Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

Why would it be arrogant to think oneself a blink in the cosmic eye, something which won't last very long, and which the cosmos won't remember very long, but humble to think oneself one of the beneficiaries and intended eternal such of the creation of the cosmos?

If it were two men telling each other about the status they each held within the same framework, the former would be humble and the latter arrogant. In an obvious social sense.

But the creationist is not believing your claim to be a blink in the cosmos. He is believing that you too are one of the reasons God wanted to make the universe. He thinks you are wrong about the framework quite as much as you believe him wrong about the framework.

So, neither of us is being arrogant or humble in the social sense to each other. Is then either of us humble or arrogant towards the cosmos?

On your view, there would hardly be any cosmos enjoying either one's humility, nor any cosmos indignated at either one's arrogance. If CONSCIENCE as such is just a blink, and the "eye" itself unconscious, that is unseeing, how would it be affected by any minute modification within that blink?

On my view there is consciousness all over the cosmos. God who alone spans it all in omniscience and omnipotence, and all the angels, each of which span much more knowledge than the human one and has much more might than the human one. That is sth which can be affected by humility or arrogance, adversely or again benevolently.

So, assuming the cosmos is full of consciousness the way I think, and at least God, plus some angels having had occasion to deal with my writings, plus some angels to whom God revealed it (including but not limited to the famous "man in the moon" whose services as a calendar Muslims still are using), what would God and the good ones among the angels enjoy as humility and what would they consider as arrogance?

Another angel was talked about when St Thomas More pointed at the Sun before kneeling at the scaffold and said "I'll be above that fellow", or when same angel was nearly adressed as "our brother Mister The-Sun" by St Francis.

If I am right that Our Brother Mister The-Sun is created by the same God who has created my soul, if I am right that we are called to get even above both Moon, Sun, and stars, to where the Cherubim, Seraphim and Blessed Virgin Mary adore the Lamb of God - who of these would be offended at my arrogance for saying it?

Wouldn't they perhaps rather be offended at the arrogance of a certain pretty recent collective in recorded human history who are saying "there is no creator, Gagarin found no such thing in space" as if that were looking well enough? Or even the angels might be somewhat offended when the lights they have are supposed to be lifeless masses of "burning gas" and in motion only as dictated by vectorial laws concerning inertia and gravitation. Perhaps, no?

Assume, at least for a moment as an experiment, the Geocentric perspective as an INERTIAL framework. If that is true, angels are dancing around a very intricate countrydance with some very surprising quirks. A show which would lead less prejudiced men, such as Abraham according to Josephus, to see that:

• there are dancers, not just holes in a ceiling shutting us off from a big fire
• they are much further off, dancing much faster, and are much bigger than it seems
• therefore, as they aren't hitting each other to pieces, they all obey a choreographer.

The one which Abraham thought a truer God than the gods he had for a moment served. Or, as St Thomas Aquinas would have said: the one we all call God.

So, getting back to your attitude as it is usually, if this true God exists and these dancers exist, if it is not just a kind of illusion, like Heliocentric Ideology would have it ... who of us is more like the bad critic who doesn't even get a pure genius of artwork?

So far, AronRa has not answered. Perhaps he is busy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Hormizdas, Martyr
8-VIII-2014

... on Evolution, Chromosome Numbers, PZM's Honesty and Similar Matters

Video commented on: Religion Reverses Everything
AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA

The Dungeon Master

I have a question: Is it creationists' presupposition that Earth is 6,000 years old that makes them unable to understand evolution, or is it their presupposition that evolution is wrong that forces them to believe Earth is 6,000 years old?

johnflux1

The presupposition is the bible.

VIIflegias ["VII flegias"?]

in many cases what drives a creationist is the pleasure that derives from basking in confirmation bias and that is clearly visible ( it's most evident in the case of nephilimfree ). in other words ''i'm right because i fell good about the fact that i fell good because i'm right''. in other other words, they perform mental masturbation with circular reasoning. this happens to everybody, but creationist tend to be hardcore about it. if by some miracle you manage to take that out of the picture and begin a discussion, the creationist mind is trained to follow specific thought patterns in response to specific stimuli and those programmed responses usually make them incapable of accepting new information or recognizing a valid argument, even if it's just a variation of their own arguments ( again this happens to everybody, that's how we work, and it's a bad habbit). finally, if you strip away all that, you should be capable of opening a proper discussion and having him/her actually listen to you. at that point, when all they have is a mind with a few fundamental presupposition ( finally here is my answer :P ) i think the main presupposition is : ''i know that my mindset is flawless, therefore the accuracy of any piece of information or reasoning that would force me into a stream of consciousness that i detect to be conflicting with my model of thought does not need to be ascertained and can be dismissed as a irrelevant fallacy''. in other words, and of course this is just an hypothesis, as soon as their brains detect anything that might in the end force them to admit they are wrong not only regarding the subject but wrong in their way of thinking, their primary and last line of defence is activated, like a firewall, instantly halting the process of elaboration of the information they were just presented. and this does not happen to everybody, not to people who have an idea of what intellectual honesty is.

