Sunday, January 18, 2015

... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

John Docs

Belegur Mastema
How do they know the deepness of the ground determines the age the fossil comes from?

jack snakes
Not necessarily the depth, but it is reasonable to assume that the deeper a piece of ground is, the more ground there is on top of it and that this would have taken a while. It takes longer to put a lot of ground on top of rock than a little bit of ground so, the more ground on top of a rock, the older it probably is. You also have the other organisms in the layers around it which give an idea of age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Actually they do not know that.

Deepness only determines relative earliness or lateness of stones that are on top of each other.

But whether this means millions of years or a few weeks or months during flood is not the same question.

FOSSILS actually as far as I have seen seldom or never come from different levels on the same spot. And therefore we cannot say that such and such fossils come from different ages than such and such other ones.

vince gredo
Radio carbon dating

Hans-Georg Lundahl
vince gredo, C14 is usually not used to determine ages from Cretaceous.

The rare exceptions have to be hidden from the labs and it happens they give much more recent dates.

Jean-Pol Salteur
and how do you know it's not so...because you don't understand it? good reason indeed....why don't you get yourself a Phd in paleontology and prove them all wrong, that would be a lot more clever than to come on you tube and leave a little sentence, don't you think.....oh wait, no you don't indeed

Hans-Georg Lundahl
was that to me, Jean-Pol Salteur?

I have gone over some parts (including Karoo) of the palaeocritti site ...

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

... in some detail, since they seem to be closing in 2016, and I am doing a back up blog, so it can remain online:

Palaeocritti Blog
[a back up blog]

None of what I have seen so far contradicts the conclusions I made after sorting up the wikipedia list of fossil sites, all so far confirm my initial suspicion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?

(contains links to the SORTED version of wiki list of fossil sites)

Creation vs. Evolution : Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort)

Creation vs. Evolution : What I think I have refuted

Creation vs. Evolution : Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

I don't think I'll get a PhD for it, but I think as far as THIS debate is concerned, I have done a better job than those who have a PhD.

What's your beef with my posting comments on youtube, that is what you are doing?

Maybe the fact I am saying this instead of bolstering the reputation of some?

Mike Hardman
+Hans-Georg Lundahl the only problem with reciting educators is this. they can lie too,. you just wont bother to acknowledge it and generation upon generations will use this belief system as reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Mike Hardman - where exactly do you consider that I am "reciting educators"? What exactly is it that I won't acknowledge? What words of mine are you referring to, back it up, if you think I came off as an Evolutionist!

Mike Hardman
+Hans-Georg Lundahl i was saying humans in general... and all those links you posted(reciting educators),... science is proven wrong daily, tree lobster, caelocanth, great apes, frilled shark , canined deer, yada yada,... plus they have found a dino corpse,. earth layers requiring great expanses of time to form seen formed in 1 day multiple layers.. and so on,.with vertical trees going through multipal layers,. all fosils are made/preserved by 1 method , quickly being covered up, knowing a mountain of layers can form in a day yet dubbing every layer millions of years,,, and i didnt even say evolutionist.. so i have to assume you're just trolling.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In the links I posted, I was NOT reciting educators. I was giving my conclusions as a YEC. Yes, Young (as in 6000 - 7200 sth years) Earth (and universe too) Creationist (and Bible believer in other respects too).

The site palaeocritti has been sorely neglected by Protestant creationist ministries. It is run by evolution believers, but it is one rare place where they give the hard facts (or sth approaching it) behind labels like "Cretaceous" and "Permian" and so on.

These hard facts suggest to me, that these labels are not (as far as fossils go, stones are another matter) superposed or suggesting (except very piled places like GC) "a general flood order", but rather geographic either biotopes or near such at the time when the Flood struck. If a place in Noah's day had ducks and ceratopsians in shallow coast waters with lost of shrimps in the outlying sea, well, it will still show ceratopsians and ducks all buried in limestone made from such shrimps reacting chemically in a very brief and mortal moment to make the limestone so high, and it will be labelled "Creataceous".

That is what I want to get out before palaeocritti site closes in 2016 - we are already 2015 by now - and that is where my own back up blog comes in.

I think the lack of interest they get from fellow Evolutionists comes from a kind of insight (hidden by intrigue or hidden from themselves by "denial") that this time they blew it for evolution, most specifically for "geologic column".

"Jeez S. Christ"
(he didn't use quotation marks, but I'll be doing so)
(I'm not recommending him just because I am linking)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are not wise enough to debate, come back when you quit believing in Santa Claus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Debating is not just for those who are wise enough.

And a man wo takes a screen name that refers disrespectfully to Our Lord Jesus Christ is anyway not the best guy to tell anyone who is wise enough for anything.

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you still believe in Santa Claus you are ill-equipped for being taken seriously. I am your Lord and Savior and ye dare to insult me. I am the Son of Jor-El, I mean Elohim, and I will be sending you to hell for believing in Santa Claus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, you are a scoffer.

And I am anyway ill equipped for being taken seriously by scoffers.

And being taken seriously is not a prerequisite for debating anyway.

And I do believe in Saint Nicholas - meaning the bishop who punched the archheretic Arius during the Council of Nice. So does any Catholic.

Ben Lutz
The depth of rocks below the current surface is actually a poor indicator of when those sedimentary rocks formed, or as we say were consolidated. The positions of layers relative to each other can be used to say that one layer was earlier or later than another, so we can say which is relatively newer or older than that. Geology though is a rich, well developed science, and other techniques can be used to get better dates than "newer" or "older". Say if a nearby region is immediately overlain by basaltic rocks from volcanoes, those boundaries can be measured much more precisely by radiometric dating of Potassium 40 to Argon 40 ratios, for example. There are many other methods of dating as well, and if you're interested in how it is really done, as well as the application and limitations of particular tequniques, many books and courses are available to help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The positions of layers relative to each other can be used to say that one layer was earlier or later than another, so we can say which is relatively newer or older than that."

Sure. I agree - as far as stones are concerned.

As to bones, usually only one of the stone layers contains fossils.

At least as far as I have hitherto verified, month after month every instance I looked at specific evidence.

As to stones again, the relative succession may have taken longer or shorter time, the full time scale may either be sth like millions of years, as you contend, or sth like about a year from onset of Flood to recession of Flood waters.

"Say if a nearby region is immediately overlain by basaltic rocks from volcanoes, those boundaries can be measured much more precisely by radiometric dating of Potassium 40 to Argon 40 ratios, for example."

Unless the Potassium Argon ratio is worthless every time when actually tested against other evidence, such as historic knowledge of eruption or compared C14 dating. Which we creationists consider to be the case.

"There are many other methods of dating as well, and if you're interested in how it is really done, as well as the application and limitations of particular tequniques, many books and courses are available to help."

So is wikipedia. As far as I can tell, most places with fossil finds or meteorites are dated one way only, basically. And the half lives longer than that of C14 may not even be very reliably measured.

Bill Nye the science guy claims that measuring halflives is necessary for smoke detectors - but the half lives concerned in them is far shorter than C14, just a few centuries.

Ben Lutz
Fossils could hardly have been consolidated within sedimentary rocks Before or After those rocks were themselves consolidated - that would be silly. And that is why the age of the animals or plants fossilized can reliably be placed within the time of the rocks deposition.

Next, the idea that radioactive decay rates vary over time is a simple myth. There is no known mechanism for altering the decay rate for any of the many radioactive elements short of a nuclear reactor, or bomb. It just doesn't happen. These decay rates are tabulated to very prices degrees in handbooks that engineers, physicists and chemists use every day.

In short, neither lack of knowledge in a subject nor citing hoaxes like Ica stones is any substitute for really learning about it or arguing a point of ignorance because "some guy in a bar [or church] told me...." There are too many ways to find real answers to such questions. It's just not as easy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And that is why the age of the animals or plants fossilized can reliably be placed within the time of the rocks deposition."

Meaning that if ALL rocks are from Flood, ALL fossils are from Flood. So, what is your point?

"Next, the idea that radioactive decay rates vary over time is a simple myth."

I never said they did. Except for occasions when decay is hastened by radioactivity. You know, in Nuclear Plants, Uranium is decaying lots faster than usual decay rate. That was also the case at Hiroshima and more recently in Fukushima.

Oh, you said so: "short of a nuclear reactor, or bomb. It just doesn't happen."

Well, what if Nodian civilisation (pre-Flood east of Eden) had nuclear warfare? For instance.

But this is not my main argument.

I said, and I repeat : half lives longer than that of C14 may very well not even have been accurately measured in the first place.

Being able to accurately measure half life of the Uranium isotope used in UPb method or of Potassium 40 would imply one can accurately measure the half lives involved in smoke detectors. BUT accurately measuring the half lives involved in smoke detectors does NOT strictly imply a real ability to measure that of Uranium or K40. Note there are other problems too.

In K-Ar, what about Ar coming from air? In UPb and ThPb - what about relevant isotope being there from the start?

Whichever the fault may be - I am due to Bible sure there is one - even more relevant : we have no way to check half life measures being right beyond the checking of C14 by historical material. Which in its turn means post-Flood material.

