Resuming Debate with Howard F

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F

On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

Under other video

Fossil mix ups – When fossils are found where they shouldn’t be (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-16)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dIlLwjS7bw

Howard F

Your discussion of the Roraima pollen neglects to mention that there is no pollen anywhere in the Paleozoic even though there are lot of plant fossils and lots of spores. Today pollen is just about everywhere because it is just about indestructible. Even in sediments deposited in km's of water, there is abundant pollen. How were miles thick accumulates of sediment in the swirling mass of the flood deposited with lots of plant fossils but no pollen? This is a case of one problematic occurrence, which may well be due to contamination, against many studies that show a different result. You are cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring vast swaths of data you don't like. You make a big deal about grass and dinosaurs, but you neglect to mention that there is no earlier grass fossils anywhere in the world. There are also no modern mammals found with dinosaurs. No deer, antelope, elk, horses, pigs, goats, beavers, rabbits, whales, dolphins, giraffes, elephants, rhinoceroses, etc. A few very questionable human footprints and that is it. In fact if you look at the history or major groups of land animals, such as pelycosaurs, dinosaurs, ungulates, they always occur in the same order, with no mixing and no fossils out of order anywhere in the world. Same is true of fossil corals, such as tabulates and scleractinian, always tabulates below scleractinians. And the order of species, say within coccolithis, is the same world wide.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Comment not accessible in this library - perhaps not on the site at all? Here I am not reconstructing what I answered. Except for the biotopes for "palaeozoic" fossil layers perhaps not being such as carry pollen.]

Reference to Roraima pollen, probably this article:

CMI : The evolutionary paradox of the Roraima pollen of South America is still not solved
by Emil Silvestru
http://creation.com/roraima-pollen

Salient quote from it:

With all the above in mind, since according to observational science contamination is the least probable of all possibilities (a Holmesian ‘impossible’), there seem to be only two solutions:

• 1. The whole evolutionary biostratigraphy which places the first angiosperm pollen in the Early Cretaceous is wrong, angiosperms being in fact present throughout the entire geologic column (does that sound like something you have already read about?). This would of course be the equivalent of Haldane’s rabbit and mortally wound the ‘evolutionary elephant’.
• 2. The CF is Tertiary in age and not Paleoproterozoic, completely rejecting radiometric dating. If so, the very concept of radiometric dating and particularly its reliability needs to be questioned.

Either possibility is simply unacceptable to the evolutionary establishment, hence the escape into the improbable: contamination. A concept that has already served to settle similar problems before: when radiometric dating is clearly at odds with the established biostratigraphy, contamination (‘radioisotope contamination’) is invoked. Or, when accepting contamination would challenge the very concept of radiometric dating, ‘out of place fossils’ (‘fossil contamination’) are invoked. [End quote.]

Own comment:

It seems Emil Silvestru indeed did not mention "as a fact" that no pollen have been found in palaeozoic. In Roraima, it seems that radioactive dating stamp the layers as palaeoproterozoic, which is supposed to be even older. Objection disregards fact that Emil Silvestru offered us a dilemma.

The following

seems to have been moved under our original discussion:

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Your criteria of only accepting the stratigraphic order of vertebrates where they have been dug in a hole will never be met. By that criterion, you would reject fossils at the base of the Grand Canyon being older than fossil at the top because who in their right mind would ever go through the expense of digging a hole next to a canyon? You might count the canyon as a hole, but then why not the Karoo outcrops? They are at about the same angle. But even in the Karoo outcrops, why would anyone dig down even 20 ft, if they could walk down hill 20 ft and find the same strata?

Regarding using stratigraphy for oil exploration, you said:

"...the long earth concept is a superfluous extra about how those strata came to be there."

No. We use concepts such as reconstructing ancient landscapes to predict petroleum deposits. Identical landscapes today that take thousands of years to develop. There are no known physical processes that can make a large point bar in a few hours, but we see Mississippi River-scale point bars in the subsurface all over the world. These each take hundreds of years to form. And other features such as buried corral reefs that take thousands of years to form. Thus, the ancient earth is an essential component of modern stratigraphy.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Your criteria of only accepting the stratigraphic order of vertebrates where they have been dug in a hole will never be met."

That is an admission.

Even a pretty radical one.

You did not say "has never been met", but you said "will never be met", as if it was an understanding - not necessarily a conspiracy, but an understanding - between palaeontologists not to test stratigraphy too far, e g by digging down from Katberg formation into underlying Balfour formation in Karoo.

