Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: July 2016

Saturday, July 30, 2016

... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible · 4) back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed · 5) ... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed · 6) ... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

Video commented on :: How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 39 Flood Stories Worldwide
Tony Reed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebwHoUBSyXs
I: We know that the details of these stories change (around 2:00) ...

Uh oh ... we do NOT know they change so as to magnify obvious local floods into a global one covering all the then highest mountains.
II: 3:56 a bit hasty ... "only five stories" (or whatever) "feature survivors landing on a mountain meaning the rest cannot be about world wide floods".

Well, the Peruvian pretty obviously was about a world wide flood from which only Andes stuck up. I agree Andes and Himalaya would have stuck up if as high back then as afterwards. If half the height of the Andes is covered, that means the Flood cannot be local. Still, the survivors didn't LAND on a mountain. They CLIMBED up on it.

In the Norse story, there is no account of exactly WHERE the (in that case non-human) survivors landed, only it was in Utgard. All the world existing between Muspelheim and Niflheim in the middle of Ginnungagap where they had lived was flooded by the blood of Ymer - until Odin, Vile and Vé created Earth and probably both Asgard above and Utgard below it, but at least Earth from Ymer's body, hanging in the world tree Yggdrasil the ash. It happens to agree with Biblical Flood story that giants were a major target when God / the gods wanted to kill off pre-Flood population. It even agrees with some extra-Biblical legends about it in saying "Noah"/"Bergelmer" was a giant. Also, it is lopsided to quibble on insignificance of all stories being stories about World Wide Floods, when Flood stories was what they compared.

There is significance in these being there. A human survivor is not strictly needed, there was none in the Norse story, since men in it were created after the Flood and creation of Earth.
III: 5:11 Eretz and Terra are both ambiguous as glosses, meaning both Earth (as a whole) and (a particular) land. Context however excludes a merely "landwide" Flood. All the highest mountains were covered. There was at least 15 cubits of water above the highest ones.
IV: 5:32 We Biblical Creationists who do accept Flood stories around Earth as corroborative evidence for Noah's Flood also do accept the stories about a long day or a long night as corroborating Joshua's long day.

Some of us are also Geocentrics, and therefore do NOT agree Earth changed rotational activity, but think it hasn't got any in the first place. Sun and moon stopped, not only as text says from eyewitness account, but also as Joshua had said they should.

Otherwise this would have been a unique occasion on which words of miracle maker don't match the actual workings of the miracle.
V: 5:48 Science cannot prove and not always disprove history.

Commonality of world wide stories is on the contrary a very strong argument.
VI: Around 6:00 - it is true ancient stories do not predict future observations of same events.

Or even of VERY similar ones, unlike the predictions one can make by science.

But that is not how history is proven anyway.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed (update : and others)

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible · 4) back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed · 5) ... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed · 6) ... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon 14 dating?

You might enjoy this:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Letter A of ex oriente - I - preliminary to recalibrating
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/02/letter-of-ex-oriente-i-preliminary-to.html

Tony Reed

What was I supposed to enjoy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A Creationist redating of Natufian etc. cultures.

Using one of my own recalibrations of the C14 method.

As you may know, if only x is left, that means so many thousand years old. 35% > 8000.

So, if at a certain period there were only 35%, organic things that were breathing back then (wood or other plant derivatives felled orharvested back then, dead or killed men or animals), they get 8000+ years "for free" - by the dating method not taking possibility of C14 rise into account.

Now, I did one scenario of at what pace this could have happened, in French essay here:

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

And I used that exact scenario to readjust Natufian into the Biblical timescale. In the English essay I just linked to.

Tony Reed

Imagine that.

You calibrated your measurements to coincide with your preconclusion and then present them as if I should be surprised that they coincide with your preconclusion.

Well done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

I am just showing that C14 CAN be calibrated so as to agree with Biblical chronology.

I am giving more than one redating (though I linked only one to you here) according to that table, so far neither of two things has happened:

1) I have not found something in my conclusion which I considered totally absurd;
2) an evolutionist archaeologist having access to my redating has not either found anything he considers absurd (or nothing apart from my departure from evolutionist scenario).

In other words, I have proven (preliminarily and so far) that Carbon 14 levels in old objects CAN be reconciled with Biblical timescale. In other words, I have proven that C14 has not disproven the Biblical timescale.

Tony Reed

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Like I said. You calibrated it to match your predetermined conclusion. Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Ignoring the fact that this calibration also affects items of known age"

Such as?