"These decay rates are tabulated to very prices degrees in handbooks that engineers, physicists and chemists use every day."

Possibly. But when it comes to decay rate of U or Potassium 40, these handbooks just could lead all of these astray every day.

Unlike the halflife for Americium which is used in smoke detectors, it is very short - and correspondingly so much easier to measure directly accurately.

"There are too many ways to find real answers to such questions."

Both other creationists and I use them to the full. Just trusting the experts is NOT using them to the full. You have to check what the loopholes are too. I and other creationists have, you haven't.

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Keep wasting breath and time on your pursuit of total nonsense. It is clear you have no understanding of elemental chemistry.

Go to a Community College Earth Science class and get back to me.

Stupid [omitted].

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your last incivility (barbaric even when adressed to a woman, stupid on top of that when adressed to a man) matches your scoffing against Our Lord.

I do not know where YOU get the idea I am bad at chemistry. I'm not. You can of course tell Potassium from Argon - that is pretty basic in chemistry - but how do you tell Argon which is ex-Potassium from Argon come from the air? For instance.

Ben Lutz
the last was not intended to be uncivil, merely informative - THIS however is:

please poke two holes in your tinfoil hat where your eyes should be and read a book through them. And while you're at it you might want to look at the 9th commandment if you are so fond of that one single book before promulgating any more false witness (lies) concerning reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ben Lutz - I was not accusing YOU of being uncivil. I was answering the guy whose screen name is irreverent to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Have you blocked him? Are you one and same? Or did you simply not look further than my last comment?

My answer to you is further up on the thread. It starts out with a quote from you. Then it is answered. Next quote - next answer. And NO accusations of YOU being uncivil.

Ben Lutz
Ahh, I was wondering! This seems to have degraded into a useless flame war - I for one will simply finish where I intended to in the first place then,

There really Are real answers to these questions. They can be found in books, college courses, online lectures and tons of other information - many tons. I urge anyone to go ahead and look at them. There is no reason to satisfy oneself with any simple answer, especially one as unsatisfying as a storybook that predates it's own creation myth. Sorry, but that really IS true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Between us two there was no flame war, and I am trying to keep reasonably civil even with that other guy. Reasonably - not so as to coddle a blasphemer or scoffer.

You can feel free to substantiate the last point.

However, the books you refer to are only giving "real answers" if we know the basic story behind the method is the true one.

Like C14 never having gone up in atmosphere DURING the time we are using it for.
Ben Lutz
Ok, Nuts to the flamers :)

On the origins of the flood myth predating the bible, the first flood myth I know of is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from roughly 2100 BCE, and the genesis story from the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish from some 1700 BCE. The earliest books of the bible were Job at about 700 BCE, and the Pentateuch at about 500 BCE. I've been looking for a good reference, but for a youtube comment I'll just suggest the Wikipedia article "Historicity of the Bible" - NOT because Wikipedia is some kind of gospel itself, but for the reading listg in the references on this page. I've read some of them. The point is that some of the stories in the Pentateuch exist in other forms predating the bible by 1000 years.

C14 - Yes! in fact the content of C14 in the atmosphere Has varied over the extent of it's useful time frame - and these variations are well documented according to general percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, solar and cosmic radiation levels, etc. The concentration can be compared to air bubbles in ice cores. C14 levels in known samples, such as tree cores going back some 20,000 years now, and I'm sure other methods. The variations in C14 original concentrations are well understood, and compensated for in dating measurements. It is also well understood that Carbon dating is not possible for marine organisms, even though this limitation is so often cited as a "flaw" to dismiss the entire method without understanding why.

Brooks Anderson
The "law" of superposition. In an undisturbed sedimentary geologic sequence, the rocks on the bottom are the oldest.If you think about it sediments (the precursors of sedimentary rocks) cannot be deposited in midair followed by younger sediments being deposited under it. Fortunately, sedimentary geology is simple unlike physics and chemistry. You can even do experiments at home. Collecting fossils can be great fun! Good luck!

Mike Hardman
+Brooks Anderson plate techtonics ,... layers get shuffled constantly. and every site you see exposed layers,..layer 4 rows of sand and push it all square 1 foot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"the first flood myth I know of is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from roughly 2100 BCE, and the genesis story from the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish from some 1700 BCE."

Sure, the flood ACCOUNTS may be earlier than the Biblical Flood ACCOUNT.

But not than the Flood.

All these accounts are centuries after the Flood. If LXX text is correct and St Jerome got it correct, Flood was 2957 BC.

Plus, datings 2100 BC and 1700 BC may be somewhat off too. Have you checked out such things as long, middle short chronologies for Mesopotamia? Or, if datings are per C14 dating of organic material associated with the clay tablets, how do you know that C14 content of atmosphere was not lower back when the tablets are from?

I don't see how even your being right would amount to Genesis being "a storybook that predates it's own creation myth."

Genesis was written around 1510 BC (date of Exodus acc. to St Jerome), give or take 40 years and that does not predate either 1700 BC nor 2100 BC as to "myth" nor 5199 BC as to actual event.

"The earliest books of the bible were Job at about 700 BCE, and the Pentateuch at about 500 BCE."

Oh, you are taking THOSE dates, making Ezra the author of the works of Moses basically!

Why not try out if Apollonius Rhodus can have written Homer, while you are at it!

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Imagine Someone Said: Apollonius Rhodus Wrote Iliad and Odyssey

"The point is that some of the stories in the Pentateuch exist in other forms predating the bible by 1000 years."

Well, in that case it would be "predated by" its own creation myth, not predating it.

Now, I do not believe one moment Job was written 700 BC or Pentateuch 500 BC, and as to the literature the wiki article lists, it will not list any reference which is CREDIBLE to me, since modern scholarship rearranging traditional authorships to make works much later than hitherto though (like putting St Matthew in the 80's instead of say 34 or 37 AD) is not a credible piece of evidence.

But even if we take out that red herring, it is obvious that Genesis must be based on older either oral or written documents vastly predating the final redaction of Genesis by Moses. And these - or some of them and at least an oral rumour of them - must if the account is true also have been accessible to the ancestors of the Babylonians. Which is why the Babylonian version need not have been the original for Genesis, just because it is older. A possibility non-Christian or Modernist "Christian" scholars studying this literary parallel over a century have studiously ignored. But I am not just ignoring their take on it.

Suppose Babylonians had either invented the Flood myth from scratch or by accident through misunderstanding the real scope of a local Flood. We can see how it came to come to Sweden along with Odin, if Odin was plagiarising Babylonian/Assyrian mythology (the creation work he claimed to have done is obviously plagiarism of Marduk killing Tiamat myth - with a few modifications to make it somewhta less cynical - such as saving Bergelmer, the closest relative to mum and grandma, among the giants by giving him a ship, thus making Flood and Creation coincide - which reminds of Egyptian mythology, where creation myth has sth to do with how the Earth looked post-Flood). But just suppose they had. Why did Swedes accept it? Well, either they had not bothered to keep records previous to getting Odin or Odinism managed to either vampyrise or suppress records previous to it. But why would Greece also have plagiarised Flood myth?

I can say why Greece places it so late, namely because a late placing of Flood, just a few generations before Trojan War, was ideal to suppress memory of the Hittites. But was borrowing the Flood myth really necessary to achieve that if they had not had any memories of their own ancestry from the Flood?

Say Babylonians ONLY (or rather Sumerians and Akkadians only) experienced a real local Flood. There were people outside that area. Some of them had had continuous records. When Babylonians came along and told of Flood having happened, why didn't they just say "that must have been local, our ancestry covers no flood survivors"?

Instead, Greek Flood myth is not only there, but also influenced by the story of Abraham and Lot. Childless and hospitable couple before disaster? Abraham and Sarah, who received three angels (and Deucalion and Pyrrha received three gods). Conundrum of repopulation after disaster? Well, what were Lot's daughters asking themselves? THAT has influenced Greek Flood myth, while destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah itself is studiously forgotten. Perhaps because Greeks since Hercules (or some generation later, and involving bad rumours about Hercules) had proned paederasty as an introduction to manhood.

"C14 - Yes! in fact the content of C14 in the atmosphere Has varied over the extent of it's useful time frame - and these variations are well documented according to general percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, solar and cosmic radiation levels, etc."

You are mixing apples and oranges.

I am not talking about variations, I am talking about original build up phase.

"The concentration can be compared to air bubbles in ice cores."

Wait, are you serious? An air bubble getting caught in an ice core has same concentration of C14 as atmosphere at the time. THEN the C14 content sinks in that air bubble, just as it does in a fossil. Plus ice cores are no useful independent dating compared to C14 anyway.

"C14 levels in known samples, such as tree cores going back some 20,000 years now, and I'm sure other methods."

Sorry, but I don't know of any known tree ring series that reaches straight FROM present to 20.000 years ago. There are more than one series, and some are dated through C14 as reaching back 20.000 years - plus I don't think the matches are always the best rather than those that best match "long age" dating concerns.

"The variations in C14 original concentrations are well understood, and compensated for in dating measurements."