Which was also the info I got from "Karoo" (if the experts I contacted were not inside it while answering, they are at least often inside it while digging).

"By that criterion, you would reject fossils at the base of the Grand Canyon being older than fossil at the top because who in their right mind would ever go through the expense of digging a hole next to a canyon?"

If you said yourself that slope is less steep than 45° most places, who am I to argue with that?

At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment.

As to any sorting you find in GC, it is usually marine invertebrates, and like mud sorts itself spontaneously under high water speeds, so would probably marine invertebrates.

Who in their right mind would, etc?

Well, since my main issue is with land vertebrates rather than marine invertebrates, it is not a question of digging down a hole beside the GC (indeed, it could there be done with less expense, like digging holes in the side from botton, if you know such and such a higher level is seen from so many yards further north or south, you dig that horizontal hole so many yards inwards), my proposal would rather be to take a few select places in Karoo, where Katberg formation is on top, and dig down to levels presumed for Balfour formation being under it.

Would one find :

• no fossils at all?
• Balfour typical fossils (confirming stratigraphy)?
• Katberg typical fossils (which like the first would tend to confirm my biotope theory?
• or OTHER fossils (like buried nephelim)?

Probably, for expenses, one would have to rely on volunteers digging and on some crowdfunding.

But it could be done.

"You might count the canyon as a hole, but then why not the Karoo outcrops?"

Is uncovered Balfour really that much lower in terrain than Katberg where it "lies on top of of Balfour"? I'll have to trust you on that one.

And is uncovered Katberg that much lower than Burgersdorp formation "where it lies on top of Katberg and Balfour"? I am trusting you on that one too.

However, no, if angle is 45° or flatter, I am not counting the outcrops as holes. I don't know for certain there was ever any Katberg above the Balfour, where Balfour lies naked. I don't know for certain there was every any Burgersdorp above Katberg, where Katberg lies naked. At least not for longer than some hours, days or months during Flood.

In other words, I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.

I did look into Yacoraite, but there we are mostly dealing with snails and such.

I did look at a place in NW or NE Mexico that I lost track of, but there we had one layer of Ceratopsians (considered Cretaceous), and above it one of shrimps and prawns, basically. Usually classified as Palaeocene or Miocene or sth. After what you are saying, I can't be sure these were even two layers - but if they were, they are no trouble for Flood Geology.

Now, I will trust you on one more. Digging down from Katberg to Balfour in Karoo would be digging a hole of 20 feet. VERY much less than what Grand Canyon would challenge us with. Even far less than mining has done to get iron ore. I have been one kilometer (somewhat less than one mile) below Earth surface in Malmberget close to Gellivare, in North Sweden. If industrials can dig down one mile into Earth, amateurs can dig down 20 feet at least. It's about seven yards.

One could even combine the digging with a post-digging hotel project, like digging down into earth for habitation. And the hotel guests or perhaps rent paying residents or so would be paying back expenses for the digging. In that case one had better make sure to get a good architect so they are attractive even if nothing spectacular is proven (or if one wants to actually hide the spectacular proven discovery).

"But even in the Karoo outcrops, why would anyone dig down even 20 ft, if they could walk down hill 20 ft and find the same strata?"

To check if the strata really contain the fauna predicted by oldearthism.

You see, on oldearthist assumptions, it is a matter of chance that such and such fossils from such and such times are at all preserved. Chance would SOMEWHERE lead to that happening on two different levels.

I would rather be the Flood Geologist explaining how certain marine invertebrates got deeper down in Grand Canyon, than the one explaining how a Moschops from the Permian is straight below a creature from the Triassic. Especially if the Triassic creature is also heavy and equally clumsy.

I am not saying it couldn't be countered, I am saying so far it isn't there to be countered (on my criteria).

"Identical landscapes today that take thousands of years to develop. There are no known physical processes that can make a large point bar in a few hours, but we see Mississippi River-scale point bars in the subsurface all over the world. These each take hundreds of years to form."

Point bars are features in rivers, not in strata laid over each other.

They are known to be the product of rivers and can thus be accounted for.

However, the strata are NOT known to be what you claim they are a product of and that does not involve point bars very much.

Therefore the objection amounts to changing the subject.

If point bars can form quicker, I leave that to Tas Walker, but deposits form with different speeds depending on water mass and water speeds and mud thickness involved. Flood geology deal with processes which we are thankful for not being seen today.

So does on some levels uniformitarian geology. Like that period there when such a continent was supposed to be ALL volcanoes, and things like that.

However, this is beside the query I raised.