Bolan Meek

+johnflux1 There's actually a supposition that precedes "the bible [is true]": that those who promote that book are trustworthy. People don't believe 'The Bible' because they've read it; they believe it because someone has endorsed it to be true, with appeals to emotion. With few possible exceptions, those promoters were trusted loved ones.

After believing 'the Bible', the convinced then read it with filters of confirmation bias, ignoring or belittling all external and internal evidence of its nature as a collection of myths.

Jordan Novak

+The Dungeon Master I would say that for the majority its the presupposition of the Earth's age. Then they fish for reasons to make evolution wrong. Hence the giant list of creationist claims.. they keep searching..

Claim List: Index to Creationist Claims
edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006
[Last update: 5 Nov 2006]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Tobias Hagström

Probably mostly the former.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+The Dungeon Master, as a creationist, I would say we consider both wrong on its own merits. We have Biblical - both Historical and Theological, if you like - evidence against Billions of Years. We have scientific evidence evolution won't work even with Billions of Years, not as presumed in the theory.

+Jordan Novak, the list might give an impression of including all major known creationist claims, with links to appropriate answers.

I went through the claims concerning C-14. Our really MAJOR argument on the issue is not listed. Perhaps it is thought to be only a "minor" aspect of first claim - the answer to which includes no answer to it. Here is my going through of the work of Mark Isaak on TalkOrigins:

Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/07/well-how-about-mark-isaak-too-lazy-to.html 

+Bolan Meek That an individual promoter of the Bible to me is a trusted loved one is obvious. It's my ma. Your point?

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And what, dare I ask, is this evidence? I feel I should remind you that we didn't develop the theory of evolution and then force everything to conform to it, we just observed repeating patterns in nature and gave it a name.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By the Biblical evidence for a short history of the universe, I suppose you will agree we all mean genealogies, so I suppose you were asking for the evidence against evolution.

Since you made a reminder, I will answer it first.

Observing a pattern in nature as we see it today is one thing. Projecting it backwards over a supposed billion or more of years and into MUCH larger proportions is another one. And looking at buried bones and finding confirmations for the pattern observed in the bones, if you project part of the possibilities of projections of the pattern and thus get a pattern in the bones with theoretical overlay that will confirm your projection is a third thing - it is going for a stupid choice of method with all the intelligence one has. Usually brighter than that stupidity.

The evidence against evolution now, have you heard of telomeres? Do you know that we age and die because our telomeres get shorter?

AND, have you heard of PZM's theory of chromosome splits to explain how mammals have different numbers of chromosomes?

If so, you might work out the evidence against evolution for yourself.

If you can't - come back.

While you are thinking it over, watch this documentary by Trey Smith:

NOAH: the TRUTH is BIGGER than you thought......the JourNey BeGins
Trey Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Why should finding bones that match our expectations be bad again? We understand some of the principles the universe runs on, so it stands to reason that those principles will be constants across time. For instance, no matter where or when you go, force always equals mass times acceleration.

Yes, I know about telomeres. They're those useless nucleotide sequences that protect the rest of a chromosome from being damaged during cell division. Telomeres do not determine our life span because they are repaired by telomerase reverse transcriptase.

I couldn't find any information about the theory you mentioned. Could you please link me to where you found it, because I want to read it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why should finding bones that match our expectations be bad again?"

If they match it spontaneously, so to speak, no problem. That is not exactly what has happened. People who do not know exactly what places the bones have been found, think that is the case. They might even think this textbook diagram (or sth) is honest which says "we find trilobites 100 ft below the ground, dinosaurs 50 ft below the ground, early humans ten ft below the ground and never any place which reverses the order".

There is no such place where you find that on all of earth. It would be as famous among land palaeontologists (dinos and men being both land creatures, unlike trilos) as Grand Canyon among marine palaeontologists.

In order to find confirmation of evolution in the bones, you first impose evolution as a much more virtual way of reading them than 100 ft etc. below the ground. Btw, if there are any finds with lots of bones dug up from 100 ft below the pre-dig ground level, I would like to know. Fossils are usually dug up from where they are acessible.