Well, but if we are NOT dealing with the variations you think, but with the initial buildup, thenTHAT is what we should compensate for. Like Tas Walker does here, though I think he is wrong [in minor detail, not overall], since placing Flood too recently (c. 2400 BC rather than 2957 BC):

BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period

"It is also well understood that Carbon dating is not possible for marine organisms, even though this limitation is so often cited as a 'flaw' to dismiss the entire method without understanding why."

1) It is a logical flaw, since it is one admitted example of C14 measures not proving the dates they would; 2) If it is there, it is at least conceivable there are other flaws, unlike this one not admitted. My fav. is of course the initial build up flaw.

+Brooks Anderson

"In an undisturbed sedimentary geologic sequence, the rocks on the bottom are the oldest.If you think about it sediments (the precursors of sedimentary rocks) cannot be deposited in midair followed by younger sediments being deposited under it."

The law of superposition is of course admitted by Flood Geologists too.

Say you have three or four clearly differentiated rock types in a hill. Obviously the lower ones were deposed before the higher ones. I would not even think there were many cases of the sequence being disturbed.

BUT - was the lowest one deposed millions of years before the highest one or within some months before the highest one during Flood? The law of superposition, which was formulated by Nicholas Steno, who was a Flood Geologist, not a deep timer, does not specify that. "Older" does not specify "how much older".

As to bones instead of stones, there is no area where vertebrates are vertically superposed in periods of the geological column. That I know of, and I have looked. Carefully.

+Mike Hardman

Nice reply, but according to what I found out not necessary. It is deep timers who want a lot of disturbed sequences because that gives some kind of excuse for otherwise inexplicable "misplaced fossils". Not we.

Omitting, so far,
another insult from "Jeez S. Christ" who seems to want a flame war. Well, if he's insulting Our Lord Jesus Christ, I sure can't see why I should be spared. Though, cowardly as I am, I'd like to. Btw, make that two insults. Oh, three. But he'll return after my reply here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You know, the last three comments of yours give no argument, so I am simply omitting them from the mirroring blogpost:

[linking here]

+Ben Lutz , +Brooks Anderson - I might just take the opportunity to tell you, your comments are now visible here, and better so than the last ones of that other guy:

[linking here, again]

The other persons involved have already been contacted (including that mocker), but you two - there was a glitch when I tried, both on youtube channel and on google+ hangout.

Brooks Anderson
Thanks for the reply.Sorry about the glitch. I'm in Mexico and not all our systems are world compatible.

Mike Hardman: I am well aware of plate tectonics. I used to teach the subject. Please note that I wrote In an "undesturbed" sequence the lower laqyers are the oldest. I would allow for simple uplift. In fact, for a competent sedimentary geologist, it is not difficult to determine "right side up" in most stratified rocks. (True, the California Coastal Ranges are are a melange and NOT easily sorted out.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No problem, I am not even sure it was your Mexican system ...

"the California Coastal Ranges are are a melange and NOT easily sorted out"

What seems to be the problem?

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Who the [blip] cares about your deumbass blog? [blip] your blog, and [blip] YOUU!

Don't like being relegated to dumb-[blip]ery? Quit trying to espouse such bullshit in your arguments. You see, the dumb things you are saying do not warrant an argument. You are in need of massive public shaming and name-calling, you are a [blip]ing idiot and you argue a really dumb [blip]ing argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are shaming yourself - massively.

By the way, yesterday it might have been overdoing Mardi Gras and alcohol not agreeing with your good temper. But today is Ash Wednesday. If you go on today, you start looking like an illmannered sectarian. Did you have P Z Myers or some equally biassed type, say DeGrasse Tyson as a schoolteacher? Or what?

"Jeez S. Christ"
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm eatin' my punchkie Donuts and getting very fat and have no intention of giving up anything for Lent. Which is not a thing anyway.

I am an ill mannered [blip], and an [blip] to boot, but that doesn't excuse your poor use of bad interpretations of science to claim some kind of intellectual victory in a subject and topic that has been independently verified nine-million times over. But no, really keep pounding your dead horse until the dust comes out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, sure. Evolution is a dead horse. I'm beating it.

... radio dating based on the consistent decay rate of uranium into iron, the fact that those rock layers are formed by sediment, the bottom of the rock is older because the layers above it are build up by layers of sedment over the years.. you have google, look it up

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@auchucknorris- both points already answered. Look up previous parts of thread.

Besides, the Uranium decay is into lead, not iron.

when i look the comment section was bugged, said it had no replies and there was only 6 comments.. most about people walking with dinosours..., and ow ye, my bad, i mean lead

Brooks Anderson
O.K. You are correct and "typos" happen.

+Brooks Anderson not so much typo was just mixing up which was the heaviest stable element

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, no problem. Now you can consult the hitherto replies on my post, in case it bugs here again.

Slight reminders, linking to own material, where I have argued more in full, previously:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term

+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol who are the links for?.. i know how it works and believe the science is pretty solid

Hans-Georg Lundahl
They are for you so you get a real close look at some of the finer details - and maybe think again.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl ..... you seem like an annoying person, why are you linking some one who isnt questioning? to answer the ACTUAL question "how we know" the only necessary information is that elements above lead are unstable and decay and at a measurable rate, so by measuring the the quantities of lead to uranium we can tell how long its taken to turn into lead. anything more than that is you trying to satisfy YOUR OWN NEED for gratification... thats when you cross the line from answering a question and informing to being an annoying dick, especially when its to some one who agrees with the principal and isnt asking the question, then your just trying to get into a dick measuring contest about "i know this much haa haa" and seeing as im not a sad [blip] i wont be bothering it soz

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"why are you linking some one who isnt questioning?" - well you were questioning : "lol who are the links for?"

"to answer the ACTUAL question "how we know" the only necessary information is that elements above lead are unstable and decay and at a measurable rate, so by measuring the the quantities of lead to uranium we can tell how long its taken to turn into lead"

If you had read my link, you might have had a hunch why it is unreliable.

U - Pb depends a lot on assuming such and such an isotope of U turns into such and such an isotope of Pb and nothing else does. You assume every Pb comes from the U.

For one other problem, when it comes to halflife or at least half that time (with sqrt(1/2) = 71% approx left), for C14 we very certainly are able to check that or whether so far back historically the objects we can date historically have the expected C14 level.

But half life of U isotopes of two U Pb methids are NOT checkable against historically known : The uranium–lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years. (Wiki) Neither is even half of that time.

So, knowing we have the ordinary halflife accurately is one HUGE problem.

A third one is whether decay may have been hastened by radioactive activity close to sample at any point in time. A Roumanian Flood Geologist has suggested there was a chain reaction or a kind of hardmelt inside Earth during Flood. Another possibility is Nuke wars having been possible and acted out in pre-Flood times.

"anything more than that is you trying to satisfy YOUR OWN NEED for gratification..."

Or giving you a chance to think again on what I think you thought through badly.

Your tone is not welcome in debates, it basically means "I am right and you ought to know it" - and it is not a tone I take with you.

"especially when its to some one who agrees with the principal and isnt asking the question"

But I was NOT agreeing with you. I am on the contrary agreeing with the person who asked the first question that there is a problem of knowledge.

6:37 Argentinosaurus - as big as we know of?

And it was of the type we have seen described as Behemoth by some creationists?

Well, what did the book of Job say about Behemoth?

18:40 Planteating dinosaurs group animals - meat eaters solitaries ...

Recalls Job where a Behemoth is DIFFICULT to tame but Leviathan is IMPoSSIBLE to tame.

[might be in for reconsideration of that one argument]

19:23 "were probably crossing a swollen river, and got drowned trying to cross"

Explanation given here somehow recaptures moods from the Flood of Noah ...

What river EXCEPT THE FLOOD could have done it?

"Ríos más largos de Argentina (más de 200 km)" gives columns:

"Desembocadura - Provincia(s) que atraviesa - Otro(s) país(es)" (Chile, none other relevant for Patagonia)

Relevant provinces : Neuquén, Río Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz, Tierra de Fuego

Río Colorado scores two of these plus a few other ones.

Río Deseado has one plus the delta land Ría Deseada - on 615 km it falls 215 meters.

Río Grande (río de Tierra del Fuego) not stated, Río Gallegos (río) falls 120 m in 300 km ....

Let us compare to 5,210 m fall in 2900 km - Brahmaputra.

Would even a swollen Brahmaputra have buried 35 m long adult behemoths who were anyway half water living, since water supported their body weight?

Apart of course from a Brahmaputra like river passing through what is today Patagonia would need very different shapes of the continents.

Of course, the fiction of "it all happened millions of years ago" would tend to give some supplementary plausibility to that part.

But a river greater than Brahmaputra drowning a herd looks suspiciously like the Flood or a current during the Flood might have been that "river".


Good methodology!

I wonder whether his find will include traces of cannibalistic behaviour, perhaps not (if I am correct, the victims of T Rex cannibalism would probably not be roaming for prey with the rest when the flood struck) ... but I like looking 3 years for an example of other animals on spot which would indicate a predator trap/tar pit.

Either way, if there was T Rex cannibalism, either that or T Rex not being right candidate for Leviathan might explain why Leviathan cannot be tamed.