Here is my correspondence with Karoo, btw:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You said:

You did not say "has never been met", but you said "will never be met", as if it was an understanding - not necessarily a conspiracy, but an understanding - between palaeontologists not to test stratigraphy too far, e g by digging down from Katberg formation into underlying Balfour formation in Karoo.

There is no conspiracy, only practicality.* Who would dig down even 20 ft through rock when you could walk down the hill and make the same observations? Geologists commonly drill cores to test stratigraphy, but you don't except this. You reject small diameter holes, but don't claim we don't test the theories. You need demons to explain the world-wide order of small fossils.

"At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment."

Are you making this up, or do you have some evidence to back up this claim?

You said: In other words, I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.

But there is evidence of this from all over the world. Seismic and wells confirm the strata seen in outcrops extend hundreds of miles in the subsurface.

You compared digging down 20 ft compared to minds that are hundreds or thousands of feet. True, but excavating is very expensive compared to surface collecting, and most science budgets, especially paleontology, are very modest.

"However, the strata are NOT known to be what you claim they are a product of and that does not involve point bars very muchTherefore the objection amounts to changing the subject."

No. Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars. They are part of terrestrial deposits. Most land vertebrate deposits are from the deposits of rivers and the adjacent flood plains.

*[which in my book qualifies as "an understanding"]

Hans Georg Lundahl

"There is no conspiracy, only practicality. Who would dig down even 20 ft through rock when you could walk down the hill and make the same observations?"

The problem at hand precisely here is whether the observations made by walking down the hill really are the same.

"Geologists commonly drill cores to test stratigraphy, but you don't except this. You reject small diameter holes, but don't claim we don't test the theories."

Well, you have not done that particular test in 20 ft deep holes through the rock.

If mile deep holes have been dug through rock, why not twenty feet in a few selected places, like some places in Karoo?

"You need demons to explain the world-wide order of small fossils."

I said supposing it were world wide, it could at least be explained by demons getting a lease to try a hand on deception.

It is distinct from the order of land vertebrates.

And my theology accepts the existence of demons anyway, so it is not even ad hoc.

[I had said: I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.]

"But there is evidence of this from all over the world. Seismic and wells confirm the strata seen in outcrops extend hundreds of miles in the subsurface."

That is not direct evidence. The strata as rock strata, as well as the order of small invertebrate marine fossils are a separate issue. Nowhere have land vertabrates from Permian been found directly under those from Triassic, I just heard that news from Zuidafrika. And if you read my link, so did you.

No other place is even mentions as lagerstätte for both Palaeozoic and Mesozoic.

PLUS this indirect evidence is challenged by the Roraima pollen. They are arguably small fossils (though not marine invertabrate fauna, rather land based flora) and in Roraima they are where either they shouldn't be on your view, or the radiometric datings should be rejected.

"You compared digging down 20 ft compared to minds that are hundreds or thousands of feet. True, but excavating is very expensive compared to surface collecting, and most science budgets, especially paleontology, are very modest."

If you read all of what I said, I suggested solutions to that:

• use volunteers, not paid workers
• crowdfund for materials

in other words, use no public funding. Maybe if you let creationists in to the team, you could get some funding from CMI or AiG or Eric Hovind, who knows?

PLUS:

• refinance by making it a building project, whether for subterranean shady hotel or for housing.

In other words, it could be done. Not in very many spots, but perhaps five or ten places where Katberg lies over Balfour.

"Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars."

That I did not know. Two supplemantary questions to that one:

• how do you know for sure they are in point bars? I suppose you don't mean that there is a point bar on the surface now and you conclude from that there was one then. And:
• how do you know, supposing you know they are in point bars, that the point bar of the river didn't form either very rapidly in a calmer spot of the flood or normally slow in the two millennia between creation and flood? I mean two thousand years is plenty of time to make and unmake and remake point bars.

Wait a minute ...

"Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars. They are part of terrestrial deposits. Most land vertebrate deposits are from the deposits of rivers and the adjacent flood plains."

That is the Non-Flood-Geology explanation of why they got buried, right?

In other words, you are using one part of the Non-Flood scenario rather than an undisputed fact to refute the Flood scenario. Somewhat circular, somewhat disingenious.

And in some places even somewhat impossible.

That Sauropod herd that got drowned in south Argentina or Chile - was it the Flood or were they wading across a river?

The parallel given by uniformitarians were yaks buried in Brahmaputra. BUT:

• the sauropods are LOTS huger than yaks
• Brahmaputra is LOTS more streaming than any river down South of La Plata (or even counting La PLata).

In other words, scenario impossible.