"and that your recalibration can not be cross-checked with other dating methods."

Can - in any historically known item - your calibration of C14 be so cross checked?

And others

The exchange with Tony Reed is marked as 2 years ago, the following as 1 year ago.

frankos rooni

Yeah --convincing
Show us your peer reviewed paper in a credible journal and then we might take you a little more seriously

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That article presumes several things which are not absolutely guaranteed to be accurate and on which any creationist, including me, would say they are inaccurate.

1) That carbon dating is only affected by fluctuations around present level, not by a major rise;
2) That tree ring dating accurately goes back to 14000 years.
3) That the Japanese lake accurately shows traces of 50000 years.

With C14, I already pointed out the difficulty, with tree rings, it is a question of which matches you choose, with lake a question of how often the layers are laid down (present and past, which need not go together).

So, for not detecting those flaws in the method, Scientific American is perhaps supposed to lose credibility as a journal? I give very little for the peer reviewers either intelligence or honesty, if not detecting and signalling those problems. To do their intelligence justice, I think they are just being dishonest, primarily with themselves, about anything which could point to the, by them, so hated creationist paradigm.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually flaws in C14 dating have already been addressed

You seem to think that scientists just "assume" vasts amount of data without cross referencing it

That is absurd bearing in mind the numerous dating techniques used , and the fact there are blind tests on most of them

However your problems are far deeper

A 6000 yr old planet is so absurd that most scientists would not even bother to counter it

One has though and you are so wildly wrong

Scientific evidences from every discipline for an old earth
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Sorry , but science says 4.5b --live with it

[Note : he considers a writer on rationalwiki as a scientist without further checking!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You seem to think that scientists just 'assume' vasts amount of data without cross referencing it"

In many cases they have to.

"That is absurd bearing in mind the numerous dating techniques used"

Not when you bear in mind that most are inapplicable to any given dating.

"and the fact there are blind tests on most of them"

Some of which on Mount St Helens were very discrediting.

"However your problems are far deeper A 6000 yr old planet is so absurd that most scientists would not even bother to counter it One has though and you are so wildly wrong"

So you pretend.

"Sorry , but science says 4.5b --live with it"

That would be Uranium Lead dating of meteorites.

Which meteorites have not been cross examined by say C14 or even Ka-Ar.

As for article, I'll probably read it later and make a list of my own taking into account each evidence offered and countering it - on my own or referring to Creationist experts.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wild assumptions based on nothing more than your opinions
Supply actual evidence and make sure it is from credible sources

1) Why did they use inappropriate tests on Mt St Helens
Cite your sources and their peer reviewed papers
2) Actually dating techniques are basic physics
If you have a credible paper which says that radioactivity can be heavily affected by pressure or heat do show me
3) Show me your article on dating meteorites

Why do you not show any links on your posts ?
Very annoying

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why did they use inappropriate tests on Mt St Helens"

How do you know the tests on Laetoli lavas are not similarily inappropriate?

One test, like another, involved Ka-Ar dating.

"Actually dating techniques are basic physics"

Part of them, perhaps.

"If you have a credible paper which says that radioactivity can be heavily affected by pressure or heat do show me"

Show me with a citation where in my comment I said that as the flaw of U-Pb-dating? I did say: which meteorites have not been cross examined by say C14 or even Ka-Ar, which is true enough and appropriate answer to your previous claim it has all been cross examined by different methods.

I did not say that my doubts about U-Pb are mainly about radioactive decay being affected by pressure or heat.

"Show me your article on dating meteorites"

I think that was wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating

Lead me here, sorry, led me here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Why_meteorites_were_used

_______________________________
An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.[33] The quoted age of Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research.

Most geological samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth from the solar nebula because Earth has undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.

All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter nuclide (a species of atom characterised by the number of neutrons and protons an atom contains) or an intermediate daughter nuclide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an isochron. Alternatively, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date.

Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed.[34] Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed.[citation needed] To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.
____________________________
...
The text here leads (!) to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93lead_dating

"There are three stable "daughter" Pb isotopes that result from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in nature; they are 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb. 204Pb is the only non-radiogenic lead isotope, therefore is not one of the daughter isotopes."

OK, no radioactive decay leads to lead 204, but the question which is salient about this issue of 4~sth billion years is : can lead-206, 207 and 208 ever be there without resulting from radioactive decay?

If not, we can start discussing how you measure a decay rate as slow as that one, but for starters, prove that lead-206 invariably comes from uranium-238 and never was anywhere to start with.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Lovely --all your links confirm that radiometric dating is both reliable and that the earth is truly ancient
So why are you arguing otherwise??