PLOS ONE : Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex
Nicholas R. Longrich , John R. Horner, Gregory M. Erickson, Philip J. Currie*
Published: October 15, 2010

Pack hunters that do cannibalism are as untameable as non-pack hunters.

* Nicholas R. Longrich , Affiliation: Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

John R. Horner, Affiliation: Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America

Gregory M. Erickson, Affiliation: Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America

Philip J. Currie Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Monday, January 12, 2015

... on Kent Hovind's having been in prison (again) - still doesn't change he's nearly genius for a man born XXth C. and also a Prot

Under a video where KH sorts out contradictions (supposed such) in the Bible ...

You're using a convicted felon to present your case?


felon does not change his teaching credentials or the facts he presents.. all it does is give you an illogical reason to not believe.

You're correct in that it doesn't improve his mail order credentials. His 'Doctorate' comes from the Patriot Bible 'University' - an unaccredited correspondence school. Have you seen his dissertation? If you have any tertiary education, you'll have some laughs with it. It begins with 'Hello, my name is Kent Hovind' He freely admits that he's an evangelist - he's neither a scientist nor a teacher.

The reason I don't believe a word he says is because I've heard what he had to say, and it's bullshit. Complete bullshit.

Now, you're very wrong with regards to being an illogical reason to not believe. If you believe a word he says or has said, then you're either incredibly gullible or incredibly stupid.

+HeathLedgersChemist its accredited by the state... many major universities have 'mail order' classes now so that is not an issue.. facts are bullshit? guess if you dont want to hear it that would be true...

It's 'accreditation' comes from 'Accrediting Commission International', which itself is not recognised by either Council for Higher Education Accreditation or United States Department of Education, the two institutions responsible for recognising educational accrediting institutions in the United States.

I guess they don't teach things like that in home school?

+HeathLedgersChemist considering what the DOE and CHEA have certified over the last 50 years (dumbing down) the ACI is probably worlds better .. I have seen the schools the gov certifies and most of them are crap.. what graduates high school now would not make it out of jr high when i was in school.

+Starrwulf7 You made the claim that the Patriot 'University' was accredited by the State. That is clearly a lie. When I presented you with its actual 'credentials', you refuse to admit your lie and then try to claim that a dodgy 'body' is somehow better than an actual academic body.

You Sir are dishonest and a blight on humanity. I will have nothing further to do with you.

+HeathLedgersChemist last i checked, colorado IS a state :: Accrediting Commission International (ACI) has made an on-site visit and awarded Patriot Bible University with full accreditation as of October 2008.

Patriot Bible University is authorized by the State of Colorado Commission for Higher Education to grant religious degrees at the Associate, Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral levels.

There is NOTHING in your argument that proves his education is inferior to any other accredited center.

There is nil requirement to use upper case to emphasize a word, I have a tertiary education and hence capable of understanding the English language in its entirety. I guess the same may not be said of you, good Sir.

Colorado is indeed a states of the United States of America, It however only recognises the PBU to grant religious degrees. From their own website: Patriot Bible University is authorized by the State of Colorado Commission for Higher Education to grant religious degrees. Do you understand that a religious degree is not a science degree?

(Who Accredits Patriot Bible University?

You seem to think that ACI accreditation is somehow valid.

Accrediting Commission International (ACI)... is an unrecognized educational accreditation corporation in the United States and ACI is not recognized by either Council for Higher Education Accreditation or United States Department of Education, the two institutions responsible for recognizing educational accrediting institutions in the United States.

(Wiki : ACI

[Article links to ACI /]

You may also care to peruse the quackwatch website for their view:

Quackwatch : Great Moments in Accreditation: The Case of IAC, ACI, and The Three Stooges
by John Bear
[John Bear is an author based in El Cerrito, California. For 12 years he was the FBI's principal consultant and expert witness on diploma mills and fake degrees.*]

Or possibly the list of fakes on geteducated:

GetEducated : List of Fake College Degree Accreditation Agencies*

Do you still want to stand by your claim?

+HeathLedgersChemist quackwatch.. interesting.. but they only list possible quacks according to their definition.. i saw where someone listed them as a diploma mill.. their definition is different than mine since patriot requires classwork and diploma mills do not. you still have yet to prove his education was substandard, it may just as well be way above what is considered standard. all this is pointless anyway since you are using it to attack the man instead of disproving the facts. such attacks usually mean you cannot disprove what he says.

! Great minds think alike !
“such attacks usually mean you cannot disprove what he says.” = about what I say later …

That cognitive dissonance can be annoying.

+HeathLedgersChemist i am sorry you suffer so much with that.. i will pray for you

Don't bother addressing anything or acknowledging errors, I wouldn't expect a Christian to be honest.

+HeathLedgersChemist better a christian than an atheist.. we have morals while they only have ethics

Morals from the bible? Killed any children lately? And where do you buy your slaves?

+HeathLedgersChemist i see you are confused by apples and oranges again.. i feel so sorry for you.. must be because you forgot to go to your local abortionist for your shots...

You're denying that the bible sanctions killing children and owning slaves?

are you denying you use products from aborted babies and evolution is your religion?

Come on now, let's address the subject at hand. You've made the claim that the bible provides a moral framework not available to non-Christians. I have asked you some very simple questions, and you're trying to change the subject.

Answer the questions.

morality is governed by a God and ethics are governed by those who agree to be bound to it... you claim to be godless and as such you would not understand how it works since you use modern concepts and modern meanings for ancient meanings. its apples and oranges.. i have no desire to get into a discussion of what is morally right and wrong with someone who feels its ok to flavor thier drink with aborted babies. Just because you believe it is ok for you to kill someone else to improve your life in the name of evolution does not mean i want to be part of that.

no one is changing the subject. by definition, you are not a moral person and are not honest except when its to your benefit.

Answer the questions.

you did not answer yours

You are a dishonest and I will have nothing further to do with you.

Otto Matts
There are a LOT of convicted felons that are allowed to "teach" at universities. Such as:

  • Bill Ayers
  • Bernardine Dohrn
  • Mark Rudd
  • Kathleen Cleaver

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Otto Matts I have not checked, but will.

Checked Bill Ayers:

"He is known for his 1960s radical activism as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War."

"Bernardine Rae Dohrn (née Ohrnstein; born January 12, 1942) was a leader of the Weather Underground, a group that was responsible for the bombing of the United States Capitol, the Pentagon, and several police stations in New York, as well as a Greenwich Village townhouse explosion that killed a member of the Underground.[1] As a member of the Weather Underground, Dohrn helped to create a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, and was placed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, where she remained for three years. From 1991 to 2013 she was a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law. She is married to Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground, who was formerly a tenured professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

"Mark William Rudd (born June 2, 1947) is a political organizer, mathematics instructor, anti-war activist and counterculture icon most well known for his involvement with the Weather Underground."

+Otto Matts Kathleen Cleaver seems rather to have been married to one:

"She was in charge of organizing a student conference at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee. At the conference, Kathleen met the minister of information for the Black Panther Party, Eldridge Cleaver. She moved to San Francisco in November 1967 to join the Black Panther Party. Kathleen Neal and Eldridge Cleaver were married on December 27, 1967. Cleaver became the communications secretary and the first female member of the Party’s decision-making body. She also served as the spokesperson and press secretary. Notably, she organized the national campaign to free the Party’s minister of defense, Huey Newton, who was jailed. In 1968 (the same year her husband ran for president on the Peace and Freedom ticket) she ran for California's 18th state assembly district, also as a candidate of the Peace and Freedom party. Cleaver received 2,778 votes[1] for 4.7% of the total vote, finishing third in a four-candidate race.[2] As a result of their involvement with the Black Panther Party, the Cleavers were often the target of police investigations. The Cleavers’ apartment was raided in 1968 before a Panther rally by the San Francisco Tactical Squad on the suspicion of hiding guns and ammunition. Later that year, Eldridge Cleaver staged a deliberate ambush of Oakland police officers during which two police officers were injured. Cleaver was wounded and fellow Black Panther member Bobby Hutton was killed in a shootout following the initial exchange of gunfire.[3] Charged with attempted murder, he jumped bail to flee to Cuba and later went to Algeria."

john myers
+Starrwulf7 "Patriot Bible University is authorized by the State of Colorado Commission for Higher Education to grant religious degrees..."

LOL, what joke. A "religious degree", what is that? Kind of like saying he is part of the Peter Pan Society. The man was caught being dishonest, breaking the law, trying to avoid his obligations so the rest of us could pick up his slack. His own son, Eric, candidly talks about how his father achieved presenting his ideas on a "4th grade level". Listening to you it seems maybe he should have brought it down even further.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"A 'religious degree', what is that? Kind of like saying he is part of the Peter Pan Society."

Don't try saying that in Sweden where state sponsored universities like Lund and Uppsala give degrees in theology.

Obviously they are giving a modernist version, but it is still "religious degrees".

As far as I know the Hovind felony charge, he did not lie, he told the truth and was not believed.

Dr Dino was NOT a commercial enterprise, but a registered charity. From it he and his family did not have wages, but lived as volunteers.