Unless you would want to say it was a gigantic river over landmasses since separated by continental drift, and then the question becomes, where is the rest of that huge river? Indo China? Africa? Haven't exactly heard news of one.

And I forgot in my previous comments:

[I had said: At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment.]

"Are you making this up, or do you have some evidence to back up this claim?"

There have been experiments conducted about rapid layering. They do indicate that 45° higher and lower can be simultaneous.

True, they are conducted in much smaller format than what they are presumed to model.

And, sorry, I forgot who the man was who conducted the experiments, if it was Giertych (now on the Catholic Kolbe Center for Study of Creation) or perhaps rather someone else, since Maciej Giertych is geneticist.

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl But the beds with the fossils in order are continuous for hundreds of miles along outcrops, always with the fossils in the same order, but you think digging in a few feet behind the outcrop it will all be different?

Hans Georg Lundahl

"In Order" begs the question I am posing.

Whether Moschops and Eucnemesaurus fortis are found at different places BECAUSE Beaufort formation outcrops at one and Elliott at other or BECAUSE Moschops and Eucnemosaurus fortis lived in different places at Flood event and the Beaufort and Elliott beds being an extra complication at the most.

In the first case digging down from Elliott or Katberg into Beaufort will change nothing, you will still find Moschops in Beaufort.

In the second case you won't find Moschops in Beaufort under Elliott, because where Elliott is on top was the biotope of Eucnemosarus fortis. Perhaps a guy that Moschops stayed away from.

Btw, Eucnemosarus fortis is exactly one specimen:

Holotype: TM 119, a partial (fragmentary) skeleton consisting of vertevrae, pelvic remains and limb elements

NO referred specimens are mentioned.

PLUS Eucnemosaurus is such an incomplete skeleton we cannot (in the Flood geology scenario) know if it was some Sauropodomorph or if it was a Nephelim type giant. Head or limbs would tell, but we don't have those.

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Eucnemesaurus fortis
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/eucnemesaurus

Btw, the locality given both narrow and broader, only give a hit for Eucnemosaurus:

Locality: Farm Zonderhout, Slabberts district, Orange Free State, South Africa.

No Permians found there!

An Attack on Eric Hovind I don't agree with

Here is the attack:

Eric Hovind Exposed
sanderson1611
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8EFPHAEtE

My comments:

6:48 - I am sorry, but the text you are referring to as not mentioning Christ soon enough and hammering "you're a sinner" over and over again, might very well not be Eric's but Kent's.

He does believe in "faith alone", but he also believes that even the smallest sins will damn you if you are not saved (which we Catholics do not believe : lying for a joke is not bearing false witness against one's neighbour and stealing a train ride is not a mortal sin against the VII commandment - you would call it the VIII). AND he believes that if you ARE saved, yes, Christ's justice will cover up any sin for you, but He will also accept your submission as a cue to scrub every little tiniest stain of sin out of your soul before you die (if you don't believe in Purgatory, but believe, as Knet does, in the necessity of Purgatory, it follows you believe, as Kent does, every saved person has his Purgatory on Earth).

I respect Kent Hovind as a Creation Scientist, and even as an exegete when it comes to Creationist implications of Mark 10:6. But I do not consider him a great theologian. Except that by accepting any kind of necessity for Purgatory (in his version a Purgatory strictly on Earth before one dies), he has given a cue for at least considering the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

However, some Orthodox agree with him there. They say that if the Church prays for a soul, the Church is really not praying for a soul in purgatory, but for how cleansed from all sin she should have become before dying, they say God hears those prayers retroactively.

8:01 In Roman Catholic theology, repentance means AT LEAST a complete rejection of all MORTAL sins (it is perhaps a bit harder for someone who denies the distinction between mortal and venial ones). A repentance which does not do that is in our view not salvific. Not all repentance is salvific. Antiochus, Haman and Judas Ischariot were sorry, but not in salvific ways.

Note, the turning away from all mortal sin is recognised as impossible without grace, which comes through ... here we get to your point : Christ.

10:05 or sth Yes, He rose again.

Now, there is sth about His Resurrection and Catholic Theology.

John 20:[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Ten Apostles received, first of all "merely human" persons, except that an Apostle is as such (a priest is as such) united in person with Christ, the power, since then shared with Christ, enacted on behalf of Christ, to forgive sins.

This power extends to all sins, mortal or venial one is genuinely sorry for. One is usually told to avoid naming only venial sins in confession, because one might not be really sorry for them, so rather, confess a mortal sin from one's past life (if you have no recent ones you must confess) for which you know you are truly sorry.