It appears you ignored the data on early volcanic reactions on earth?

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

On top of that you have ignored the rather obvious fact that many of these dating techniques are not only cross reference with similar ones but totally different methods as well

https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work

So is every point of data somehow wrong???

This is an absurd argument and you lost decades ago

Just move on and accept the planet is not 6000 years old

Jesus wept !!!

BTW --instead of boring people like me with your nonsense on yourtube why aren't you addressing actual scientists with your half baked idea??

We are done --have fun selling your nonsense to real scientists lol

[Note : he just confessed to not being a scientist, right?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Lovely --all your links confirm that radiometric dating is both reliable and that the earth is truly ancient"

A very global and superficial conclusion. You did not go into the details I argued about.

"So why are you arguing otherwise??"

Because while author of article obviously concluded your way, he/they gave facts about method which to me conclude the other way.

"It appears you ignored the data on early volcanic reactions on earth?"

The link you gave says this: If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant.

A big "if". Their next sentence is: The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured.

That is supposing that all parent atom of parent element (like Potassium 40) remain in sample and that all of daughter element in sample (like Argon 40) really is made up exclusively of daughter atoms, which once were parent atoms. Also a huge "if".

*Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events." = Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are traceably altered, traceably contaminated, or traceably disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

"On top of that you have ignored the rather obvious fact that many of these dating techniques are not only cross reference with similar ones but totally different methods as well"

The link you give is a biassed anti-Creationist one.

I did shortly peruse it and did not find one item where two different techniques had been cross referenced with same sample and great difference.

Unless you mean K-Ar with history. I am not at all certain on how many samples were taken on Etna, and I am certain there is a freemasonry in Italy which would be happy to fake results making the theory look reliable, after Mount St Helens. But supposing the things they say on Etna are correct, the last lava flow has there been exposed to the air for centuries, which would give an opportunity for excess Argon 40 to leak out. In Mount St Helen's there has not been that time - and in Flood event eruptions, the lava has been too quickly covered with other layers, making sure there is not the air.

"BTW --instead of boring people like me with your nonsense on yourtube why aren't you addressing actual scientists with your half baked idea?? We are done --have fun selling your nonsense to real scientists lol"

Unfortunately for your idea, the scientists are in a glass tower these days - at least when it comes to creationists, and very especially when it comes to THIS creationist.

If you can get a real scientist to do the debate, I'll be happy. But the one on the video gave up when he saw I did not consider miracles as explanations which are out of the question. So, basically he lives in a glass tower too. At least when debating me a few weeks. Or, after that.

frankos rooni

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes science is biased against creationism , flat earthers and geocentrists too

Most scientists have no interest in debating someone like you that automatically ignores the data and cherry picks his own because they are actually doing genuine research

GIGO --creationism in a nutshell

Saying that igneous rock contains unknown proportions of parent daughter atoms is silly , we know not only from basic physics but from recent and less recent volcanoes that this is a fact

This article makes that pretty clear and also details the different types and their ratios

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

It also cross references the different igneous samples because you were too lazy to too this up for some reason

Babbling on about free masons and institutional bias when you clearly have no intenetion of doing any honest research into this topic makes you just sound absurd

I suggest you actually read this article by a bible believing christian who finds you creationists not only embarrassing but a hinderance to encouraging new christian scientists

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I'm also curious as to how you think isotopes "leak out" of sealed igneous lava flows

See his explanation

Odd logic you got there

It appears you are at odds with the actual experts and perhaps might need to give them a ring

Your Mt St Helens creationist claims are garbage of course by so called expert "Dr" Steve Austin (a man with no qualifications in geology at all)

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

The dishonesty displayed by these clowns is almost comical

We are done --you are far too lazy to do any actual research of your own , so why should I do it for you???

Get an actual education in this subject or stop making claims

[My answers back then missed that Steve Austin actually has qualifications in preciselu geology, "francos rooni" was ignorant or bluffing. Since he was no real scientist, he could be ignorant.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Usually, we know the amount, N, of an isotope present today, and the amount of a daughter element produced by decay, D*."

Well, but this sentence does NOT tell how we "know" that all D* really is from N.