I. e. he had no taxable income.

He also lived accordingly, i.e. frugally. As to anything concerned with his personal life, that is. Obviously he did spend on keeping the charity going - which was what the tax deductable gifts to that charity were mainly provided for anyway.

Had he been believed in this fact he would neither have been convicted for tax fraud nor for lying to fisc. Incorrect judgements happen - like Stalin trials or like trial against Stepinac where he was falsely accused of collaboration with Ustashi genocide project.

"His own son, Eric, candidly talks about how his father achieved presenting his ideas on a '4th grade level'."

The degree he had was in education. His dissertation was erroneous and atrocious, but so was Karl Marx' doctoral thesis.

Actually he is partly indebted to one of its erroneous ideas, namely when St Paul warns against philosophy and knowledge falsely so called it's not supposed to be against Epicurean heresy in philosophy but against Plato and Aristotle - even though Stoics and still more Epicureans were really the vogue back then.

But presenting an idea correctly on a 4th grade level does not mean the same as presenting an idea incorrectly so as to make 4th graders not doubt it - which is what evolutionists often do (Tyson De Grasse springs to mind).


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you use google translate for translating BS (it happens to be correct)? Or are you a Swede?

Social DemocRATS in Sweden have made the for decades ONE ACCESSIBLE school education heavily Darwinist, like Commies whereever they ruled.

Swedish Lutheran former State Church has bowed down to this shit about as much as Patriarchate of Moscow (though Fria Synoden had more liberties than ROCOR up to 1990).

I had to leave my indoctrinated countrymen.

E'ru med i Humanisterna me'?

Yes, I used Google to translate. I'm not afraid of knowledge or technology as I don't have any unsubstantiated beliefs that I'm trying to defend.

Bullshit, if you prefer English.

Just so there's no confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would be afraid to use Google translate if I wanted a correct translation - except for short phrases (but even there!) or for words if I lacked a dictionary to the lang.

Here is why:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme Badness of Google Translate (Copy Pasted both texts)

As for your not trying to defend unsubstantiated beliefs, obviously I disagree.

Whether two passages of the Bible contradict or not is a matter of logic, not of truthfulness about personal matters, so your initial comment looks like you were trying to take attention from good answers (a time since I saw video, but at least some where, perhaps all) to the person giving them.

By disingeniously pretending his being in prison proves more about him than it does.

! Great minds think alike !
Remember: “such attacks usually mean you cannot disprove what he says.” = what I said here …

What utter bullshit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not taking your word for it.

Well, that's a pity. You may have learned something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are talking to the guy in the mirror, right?

About "his" attitude to Hovind, right?

What a pity otherwise!

Added :
recall what you said earlier to Starwulf?

"Do you understand that a religious degree is not a science degree?"

I don't think Bible scolars of University of Nottingham agree ...

You do understand what science is, right?

Philosophy is the Arts department, not the Science department.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you meant NATURAL sciences?

No, he has no degree in that. But a degree in education covers a basic like getting to know the subject you teach in.

High School science for 15 years - implies he read textbooks at least.

I also know he did some maths on them ... parallax angle of alpha Centauri is like an angle in centre of earth prolonged to two points on surface at a distance of 30 meters, he got that one right - unless he took it from me and forgot to give me credits.

In Swedish we call that "naturvetenskap" but do not restrict "vetenskap" to that.

Nor did the scholastics about "scientia".

Besides, the Bible studies at University of Nottingham are not philosophy, they are scientific insofar as heavily involving archaeology and linguistics and so on.

Not saying they are always right, but saying you can have UNIVERSITY degrees in the Bible, in religious studies.


How hard is that to comprehend?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Education is not NATURAL science, but there are usages, even in English where Natural science is not all that is meant by Science.

Here is the accreditation proof for his Seminary, and it seems they would be able to give a PhD in education:

Colorado Department of Higher Education

Patriot Bible University [type :] Seminary Non-Profit [Co-based :] Yes [Division:] DAA
DAA - Degree Authorization Act Officer (more)

Co etc. : Degree Authorization Act

Here is what Colorado has to say on Mills, in part:

Scam schools may claim to be "accredited." Most legitimate schools are approved by a state agency, like the Colorado Commission on Higher Education and/or an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education. Your first step is to ask. "Is the school accredited or state approved?"

Co etc. : Degree/Diploma Mills and Accreditation Mills**

So, to Colorado, an accreditation can be as valid if coming from State – which is what Starwulf claimed – as if coming from Union (USDE)

Btw, were you claiming 4.5 billion years is science? What next? Astrology too?

I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's just incomprehensible babble.

Here's a simple concept to demonstrate how inane your 'argument' is. Let's say I go and get a theology 'doctorate' from a shonky school, and I say you're wrong, then by your logic (argument from authority) you're automatically wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well no.

I was NOT arguing he must be right because he had credntials. I was arguing you are wrong about him, because he has credentials.

As to the matter at hand, I am saying that whether there is a contradiction or not is a matter of logic - not of credentials like degrees, nor of "discredentials" like doing time.

In that sense the one making any kind of anything like argument from authority is you, not I.

Look, even if we were talking about a fairy tale, like Narnia, whether there is a contradiction in it is a matter of logic.

How do we know what happened in The Last Battle if no children came back from Narnia to live in England again? Seems like a contradiction - but hardly unsolvable. Susan survived the train crash and can have got to know the story via true dreams ... the one solution I can think of as a fan fic writer.

If Kent Hovind offers a solution, the only answer you can give is:

  • solution is illogical and doesn't solve difficulty OR
  • solution is counterfactual, and factually impossible.

First kind of answer requires no credentials from either of you, second type requires you to have credentials more than him.

So, speaking about his credentials, that was just a ruse to steal attention from fact he has good solutions.

'I don't think Bible scolars of University of Nottingham agree ...'

You still haven't retracted your assertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have nothing to retract on it.

It is perfectly admissible, even preferrable, to use "science" in a wider sense than natural sciences only.

Btw, your bad style (under your chosen pseudonym of course) is now available on my blog:

[link to this post to notify codebator of its mirroring our discussion]

Along with better guys like Starwulf7, Otto, me.

As to you, you seem to be a creepy Communist control freak who basically wants FBI to do the work of KGB (I am basing this on your linking to John Bear - and on his credentials) in running down universities recognised and run by anything else than federal government, and so you seem also to be an enemy of state liberties.

You need help.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, that ALSO came from a creepy Communist control freak ...

Neither of us have a clue about what you're talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do, and I think you lie.

You are first of all a Communist-mentality-endowed control freak who imagines any university of any state of US needs to have approval from FEDERAL education department OR (paradoxically) from CHEA which lists 31 Yeshivahs among its members. While, to a normal person, that is not true, and so obviously not.

If CHEA can accredit, so can ACI, both being private. If Federal Department of Education can approve a school, so can Colorado Department if Higher Education, both being departments of edcuation. If one can cite with pride having been to Harvard which unlike Medieval Universities had neither Papal nor Imperial approval (and which has produced a case of academic idiocy like Romanides), so can one cite with pride having been to Patriot Bible School, which also had neither Papal nor Imperial approval, where Kent Hovind did a bad thesis but did very well after it, as far as I have seen from his carreer.

Second, you are also a Communist-mentality-endowed control freak who wants people to "get help" if they disagree with you.

Third, you are a Communist-mentality-endowed Dia-Mat believer who is prepared to call psychiatry a science, pretty obviously, but noy theology.

So, yes, I know what I am talking about, and I don't think you ar honest when you say that you don't.

Here is my criticism of Hovind's dissertation:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think


* John Bear has been FBI expert on "diploma mills"? OK ... CHEA has not recognised ACI ... OK, but they have recognised are have as members 31 yeshivahs ...

Consumers Beware: NONE of these accrediting agencies are recognized as college accreditors in the U.S. by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the U.S. Department of Education.

So CHEA has 31 yeshivahs to brag about when it comes not to accredit "fake" schools ... OK ... and the U.S. Department of Education hasn't recognised ACI either ... OK, but fact is recognising schools is a State right, not a federal monopoly depending in that department. There are fifty state departments of education too, I suppose. ACI has schools in 38 states.

List of 2014-2015 Member Institutions(as of 12/01/2014)
Yale University (CT)
Yeshiva and Kolel Bais Medrash Elyon (NY)
... (29 other Yeshivoth)
Yeshivath Zichron Moshe (NY)
York College of Pennsylvania (PA)

** The Colorado Department of Higher Education has a definition of mills which excludes Kent Hovind's seminary - since this seminary is accredited in Colorado. Duh ...

Sunday, January 11, 2015

... on Eclectic Media's Blunders in Philosophy while Making Nephelimfree That Reproach

Nephilimfree blunders in philosophy!
Eclectic Media

4:54 "a sum of all systems cannot be a system itself" ?

You better HAD break that down very carefully ...

Suppose I have three baskets of apples. The sum of apples will certainly not be a basket, it will be too big for that, but it will on the other hand very clearly be as much of an apples system as each basket was.

5:23 "in order for the universe to be an isolated system, it would have to have some system external to it to be isolated from"

Er no ... isolated from external system is relevant to definition of "isolated system" not by existence, but by irrelevance of that external system. Which means a system having no system external to it at all would be precisely as much an isolated system as one isolated from an existing external one. Or more so, since more isolated.