The power of the priest to absolve you comes from Calvary and the Resurrection.

That applies to sins committed after Baptism.

11:00 You referred to Romans 11:6, right?

Here are two Catholic bishops (from the time of Penal Laws) commenting on that verse, cited by Haydock:

Ver. 6. It is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. The election of God, and the first grace at least, are always without any merits on our part; but if we speak of works done in a state of grace, and by the assistance of God's grace, we co-operate with the graces given, and by thus co-operating, we deserve and merit a reward in heaven. (Witham) --- If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God's grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation. (Challoner)

Haydock Bible Commentary, Romans 11
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id155.html

Witham and Challoner are for the persecuted Catholics of their time in England what Voice of the Martyrs and Bibles for Russia was for Baptists in Communist tyrannies a little more recently.

14:10 I am for my part a continent away.

If I were in US, if visits were allowed me, I would definitely go and visit Kent Hovind. I'd like to see him become a Catholic, and if he doesn't want to talk about that, I'd love some chats on scientific and mathematic issues too.

I am not sure Eric and Mrs Hovind have been allowed to visit him. The prison authorities are after all trying to break him down.

14:20, when you say "there is no proof of God except the Holy Bible" you are contradicting part of the Holy Bible. Romans 1, inexcusable? Inexcusable for what? For having access to Bible and not reading it? Or for seeing proof of its God (different from their pagan gods) in the sky every day and not searching for it?

The latter, I would say, is what St Paul actually says.

CMI did a Video on Creationist Scientists

Video link:

Famous creation scientists – From Newton to Sarfati (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-15)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mampYWo0QiE

On Kepler vs predecessors:

2:44 (with previous)

Your narrative about John Kepler (Johann Kepler, Johannes Kepler - same name, same person, just different langs) is unsatisfactory.

There was a Geocentric who really thought that stellar and daily movements were the results of random chance meetings of particles.

His name was Epicurus (Επικουρος in Greek) and as you may know he was mainly interested in atheism and "enlightened hedonism" and not an ace in astronomy at all. Also, he was not a recent predecessor of Kepler in any sense, but lived some time between Socrates and Christ.

The astronomers preceding John Kepler were, as he was himself, Christians.

To someone like St Thomas Aquinas (who was also not an astronomer), or Tycho Brahe, or Riccioli, the universe was ordered by God. For at least the first and the last of the three, the "seven planets" (sun, moon and five visible planets) made their complex and intricate (somewhat less so for sun and moon) movements around Earth because God had ordered the particular angels who carried these bodies to do these movements. In other words, the perfect celestial clockwork was a dance of angels. Or is, if they were right.

Kepler wanted a purely mechanical cause for celestial movements. He had not heard of Newton's gravitation, but instead spoke of magnetism. This was rejected by Riccioli, who considered that due to the noble and heavenly position of celestial bodies, their movements (if not their own intrinsic rocky or firey nature) would have gotten from God a correspondingly noble cause, to wit angelic movers - which also concords with St Thomas Aquinas, as mentioned and quite a few theologians, and also with certain passages of the Bible. St Thomas noted Job 38:

"Quod autem dicuntur astra matutina Deum laudare potest uno modo intelligi materialiter, inquantum scilicet propter sui claritatem et nobilitatem erant materia divinae laudis, etsi non hominibus qui adhuc non erant, saltem Angelis qui iam erant; alio modo secundum illos qui dicunt corpora caelestia animata, astra in suae institutionis initio Deum laudabant non laude vocali sed mentali; quod etiam potest referri ad Angelos quorum ministerio caelestia corpora moventur" ...

But that morning stars are said to praise God can in one way be understood materially, insofar namely as for their clarity and nobility they are a matter for the praise of God, even if not yet for man who were not yet there, at least for angels who were already; in another way according to them who say the celestial bodies are alive, [that] stars in the beginning of their creation praised God not by vocal but by mental praise; which can also be referred to angels by whose ministry the celestial bodies are moved...

He vacillates between two theories : either stars are alive OR angels are moving them.

Myself I had found another Bible passage with a suggestion of either of these : "and the stars fought from their orbits" in the battle against Sisera's troops. It either sounds as if stars were alive, or as if angels were using them as "battle star galactica" - unless you drag in astrological influences, which some commenters have also suggested : moon turning someone mad, sun turning someone hot, saturn turning someone despairing, venus distracting someone by lecherous thoughts ... barring that, we would either have stars being alive or angels fighting from the stars and their orbits.