"We understand some of the principles the universe runs on, so it stands to reason that those principles will be constants across time"

But we have not here and new seen that evolution (in the sense usually interpreted, i e projected way beyond present evidence) is a principle the universe runs on. We have however lots of evidence chromosomes is one of the principles ALL polycellular life runs on.

We also know they come in different numbers for different creatures. The primates are famous in one niche - baboons, chimps, gorillas all have 2*24 (or 48), but man has 2*23 (46).

Other primates are less easy to pack into the theory of evolution from a common ancestor. Unless, as chromosomes can fuse, they also can split.

Certain non-mammals can form offspring with more than two chromosomes in each "couple".

In plants you find tetraploids, octoploids, sometimes artificial hexaploids too, no problem (but natural hexaploids seems to be one). A "human tetraploid" would have 4*23 chromosomes, i e 92. Now, "human tetraploids" are usually spontaneously aborted very early. One boy was born who died after a year, after a very sickly existence.

Do you start to see the problem?

"Yes, I know about telomeres. They're those useless nucleotide sequences that protect the rest of a chromosome from being damaged during cell division."

If they protect the rest of the chromosome from harm, they are not useless. You only mean they do not specify a proteine which is true.

"Telomeres do not determine our life span because they are repaired by telomerase reverse transcriptase."

But repair is overall deficient in comparison to damage, as far as I know, so they do.

But the point about telomeres and PZM's theory is this: for telomeres to be repaired, you need to HAVE some telomere in place in the first place.

In his theory we have this sequence, which lands us with two chromosomes each of which is incomplete since each of which has an arm without a telomere:

"Mutation A" Centromere reduplication:

T_______C______T
GIVES
T_______C____C___________T

(PZM wrote out the genome loci also involved in reduplication)

"Mutation B" Split:

T_______C____C___________T
GIVES
T_______C__ //break// __C___________T

In this scenario there would not be any "repair of the telomere" since there wasn't any telomere there in the first place. Without a telomere, you won't have telomerase, without a telomerase you won't have a reverse transcriptase, without a reverse transcriptase, you won't have anything to repair the telomere with.

Reading links:
Little summary on my own writings on it:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
Where I link to PZM's post:
Pharyngula : Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?
Posted by PZ Myers on April 21, 2008
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

[Comment to a page not found message: I have so far NO idea if PZM deleted the post or just changed the adress to make my link bad. Now same link works. Again. If you click it from the comment under the other link rather than here. At least. Unless this was some computer admin having fun just locally - where I was looking. See footnote* on admins having fun.]

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Not really. Believe it or not, we are not lying when we say that everything we've seen supports evolution. And evolution itself means change, nothing more. We've identified, observed, and recreated the circumstances under which evolution occurs. In fact, earlier this year we built a completely man-made bacteria.

I still don't see how the chromosomes present a problem. Through separation at duplicated centromeres, or the fusion of two different centromeres, it is possible to increase or reduce the number of chromosomes an in individual, or possibly an entire species after enough reproduction. We even see it in humans sometimes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In humans we do indeed see someone where 2*23 is 47 instead of 46, so to speak.

Trisomics have been around for VERY long. They are not automatically infertile. Ever wondered why they haven't succeeded in restoring - if so you would term it - a 48 number of chromosomes and thus a 24 number of pairs?

Because the pair we get Downers with an extra chromosome with is 21 and all three in their pair 21 are pair 21 chromosomes.

When their 21 splits at production of sex cells, one sex cell will get 1 chromosome as usual, the other the other two.

Theoretically, if two Downsers get in bed, their offspring could have the following sets:

1/4 chance of normal child.

2/4 chance of child with pair 21, 3 chromsomes.

1/4 chance of a child with pair 21, 4 chromosomes.

So, why do we not see any strain of mankind with a doubling of pair 21 in two pairs? Think of it. Come back later.

"Believe it or not, we are not lying when we say that everything we've seen supports evolution"

I believe you are honest. I am certain PZM is not. He erased the part of the comment section where I had in debate refuted him very well, and which I linked to from my message while the comments were still there (November 2011).

So, if everything YOU have seen confirms evolution, you haven't seen much yet. If PZM says the same for him, I will not believe that sacrilegious liar. As far as I am concerned, you and he are not a "we" who are either collectively honest or collectively dishonest. You are two different persons, and he is, perhaps already dishonest to you, certainly dishonest to others like you.

Jordan Novak

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if all 12 dating methods which all point to the same time eras were somehow wrong. It still doesn't make magic in the desert in the bronze/iron age literature books correct.