5:41 "so the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the universe as a whole"

Now, is Dhorpatan your name? - you seem to be very extremely blundering in philosophy here.

6:01 "I just refuted that" ...

I may not agree with him on "energy can neither be created nor destroyed", BUT I very definitely heard no refutation of it from your side right now.

6:14 "you are begging the question of the eternality of the universe"

Oh, you are not into mainstream science acceptance of universe had a beginning in Big Bang?

If Atheists like you gain ground among scientists, I hope Catholics will see how they are wasting their time, those of us who do that, when some try to suck up to science by replacing creation 7200 years ago by Big Bang 13 + billion years ago.

6:30 "there is nothing to show universe cannot be eternal"

OK, where exactly does all the hydrogen come from?

You see, your usual theories are saying any non-hydrogen element came from hydrogen via fusion in plasma in stars. Which means hydrogen is being used up all the time. If universe had already existed for all of eternity, why isn't hydrogen used up all of it an eternity ago?

6:44 "when that is simply not a scientific fact"

Oh key, you take away your support for BB, I'm delighted to take away mine (which I did already)!

If Atheists won't play by that rule, why should we Christians do so?

7:23 "they never say all things have a cause"

Obviously Theologians don't, since God hasn't. Same as with Theistic Philosophers. Some overlap between categories, like St Thomas Aquinas, like C. S. Lewis.

BUT nephelimfree was referring to the p[oint] o[f] v[iew] of "science".

Do SCIENTISTS say "all things have a cause"?

Does NOT mean God has to have one, since they are not dealing with God. Would only mean all things THEY deal with have a cause.

Is perhaps universe one of them?

7:38 "science doesn't deal with metaphysical principles"

So there is no scientific objection against miracles, next time we bring up the story of Resurrection, then?

7:59 [not quoting] But the point of nephelimfree was not presuppositional apologetics like logic (as in our access to its universal unbreakable laws) or goodness (as in our access to its universal and moralmly binding laws) needing to have a cause.

He was making a simplified cosmological argument as in all THINGS (objects/collections of objects) needing to have a cause.

So, hardly a very clever rebuttal, was it?

8:24 Indeed, God is "supposed to be" uncaused, BUT it's scientists who don't deal with God and who say all things (i e all things they deal with) have a cause.

Now, would the universe be an object?

Or do sciences not study collections of objects?

Either way, you earlier stated universe was much more than a sum of its parts, therefore it would also be an óbject - I would objéct to that of course - meaning this scientific law applies to it even more than if it is a collection (however harmonious such) of objects.

THIS is the part where nephelimfree takes in science as a witness for theistic philosophy.

8:35 infinite regress ... ah yes.

This is indeed a problem in any philosophy, including science, insofar as it claims to be a complete philosophy (if not, it is not claiming infinity for its regress).

This is why movement, causality, being must have uncaused causes for their observed occurrences. 1:st, 2:nd, 3:rd way of St Thomas.

Thanks for not supporting Kant's (or someone else's, anyway I think Russell's) idiotic claim we couldn't know if infinite regress is impossible or not.

9:22 "explanation is simply that the universe and energy is eternal"
  • 1) how can energy be eternal if one of its so called states is "potential energy" in which it is obviously not an existing either thing or attribute.

    This point may need some illustration.

    • I hang a sack on a hook. Above the ground. It took kinetic energy to lift it. Possibly this kinetic energy is equal in quantity to the potential energy it has while hanging on the hook.

    • But I dig a hole under the sack. This adds to the height of its fall, therefore to its potential energy (as it is defined), and this without either touching the sack or the hook.

    • Furthermore, the dirt I shovel away has another density than the sack and therefore the kinetic energy of digging the hole is not equal to the added potential energy.

    Where does the added potential energy come from or the deleted one go?

    So, energy as usually defined is not in all its states existing and directly measureable and therefore it is not eternal either.

  • 2) if universe is eternal and has eternally fusioned hydrogen into higher elements, where does all the remaining hydrogen come from?

    (Thanking Dom Jaki via Rev Houghton for this one).

9:43 first part may be grandstanding ... I am not sure I would call a man like Alexander Graham Bell a Christian since he was into eugenics movement. However, he was not as bad as Sanger.

second part does NOT beg the question, it is your answer which does.

And repeating "theological blunder" when it was about the kind of sciences you usually refer to as such ...

10:10 a supernatural cause creating energy and matter and the universe is a serious problem ...?

I thought you just said that science doesn't deal with metaphysics?

10:24 How does an immaterial being create material reality? FAIR question, but it is dealt with.

Because spirit is not just immaterial, it's supermaterial. For one.

Second, created spirits cannot create matter from nothing only rearrange already existing matter (and move around otherwise, as in angels moving heavenly bodies or as in demons acting poltergeists - or as in human beings moving their bodies in intelligent ways, like speech or writing). So if God is a spirit, how does He create matter from nothing?

Well, He's not a created spirit, he is as far above (or more than that above) created spirits as these are above matter. Or rather, the distance between created spirit and matter is insignificant beside the difference between Creator and creature.

10:46 how get material from what is not material?

God is spirit and can think.

He can therefore think up matter. As a concept.

He is all powerful and can do what He wants and He is Existence Itself, so He can give existence to anything, to any concept He has thought up.

Interaction problem is a pseudoproblem. It's a conundrum more than a problem. It is most problematic in man, where human spirit is limited in its dominion over matter to some aspects of body and not others and not over anything outside body except through it. God and angels have no bodies. Bt to us the human case is also best observed.

Where the conundrum becomes a problem is for materialists. Saying brain due to its matter in a certain arrangement can think is like saying an abacus because of its arrangement of beads can count.

Saying a brain so arranged can think when it involves the movements of biochemical processes of life is like saying an abacus can count when its beads are being moved. Obviously an abacus can never understand mathematics - it's the one using it who does. And so a brain viewed as a purely material entity can never be thinking either.

HGL's F.B. writings : Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics

Ibid. : St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person

Ibid. : Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)

Ibid. : OrchOR - what is that?

[Relevant part I did not give link to on video comment:

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications

11:01 What is the locus of "interaction" between God and matter?

Everywhere where matter exists - since everywhere it is existing by the will of God.

The quip is a somewhat lame concept transfer from the idea refuted by Steno that hypothalamus were the locus of interaction between soul and body.

According to St Thomas Aquinas everywhere in the body, the soul is its living and life transferring form.

Light can shine into an eye, it's the soul that makes this sight - all the way from eye into "sensus communis" in the brain where sight interacts with hearing, touch etc - which are all animated by the soul in the outside as is in the brain itself the sensus communis.

Which does not here mean "common sense" as in "good sense" or "folk wisdom" but which does mean an overall picture in which the sense impressions from all senses interact. Etc.

Any act of the soul can be impaired if the corresponding organ (in periphery or in brain) is hurt.

But an act of God cannot be impaired just because the matters or created spirits in question are damaged, since He is able to create anything anew. In the case of God vs created universe the question of "locus of interaction" is either malformed or the answer is correctly "everywhere".

And God knows everything by His own acts, not (as we) by something external influencing Him.

13:17 It's a blow below the belt to say Atheism is a mental disorder?

Well, in lots of officially atheist countries Christianity (above a certain level of non-attractive lukewarmness) has been classified so. Commies and Atheists have wielded this against Christianity well before nephelimfree blows back same way.

Actually, Dawkins is more or less continuously (for a longer time in "The God Delusion") making precisely that blow below the belt.

So, if you complain about nephelimfree (I would not trust shrinks to apply it correctly anyway) why not complain about Dawkins first? Wait ... maybe you will : there are nearly two minutes left of your video.

Unnecessarily hateful?

Well ... what about the things that are being listed in DSMV?

13:38 "Atheism has been around since ancient times, since probably ancient Greece."

Well, so have psychic mediums. Look at voodoo mediums, imagine the Pythia of Delphis behaving like that, hardly what I would call sane.

Or rather BOTH existed in Ancient Greece, NEITHER flourished in the much saner Middle Ages ... recurrent madness? Why not?

13:44 "to say that people like ? ? ? math?"

People like who? I didn't hear you. And full volume is on here.

14:01 Are you sure it might not turn out to be a fair warning? I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, they are flogging a blogger. Or Taliban were declaring 8 NGO workers insane and expelling them about a month before September 11 ... better take a look at what might happen if Muslims take over the West.

14:13 Thunderf00t is clearly not psychotic, but could be considered as neurotic - as in unnecessarily frustrated because self frustrating.

Are you sure you are not confusing terminology?

As to East State Communism, Christianity was treated in some cases (like under Khrushchev) as a psychosis - a madness you were locked up for.

That is NOT what nephelimfree is saying about you, he is gentler than THAT ... by the way, I have still not heard you complain about Dawkins on your side, you have one minute left.

14:27 Richard Carrier? Is that the guy who is remaking the blunder of Hume without even the excuse Hume had of ignorance of sources from the times when miracles were alleged?