Now, what Tycho and Riccioli had in common was the theory that those of the seven planets which had retrogrades (i e the five except sun and moon) were circling around the sun in its both annual and daily movements (daily westward with fixed stars around earth, but lagging behind, annually completing a circle around stars by this lagging behind).

In other words, the Geocentric astronomy quite as much as Kepler presumed a cosmos which God had created in perfect order. Kepler should NOT be credited for "getting astronomy out of unpredictable chaos". He didn't.

And therefore he was not either creditable with making a discovery due to the Word of God. Whatever he had from the Bible, his Geocentric opponents had too.

[bringing in Newton on this, and paraphrasing, since the comment is hidden and seems to be unable to show, even to me:]

9:47 Newton concluded from one creator of both heaven and earth that same laws apply on both places.

To some this is conclusive for his take on heavenly mechanics, against angelic movers, but really, it isn't.

It is not against natural laws for either God or angels to move things.

In the minute working of nature, often angels would be the immediate deciders, like if a windwhirl (of winds far lesser than whrilwinds) goes here or there (when both directions are possible) etc.

Also, demons, when God permits, but without getting extra conatural abilities from Him (He is not withholding the nature He gave them, but usually stopping and forbidding them from using it to too much damage) can move visible objects without physical movers, and you call it poltergeists.

This doesn't mean angels that move stars are poltergeists. This might mean demons that do poltergeist stuff were once before they fell moving celestial objects and long back to that power.

And it must be Hell for them to only use it on pots and pans, even if it frightens people.

Bacon of Verulam:

6:37 Francis Bacon ennobled Viscount of St Alban stressed experimentation and induction rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.

But experiments prove nothing unless one can make deductions from them! They disprove nothing unless one can make negative deductions from them!

And experimentation was very much in vogue among Middle Ages Platonic-Aristotelic (non-Baconian) Scholastic scietists.

If anything, Renaissance Platonism had, except for magic experiments, laid that field fallow for a while. Or Reformation had eliminated such Scholastics as were monks.

6:56 "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power"

How is this any different from Stephen J. Gould's proposal on "non-overlapping magisteria"?

As far as I am concerned, the Scriptures do also contain lots of factual information on the power of God. On what He can do. Some of which is not directly available today in the "volume of the Creatures".

Newton on atheism:

9:30 that it never had many professors ...

Up to his time, we speak of Democritus and Epicure and Lucretius plus quite a few of their anonymous followers, possibly Horace the poet - who was at least in practise more of an idolater than an atheist.

He was probably unaware of the atheist tenets of Theravada Buddhism - which is anyway minoritarian compared to Mahayana Buddhism.

Atheism in his time was so odious to Englishmen that it had become their byword for anyone they disliked. Was Shaftesbury really an atheist? Or was he opposed to one particular theory of Christian morality (basing morality on will of God without referring His will to the Holiness of His nature - he was unaware I presume of Catholic schools which do refer the Will to the Holiness of the nature in Our Lord)? Yet, for that he was counted as an atheist - and it seems that plus Hellfire clubs from possibly two different foci, contributed to making atheism popular.

Later parts of video generally very good, Pasteur, Carver, Daladian, Sarfati. One comment, since Carver made me think of Knotts Berry Farm:

As we talk about Carver, what about Walter Marvin Knott and Charles Rudolph Boysen (their work would indicate that blackberries and raspberries are one kind, not two, and loganberries too, one kind, not three)?

... on Qoran and Genesis (video by CMI, "footnotes" by me)

The Koran vs Genesis - (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-21)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLxNYmB5P8w

4:09 "six earth rotation days" - obviously the part, if I may nitpick a little of "earth rotating" is your interpretation of what happened/happens according to heliocentrism.

Not saying anything against length, but the creation account also does fit a geocentric cosmology.

14:43 Muslims generally have a hard time grasping history.

I can write on my blog of such and such a clearly historical saint (like St Bathilde who abolished slavery in the Frankish kingdom) and after that get looks and hints etc as if I were somehow "extra gullible" in believing such a thing as history, especially with a saint included.

If you know Ford's dictum "history is bunk" that is pretty close to what I have seen of the Muslim attitude.

16:48 Islam is opposite extreme to Mazdaism. The latter religion claims the "forbidden food" was eating the meat of cows as opposed to just drinking their milk. And says one is combatting sin by being lactovegetarian.

20:59 Once in a prison, I sat at the table among Muslims (there were four of them out of a total of ten). One of them mentioned Ramadan, saying it was commemorating the virtues of Mohammed and adding "if some man could be called son of God, it would be Mohammed".