Can we cherry pick things in the bible too? What about factual statements like genealogy? If its all inerrant in your fundamentalist mind how do you resolve two different genealogies for a Jesus? How do you resolve differences in the nativity story?

In the OT, how do you resolve the advocation of child rape - murder - torture - abortion - infanticide - genocide?

How do you resolve the 1,000 year older story of Hindu creation, which the Genesis authors forged their ideas from?

How do you resolve believing in Genesis accounts when there is no scientific proofs? (Charlatanry work by ICR doesn't count.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How I solve two different genealogies for Jesus?

[I could have made an intro by saying that the genealogy type is an incomplete one, and that such give lots of different complementary ones.]

Answer given by Catholic Church CENTURIES or even more than a millennium ago, a local bishop of Hippo Regia in what is now Tunisia called St Ausgustine answered.

ONE gives the physical descent of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is also the Juridic descent of St Joseph. The other gives the Juridic descent of Our Lord as King, via St Joseph. Unless I mixed it up.

How I resolve believing in Genesis accounts when there is no proof? There is, by now.

Especially of the Flood.

BUT even if there weren't most events don't leave the kind of traces that are scientific proof. Most proof about events of the past is anyway historical. And NOT scientific.

"Even if all 12 dating methods which all point to the same time eras were somehow wrong."

Oh, 12 dating methods which for nearly all objects are all or nearly all of them used and point to such and are all really independent of each other? That WOULD be impressive.

It is NOT what we have.

ONE major dating method for historic and "up to 40.000 years old" objects that have to be organical is C14, dendro comes in as its minor valet. A 20.000 year old dendro date is NOT based on purely tree ring series leading forward to present, but rather on such not leading forward to present calibrated by ... C14. So if THEN you use C14 as "calibrated by dendro", you are going circular.

ONE major dating method for "millions of years old" objects is, for the organic part, ascribing the diverse biotopes around the time of the Flood to world wide biospheres succeeding each other. As if all Permian fossils were before all Triassic ones, etc.

It is calibrated in some detail by the other nine methods. Which also are not independent of it.

"It still doesn't make magic in the desert in the bronze/iron age literature books correct."

What is exactly your problem either with "magic" (we would not agree on terminology)? Or bronze age?

Later add

[to each of the main ones of the codebators]

+Jordan Novak And the word "literature books" ... what books are NOT literature? Catalogues? Phone diaries? Shopping collections for mail order shopping?

+The Dungeon Master - it seems the link I gave for PZM's blog is no longer valid.

Have you noticed?

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's still working for me.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I noted so myself later.

Probably some admin* playing games, since I share computers.

Apart from that - have you thought it over? Do you have an explanation for one mammal getting more not genes in a chromosome but the chromosomes themselves getting more numerous after a common ancestor?

PZM's scenario won't work because it lacks new telomeres at the break. Trisomy extending to tetrasomy won't work since all trisomies make dysfunctional individuals with less chances of surviving and tetrasomy even more so. Polyploidy will get spontaneously aborted, as well as this happening also with trisomy of largest chromosomes (1 or 3 for instance, 21 is much smaller).

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Is it unreasonable to hypothesize that the first time a chromosome splits that it becomes damaged or is at least imperfect? After all, chromosomes splitting is an error anyways, but descendants' DNA doesn't know that. It just assumes that it's supposed to have more chromosomes, so it just tacks on some telomeres and calls it a day. That's my hypothesis, anyway.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For that to happen, there must at some point have been added, not repair to a damaged telomere, but a totally new telomere to a damaged chromsome arm ending where there is not any telomere.

As for as I know, this kind of damaged chromosomes has been observed - in cancer cells.

The Dungeon Master

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then perhaps it's some process we haven't figured out yet. Or we already have, and I just don't know it, since I don't keep tabs on all the scientific journals. It's definitely an interesting matter, though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is. An interesting matter, that is.

It is also not likely we have figured it out. And, as a non-evolutionist I say: it is not likely "we" will figure it out. It is not likely there is one.

In 1999 an Evolution believer admitted as much as you: for now it is - to those believing Evolution from very few common ancestors happened - a mystery:

The site:

The TalkOrigins Archive (TTOA)
http://talkorigins.org/

Post of the Month:

TTOA : Post of the Month
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/

1999:

TTOA : Posts of the Month for 1999
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/1999.html

And you will see which one to click.

*Footnote on admins having fun:

visibly in adress bar: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
error 404
Not Found
The requested URL /indexcc/list.html was not found on this server.

Notice the extra letter ï? When I did, I knew I had to remake the "l" in html. Sure enough, there was an invisible character after the "l", so I had to use back button twice to delete it.