The guy who supposes a Christian is supposed to think it ridiculous that St John ordered insects to parade beside his bed or takes it for granted that Legio Fulminatrix neither got help from the Christian God nor from a mage from Egypt, despite all ancient sources agreeing the victory over Marcomanni was miraculous rather than military?

Here is my refutation of him:

somewhere else : History vs Hume

Creation vs. Evolution : More on the Hume Rehash by Richard Carrier

somewhere else : Richard Carrier Claimed Critical Thinking was Rare Back Then ...

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Did St Irenæus know who St John was and What he Wrote?

14:40 Did you call Peter Singer well respected?

A criminal who during the Middle Ages would have burned on the stake, unless Inquisitors had given him the excuse of criminal insanity.

He is saying some men should be killed, and you call that beast "well respected"?

15:11 You are at least not calm and coherent enough to even quote your opponent correctly.

He was not saying atheism WILL one day etc but that it MIGHT one day be listed as a neurosis.

And in the last two seconds you were STILL not making a single complaint about Dawkins basically classifying Christianity as a psychosis, not just a neurosis!

Here endeth, for now, my refutation of Dhorpatan (?).

Bonus: a good post by NephilimFree himself:

What Darwin Didn't Know : Evolution Theory isn’t Scientific

Thursday, January 8, 2015

... on RomanMissalExegete complaining under two videos that I answered in comboxes

You display so much word salad in all of these comments that it's impossible for me to know where to even begin. I have a life outside of a YouTube that I have literately no interest in engaging someone who thinks that dumping a bunch of philosophical jargon left and right is going to get a response out of someone out of me. Seriously, no wonder I stopped making videos; it's because people like you who thinks writing tons of paragraphs in obscure and useless word salad will someone persuade someone that they are wrong and make you sound smart and important. Good grief. I literately don't have the time nor the patience to deal with someone like you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, I have taken word after word from your video and replied in an essay.

I suppose I took your words more seriously than you did, then.

If it is annoying to read in the comboxes, at first, and you want an overview, I did repost my comments in order on a blog post of mine.

Here is the blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Btw, I wasn't trying to sound smart and important. Logic is universally valid you know, even among people who are neither smart nor important and even when coming from them to those who are.

So, I wasn't trying to sound smart and important any more than one usually does incidentally when one argues (I do and I think you do too), I was taking each of your points and refuting it the best I could.

Wow, You really have way too much time on your hands. And you really think spamming my videos with countless paragraphs of nonstop word salad is going to get me to listen what you have to say? And the fact that you made an entire blog post recording these comments is rather sad. I'm sorry, but I have no choice but to block you. If you wanted to actually make responses to I've argued in my videos, you would have done better by either making videos your self or doing a blog post, sending it via PM and then having a discussion, but you decided to spam my comment sections and my channel. Have a good day, sir (whoever you are).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No - I have too little time doing what I am doing, which is writing on the internet.

I was very much NOT spamming, but taking each sentence from you that rang false, stopping the video, noting the time, often enough quoting your words, then writing a reasoned reply, posting it, sometimes hampered by internet access problems.

As I guessed you might find it annoying to read the series of comboxes, especially as they do not come in order, I did - precisely in the comment you answered - post one link to one blogpost where I assembled them.

However, the comments remaining are not superfluous. Whenever you feel like it, you can answer back directly under the point instead of doing so under the full blogpost.

SOME of the blogposts on that blog, you see, are debate series. My comment, the other one's comment, my comment in reply to his, his comment in reply to mine (most codabetors are not girls, but even if so "his" would have had a generic value, like "his/her").

So, starting a comment series of just my comments on the video (which I commented minute by minute) is kind of an invitation to either you or your usual commenters to reply.

As you seem to not have gathered I am an internet writer (as yet unpublished mostly on paper and unpaid nearly the little I was published on paper), I will give as a visit card short links to the the offer to any willing, even amateur printers/republishers. As to my name, I think I have already written that out. /

I've reported your comments as spam and I've blocked your channel. You're a troll and a lunatic. Have a good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As spam?

You have acted like a sneak and like someone not knowing the value of the words, notably in this case the word "spam".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If your words are true that is, I was able to post an answer.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

... on Presuppositional, Again ... (and again, updated with answers on Axioms and Circularity)

See A note on "Presuppositional"

Sye Ten B and BTWN - The Problem with God as an Axiom

0:55 "that Christianity is the basis for all knowledge and that all other world views borrow from the Christian world view"

Not really, rather that Christian THEISM is presupposed as true for any act of reason or of knowledge to be valid - and that all world views opposed to Christian Theism tacitly borrow from it.

Obviously it is not saying that Plato's and Mohammed's view of knowledge were borrowed from Christianity as a revealed religion - because they were in fact also Theists in the sense we are concerned with.

1:20 "having presuppositional apologetics as your ONLY source of apologetics is not exactly a good idea"

Agreed, it's a more roundabout case of the principle in the five ways, if you like.

1:34 "by Calvinist theologians, the most well known ..."

Wouldn't that be CSL, who was Anglican as opposed to Calvinist? Miracles uses exactly this line of argument. Or very nearly so.

2:45 "if you deny God, you become steeped in irrationality"

At one level yes. If you deny God as Materialist Atheists do, you become steeped in the CONCRETE irrationality OF presuming knowledge to be valid while denying any possible base for its validity.

If you deny God as New Agers do, you become steeped in the CONCRETE irrationality OF "reconciling" your own limited existance's obvious non-identity with eternal reason with your having access to eternal reason with no eternal reason existing outside such non-identicals to it.

And so on.

2:56 "they try to make God into an axiom"

Rather a meta-axiom - read Miracles, it works.

before 3:08 "to deny it would be refuting yourself"

Exactly. No God = no eternal reason = no eternal validity behind reason = no reason. Complete refutation of any reasoning's claim on validity.

3:22 The question whether an eternal and personal God is presupposed for validity of reason, is of course distinct from the other question, whether He is the God of Bible or of Qoran or of some other religion or unknown to religion except "natural religion" as in what is common to them.

Depend on it, all large bodies are mixed bags, anywhere anyone makes an intelligent argument, someone agreeing with him will be there to make a remark that may be stupid or propheticaly profound, but hardly obviously rational.

CSL's Miracles has two steps: a) presuppositional apologetics about existence of God, b) posing the question whether denying miracles as Hume and Voltaire do isn't most worthy of God as opposed to the one we find in the Bible - and answering no. By refuting antimiraculous theisms as non-theisms.

3:47 "in order for God to be an axiom, you have to demonstrate how denying the existence of God leads to a logical absurdity"

Sure. CSL did that.

4:04 "they try to state that knowledge is not possible unless there is a ... being which we call God"

(error 404 - is the missing word "self-evident"?)

St Thomas "tried to state" movement is not possible unless there is a first mover which we call God.

He did not do so by calling a first mover "self-evident" but by demonstrating the absurdity of:

  • x being moved without a mover
  • x being moved by y being moved by z into infinity without a first mover

And not just CSL but also Sye goes through similar logical steps to assure that denial of God leads to real demonstrated absurdities.

Resuming his argument by stating it as "he's trying to state C" which is his conclusion is presenting his conclusion without its premisses and therefore dishonest as a resumé.

4:14 "they try to argue that God is not the conclusion because God is what is presupposed"

That would be a confusion of ontological level (where they are right) with logical level.

  • x explains y usually means x furnishes causal or ontological reasons to accept y (which is for other reasons known) as not just a brute fact but a possible and understandable fact.
  • y proves x means that y furnishes logical reasons to accept x (which doesn't need to have y as its ontological cause at all) as not just a theoretical possibility among many, but the one which is factual.

What is true is that eternal validity of reason is presupposed before any conclusion - this can be shown inductively but not deductively.

But proving God involves proving "eternal validity of reason" involves "validity of eternal reasoner" or even "of eternal reason". Which it does.

4:24 "in order for that to be logically valid, you first have to demonstrate why God has to be proposed"

Well, no. Axioms are obvious, but not proven, but rather presupposed when anything else is proven. What one must if anything do is demonstrate why denial of God leads to absurd propositions such as "no act of reason is valid", via "no act of reason is eternally valid". Which CSL did, which Sye does.

4:28 "you have to define what is this God you are talking about"

They do. Eternal reason. Eternal matter can't do, because matter is not reason. Human reason won't do, because humans are individually not eternal. Coexistence of eternal matter with eternal reason on one hand looks like a space/matter containing both, and as reason being dependent on matter - which refutes validity of reason. Collective eternity of human reason by non-eternals adding up to eternity doesn't fix it either. Also, it is not the theory of the usual opponent Western Atheism.

4:38 "epistemic level, it doesn't really make that much difference"

Go on? Sounds absurd after I get the argument (which I did back in my teens), but do you have a point?

4:51 [paraphr.] both Christian and non-believer are on same epistemological grounding point ...

  • a) relevant opposition is between Theist and non-Theist

  • b) not really, since non-Theism implies an ontological contradiction with the epistemological grounding point

4:54 both on the same plane field

Have you heard too much ecumenical wishwash about how apologetics must be done?

True, when reasoning with a non-believer I cannot and should not assume without telling him why that I am right and he is wrong and I know more than he does.