Which I contradicted. Of course.

Whereupon they started threatening and then one of them went up to guards and tipped me off as being "suicidal" for "provoking Muslims".

I wasn't even hit, all they wanted was to have me stamped as mentally unstable.

And oh boy have non-Muslims complied, since!

21:55 I distinguish: a missionary must indeed show the gentleness. However, a Christian ruler may give him military protection. Beating Moctezuma was neither in itself a direct act of obedience to the great commission (and Cortez, being no priest, was no successor of the apostles to which the commission was given), nor an act of disobedience, either. Spain as a nation already reached by the Gospel had the right to give military help to the priest whom Moctezuma had insulted and threatened.

Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed. Update: no he wasn't. Getting tired, that is.

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F

On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You said: "But cite me any large bone bed where you have two bone beds, one Permian under one Triassic one. And "Karoo" will not do, since an area and not just a location."

You keep changing your requirements. First you just wanted examples where Permian fossils were below dinos. Which I provided from Kansas (the dinos are both stratigraphically and topographically above the Pelycosaurs). This was not good enough. Then you said they had to be from the same area. I provided an example from the Karoo area. This was not good enough, you wanted a specific location. I provided two specific locations. This has everything you wanted. And now you say this is not good enough. Bone beds of course are rare. But vertebrate fossils are not. The specific locations in the Karoo basin should work. You will not find these in the internet sources, but there are many papers detailing the species collected in the Permain and Triassic, with no overlap of species.

You said: " For instance of the "several" localities in Karoo area, you named two, Burgersdorp and 30 km from Janesenville, but forgot to mention what exact clearly Permian* fossil was found beneath waht exact clearly Triassic* one. I looked it up and found nothing like that."

I provided references that you can read. These fossil locations are prolific. And I did provide genus names in earlier posts.

I said "And certainly not one holotype per species except for exceptionally rare species."

Of course I meant, it is exceptionally rare that a species would be represented by a holotype and one or two additional specimens. Many dinos are represented by dozens to hundreds of specimens.

Thus looking only at holotype localities will only reveal a fraction of the actual data on vert fossils.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"You keep changing your requirements."

Not at all.

"First you just wanted examples where Permian fossils were below dinos. Which I provided from Kansas (the dinos are both stratigraphically and topographically above the Pelycosaurs)."

I was from the first using the common sense and not the geological stratigraphical definitions of over/under.

Kansas very obviously does not meet that. We are talking different counties.

"This was not good enough. Then you said they had to be from the same area. I provided an example from the Karoo area."

Did I really say area rather than location?

If so, my bad.

An area with different locations obviously does not meet the commonsense meaning of "over" and "under".

"I provided two specific locations."

Neither of which to the best of my sources contained a Permian land vertebrate straight under (recall the 45° angle requirement?) a Triassic one.

Still not meeting the criteria I originally gave with the meaning I also stated I meant them in.

"This has everything you wanted."

Except Burgersdorp contained on Palaeocritti only land vertebrates from one of the eras.

You provided nothing like a named fossil specimen from the other one, neither from Palaeocritti, nor from your paper sources or paid internet sources to which I have no access.

"The specific locations in the Karoo basin should work."

So far haven't.

"You will not find these in the internet sources, but there are many papers detailing the species collected in the Permain and Triassic, with no overlap of species."

How many of them are NOT land vertebrates?

Plus a real prejudice against "internet sources" as if people on palaeocritti site weren't good palaeontologists with good access to palaeontological literature.

"I provided references that you can read."

No, I can't unless you print or copy and send me. I already told you.

"And I did provide genus names in earlier posts."

Perhaps, but if so not in same location. Not same hole in the ground or only fortyfive degrees angle off (below surface, disregarding the slant of the hill slope).

"Of course I meant, it is exceptionally rare that a species would be represented by a holotype and one or two additional specimens"

I think you are wrong.

At least when we talk of decently catalogued specimens. Palaeocritti site does a good job specifying how many remains.

"Many dinos are represented by dozens to hundreds of specimens."

Dozens, yes, occurs. T Rex has thirty skeletons according to palaeocritti site.

Probably meaning correctly described ones.

"Thus looking only at holotype localities will only reveal a fraction of the actual data on vert fossils."

Not in the case of many Permian species. One or two specimens are NOT uncommon.

I think, to sum up, your geological outlook misleads you in palaeontology.