But I can and should tell him why his position involves an absurdity which I have seen through.

5:01 both are using logic, reasoning etc.

Sure. But the non-Theist at one point betrays the foundation of the claims of all this.

5:09 "logic is simply the scripture that governs our thinking"

By a cultural or species-specific convention? Or in a universally valid way? Can a Chinaman conclude that two plus two make five? Can a dog conclude that two plus two make five? Can a Martian conclude that two plus two are five?

Or must all that have reason universally everywhere (which means we can count out the dog and the Martian, one as irrational and one as non-extant) conclude that two and two make four?

THAT is the very question you are stumbling onto by using the word "simply" - hence my emphasis.

5:17 - 5:21 "in order for God to be 'foundation of all this knowledge' you HAVE to demonstrate why it is a self evident truth"

It is a self evident truth that logic is universally valid. Which is the basis for the presuppositional argument.

It is a self evident truth that individual man as such is not universally valid. Which is the basis for not identifying individual human reason with the universal validity of logic.

This latter leads us or rather non-Theists to a dilemma:

  • logic is universally valid, but there is no universally valid basis for it to be so

  • logic is NOT universally valid.

The thesis "logic is universally valid but there is no universally valid basis for it to be so" violates a basic logic principle - the principle of sufficient causation.

The thesis "logic is NOT universally valid" is - as previously usually admitted - absurd.

5:27 "and you can't really do that unless you demonstrate that God is an axiom, and God being an axiom is something you need to justify"

Just did so.

And if you had attended to the actual argumentation of Sye, you would perhaps have seen that so did he.

5:36 "how is God on the same level as saying 'existence exists'?"

Because eternal validity of reason is on the same level as saying "existence exists".

Because logic is not just the "script" how you happen to think (if so, no one could be illogical, since each is following his own "script") but the eternally valid law on how you must think on pain of thinking nonsense.

And "eternal validity of reason" cannot be founded in eternal existence of mere non-reason-endowed existence.

6:01 THAT part is a polemic against Sye (or just BTWN?) as a Protestant, not as doing presuppositional apologetics.

Obviously I do confess that Baruch and I and II Maccabees are canonical, as defined by Trent. But that is a bit off topic - unless BTWN has a version I haven't seen in Sye or Sye has a version I haven't seen on his site.

7:04 "all presuppositional apologetics is basically sola scriptura on drugs" ...?

That was a burst of temper and a refusal to reflect until you understand a point, it was very much not an accurate summing up of the argument.

Are you aware that Pascal and Riccioli (none of whom can be accused of sola scriptura heresy) were closer to presuppositional than to five ways of St Thomas? Conversely, Calvin's analysis of Geocentric observations (if taken as factual, as they should as long as there is no real refutation of appaerances) is closer to St Thomas' Prima Via than to presuppositional.

On the other hand, presuppositional is a kind of restatement of 4th or 5th Via among the five ways. "There are degrees of nobility" etc.

Matter and animal life unendowed with reason are two of them. Human ephemeral or at least not-ab-aeterno existance (as it is on a purely empirical showing) BUT endowed with reason is a step higher. This supposes there is a high-EST step, namely pure reason "which everyone calls God".

My summing up: rejection of presuppositional is not Thomistic, it is a temperamental refusal to consider implications of UNIVERSAL VALIDITY as a claim of reason, made openly or tacitly in every reasoning. Even in a roundabout way in every reasoning that rejects this universal validity.

Axioms and Circularity

I hear a little echo from Kant's dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori.

If you have Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, burn it.

Entry in Index Librorum:

Kant, Immanuel Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 1827

This means the Index congregation of Inquisition of God's Church put the book on index that year, 1827. It remained there in 1948.

Index Librorum (1948)

By the way, I think Flood Denying Geology or Flood Universality Denying Geology was also indexed, since Norwegian or Danish Syndsfloden means "the Flood of Noah".

Literally "the Flood [to Punish] Sin".

Here is the relevant entry for that one, "just below" Kant nearly:

Klee, Frederik Syndfloden; en Raekke af geologiske Hypotheser, fremsatte fra et verdenshistorisk Standpu[n]ct. 1848

Now, I would not agree the when a presup argues existence of God from the presupposition of universal validity of reason or logic, that he is arguing by axiom to applications of that axiom.

Rather, every time ANYONE uses principle of contradiction, he argues by applying the axiom that "laws of thought" like principle of contradiction are universally valid.

A presup apologetics is NOT so arguing from the "meta axiom" that reason is always true to a specific application of it - anymore than anyone else who is arguing at any time - a presup is arguing from EXISTENCE of this axiom to a CAUSE for our reason having access to universally valid principles of analysis (like abstraction of individual matter), of conclusion (like syllogism Barbara) or of conduct.

So, even in Kant's faulty dichotomy, the argument is not from an axiom to a conclusion of axiom as in geometry, it is from the experience of this axiom obviously existing to a sufficient cause for it to be accessible to us. In other words, it is a causal argument, what Kant calls a posteriori, from the effect in our minds of a universally valid reason being there, and from inadequacy of our individualities, especially on materialistic views, to account for this effect, to a cause that is God.

Precisely as St Thomas does - whom Kant either totally ignored or misanalysed. I suspect the latter, rather.


By definition of "number" in general and "2" in particular.

"2+2=4" would require a reasoning.

  • 2+2 = 2+1+1 (definition of 2)
  • 2+1 = 3 (definition of three)
  • SO: 2+2 = 3+1

  • 3+1 = 4 (definition of 4)
  • SO: 2+2 = 4.

That is a reason from the axioms we call definitions, using kind of meta axiom that the basic unit is 1, whereas the numbers are just groupings of several items of 1.

Note that to St Thomas, every reason works from something evident.

2+1=3 is evident because a definition.

I am before a computer (as I am now) is evident because immediately experienced.

Computers with functioning internet access connect people over distance is evident from my universal experience of computers. [Note I added "functioning" to "internet access" ... when not functioning it is not doing so.]

AND "reason is universally valid" is evident also because of universal experience of what we actually do (and presuppose!) when we reason. This item, of course, being the key proposition for presup apologetics.

There is no such thing as "circular reasoning". You can have circulus in probando, you can have circulus in definiendo, you can have circulus in explicando.

A proves B. B proves A. Therefore (and therefore only) A and B are both true.

Vicious circle "in probando". Both could be false instead (however if implications as such are correct, one being false and other true would not be possible).

A explains B. B explains A. That way (and that way only) we understand both A and B.

Vicious circle "in explicando". Both could be opaque and we could be understanding neither. But if they are mutual explanations, you could understand either one of them for another reason (not excluding "evident clarity") and by so doing you would be understanding both.

There is such a thing as breaking a circle.

In a way you did that by providing the starting point. You said there is no such thing as a "married bachelor" - if both words are used properly. When you say to someone "the bachelor is married now" you do not mean he is actually a bachelor, but that he was bachelor so long or otherwise prominently that he came to be known as [or referrable to in context as] "the bachelor". So you are not using the word bachelor properly.

There is a REAL attack on universality of reason which is REALLY going on, and which REALLY targets presup. You could say, as some do, that definitions do not hold universally true.

You could take shortest distance between our localities on the GLOBE as a proof against Euclid always being right.

But shortest distance between our localities IS a straight line, it is only that this distance though relevant for geometry's truth is less relevant for travel. We are fortunately not demons, we do not travel from one antipode to [its] antipode via the point where Satan is chewing Judas and possibly Cassius and Brutus too. The "not universal validity" of geometric axioms is concluded from a confused terminology between shortest geometric and shortest travellable distance.

If you live in a flat, shortest geometric distance to your neighbour's bad music on cd may be much shorter than shortest distance for you to go down or up to your neighbour to tell him you want to sleep or hear classical music. The concepts are not the same just because they can use the same words.

The guys who seek subterfuges like "non-Euclidean geometry" (a concept very probably inspired by Kant, not in its observations that so called "triangles" on a globe have more than 180° but in its calling them triangles to get an excuse for saying "triangles do not always have angular sum 180°") those are guys who are really taking out atheism to its logical conclusion of epistemological nihilism.

To give an illustration of non-viciousness of some "circles", take this example:

- Why is that hat here?

- It's the boss' hat, and it is here because
(explaining) the boss has arrived.

- How do you know the boss has arrived?

- Because
(proving) I see his hat here.

This would be an ideal point for a Kantian to shout "circular reasoning" but in fact it is neither a circulus in probando (proof starts from the habitual evidence of a certain hat belonging to the boss and a visual evidence of the hat being here), nor in explicando (explanation starts from hat belonging to boss, as habitually known and boss' arrival being a very fair guess as to "why" - explicative/causal "why" - the hat is also here along with him).

Since the supposed "circular reasoning" in presup is this non-vicious kind, your providing the starting point "in probando" is not really "breaking the circle" anyway. But you do provide the starting point by insisting that married bachelors do not exist. Not just not in your usage, but anywhere, everywhere. And that a married "bachelor of arts" is totally irrelevant, since baccalaureatus is another concept. [In fact an older one, but baccalaureati at a certain time had to be still bachelors, hence similarity of naming the concepts].