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The basic rules of stratigraphy and biostratigraphy have been confirmed numerous times, and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration. This supports a world-wide multi-billion dollar industry. You, on the other hand, keep raising the bar. Every time I presented the evidence you requested, you changed the requirements. Everything you asked for as evidence to support a long earth history exists. If you choose to believe the earth is 6.000 yrs old, that is your choice, and I support freedom of religion. But the physical evidence contradicts this view. 

Hans Georg Lundahl

"The basic rules of stratigraphy and biostratigraphy have been confirmed numerous times, and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration."

But petroleum exploration is not the major scientific contribution to palaeontology, especially as far as land vertebrates are concerned.

You admitted yourself that drill cores differ from holes (dug by spade by a palaeontologist) by the fact of being smaller in diameter, and that is damning when it comes to a driller's pretentions to teach land vertebrate palaeontology.

"and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration. This supports a world-wide multi-billion dollar industry."

That is irrelevant.

A business may be successful, though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology.

"You, on the other hand, keep raising the bar. Every time I presented the evidence you requested, you changed the requirements."

You are lying.

My requirements have always been:

• land vertebrates identifiable as from different eras, periods, epochs
• separated by strictly vertical digging.

"Everything you asked for as evidence to support a long earth history exists."

Except the specific requirement you forgot more than once while touting "rules of stratigraphy" instead, which I was not ever accepting.

In other words, everything I asked for exists - except the specific thing I asked for.

"If you choose to believe the earth is 6.000 yrs old, that is your choice, and I support freedom of religion. But the physical evidence contradicts this view. "

You have so far not shown any one pair of items related the way I asked for weeks ago.

In Kansas you had a pelycosaur and a dinosaur - but in different counties.

In the overcrops of Burgersdorp and of 30 km from Janesensville you have the verticality, but so far not two species on either place.

Giving me one example which fulfils one half of my requirements and another one which fulfils the other half does not amount to giving me even one example that simply fulfils my requirements.

Appeal to Other Readers

It seem obvious to me by now that Howard F is going to try again and again to substitute a stratigraphical for a local above and below, since he feels confident shellfish strata contain essential information for land vertebrates.

It should be obvious both to him and to others that I disagree. Anyone have any info on:

• land vertebrates identifiable as from different eras, periods, epochs
• separated by strictly vertical digging?

Update

after checking the notifications from youtube.

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "But petroleum exploration is not the major scientific contribution to palaeontology,"

False. The field of biostratigraphy was pioneered by petroleum geologists. It was petroleum geologists who started the Journal of Paleontology. Though, not for vertabrates. However, biostrat works for all the small invertebrates and plant pollen and spores. Don't you think it would be an amazing coincidence if the only group it did not work for is land vertebrates?

"A business may be successful, though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology."

False again. The whole point is not ideology, but making predictions. Stratigraphy and the concept of an ancient earth is at the core of concepts used to make predictions that are then used to drill expensive oil wells. I have yet to see a method using the Flood model to make any practical predictions of where to find oil.

More later, going out of town for a few days.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Though, not for vertabrates."

Thanks, that is an admission.

"However, biostrat works for all the small invertebrates and plant pollen and spores. Don't you think it would be an amazing coincidence if the only group it did not work for is land vertebrates?"

As said, if small invertebrates invariably come in certain layers that are invariably attached to those of land vertebrates when observable, God could have given the demons that much leeway of artistic liberty for deception, and no more, during Flood.

I do not only think the Bible is right there was a Flood but also the Catholic Church is right waters need exorcism. During the Flood nearly all of the Earth was haunted by demons enjoying the destruction they had been building up for by deceiving men to provoke the Flood. The one exception was the Ark. Wonderfully protected by God, wonderfully protected by his angels.

So, demons could very well back then have plotted another deception, and the same persons who did marvellous artwork with deceptive intent would later marvel at how easily Lyell and the rest fell for it.

"The whole point is not ideology, but making predictions. Stratigraphy and the concept of an ancient earth is at the core of concepts used to make predictions that are then used to drill expensive oil wells."

Stratigraphy as you use it where you use it may very well be essential - the long earth concept is a superfluous extra about how those strata came to be there. So, "though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology" being what I said, I submit that the old earth part is the flawed part of your stratigraphy.

You really do not NEED to come back again.

You have time after time lowered the rib and you sound like an annoying sales man.

Do enjoy the stay out of town! Prolong it if you want to. Have a life.

But, when it comes to making me lower the rib about vertically above and below on the same spot, I prefer you do not come back except with an admission that nothing meets my criteria (which is an argument for me) or you have a new proposal supposedly meeting my criteria, which I'd be surprised if they really did, but I might enjoy ripping it to pieces.