I am reading on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Read on a bit:
________________
"We still don't know 87^Sr0 , the amount of 87^Sr daughter element initially present.
To account for this, we first note that there is an isotope of Sr, 86^Sr, that is:

(1) non-radiogenic (not produced by another radioactive decay process),
(2) non-radioactive (does not decay to anything else).
Thus, 86^Sr is a stable isotope, and the amount of 86^Sr does not change through time

If we divide equation (4) through by the amount of 86^Sr, then we get:
We can measure the present ratios of (87^Sr/86^Sr)t and (87^Rb/86^Sr)t with a mass spectrometer, thus these quantities are known.
The only unknowns are thus (87^Sr/86^Sr)0 and t.
__________________________

So far I follow, and do not see a real opening for dating.

THE REST of Rb/Sr discussion is beyond me.

reading on ...

The discussion on discordia and concordia for U, Th, Pb is similarily above my head.

What is not is, I don't see any way of knowing there was no Sr other than 86^Sr and no lead other than 204^Pb to start with.

That these of themselves NEVER result from radioactive decay does not mean the other isotopes always do so.

If the complex mathematical discussions are meant to imply a way of getting around that, I don't see how it could do that.

Do you have a site (on your side, since you mistrust all and everything coming from RATE) which explains exactly what the equations are supposed to relate to in real life?

nikolaneberemed

Hans, what convinced you to depart from atheism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Excuse me, when was I ever exactly an "atheist"?

As a child* I was a pagan agnostic and evolutionbeliever, but not a believing atheist.

I got a New Testament from my mother and the instruction that it was true, not just a storybook.

As I had never been atheist, I never found a reason to doubt that.

It gave me, especially when later reading Old Testament, starting from Genesis, reason to ask questions about evolution, esp. if there was a way to match timescales (day-age, gap theory were more or less the lines I was thinking of), and concluded there wasn't really. I also had other problems with evolution, as I came to conclude that (even as a tool of God, or am I projecting back?) evolution would be stimied by irreducible complexity problems, about origin of human language and origin of genetic code.

So, the question was a bit badly put, since I never was exactly an atheist.

* Previous to nine.

nikolaneberemed

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You seem confused about the terminology. The prefix a- in the English language means 'not' or 'without'. Atheist means not theist. You can think of it as a Venn diagram. It's just a paper with a circle on it. The whole paper represents all the people. The people inside the circle hold some god beliefs while the people outside the circle do not. Everyone who believes in any god is inside the circle, everyone else is outside. Theists are inside the circle, atheists are outside. And every person ever was born outside the circle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can repeat and repeat your equivocation of identifying falsely positive tenets of Western Atheism with simple fact of non-Theism. They are not the same.

nikolaneberemed

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry if it offends you in any way, but that's just how English language and logic work. The prefix a- in English is the same as ¬ in logic. At any rate, newborns hold no god beliefs. So they are non-believers if that word makes you more comfortable. What caused you to depart from the default position, from being a non-believer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The meaning of "atheism" is not only defined by the rules of derivation of English.

If you call someone a pedophile, do you mean he is a friend of school age children?

As to small children being absolutely non-believers, I don't think so. They can have faith, if baptised, or seeds of faith, if (as in my case) not yet baptised.

... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible · 4) back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed · 5) ... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Geological column?

You might enjoy this:

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html
Tony Reed: What was I supposed to enjoy?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: My series of a kind of inquest into the geological column.
Tony Reed: Your scholarship is lacking. Your inquest seems to ignore observed geological forces and their effects on how topography changes exposing subterranean layers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: My inquest is about "geological column", but it is not about its GEOLOGICAL aspect (which I come seriously too only with your videos), but its PALAEONTOLOGICAL ones.

I would very much have liked to call it "palaeontological column", but the usual name is "geological column".

That doesn't mean every inquest in it has to be geological, mine is palaeontological.
Tony Reed: +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry buddy.
Geology is a factor whether you like it or not.
For your model to be viable, you must allow for it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am not disallowing geology.

I am just using another angle.

Perfectly licit.

Next trick from your hat?
Tony Reed: Take whatever angle you want. You are still discounting geological effects.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I am not "discounting" them, I was in that series just not counting them.

Discounting would mean it depends on counting geological effects as not having happened, which I did not do.
Tony Reed: Yes you are.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Nope, I referred to someone else for explaining them.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

... against Pell on Evolution

Catholic Cardinal George Pell admits he believes in evolution, so where does the church stand?
Adam Heidingsfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv0LVRKjt2U

0:08 "From Neanderthals"?

As in "Neanderthals are not fully human" or sth? Or, were?

0:38 "x is extinct" does NOT mean "y evolved from x".

If one could conclusively prove:

a) x and y not being the same (and Neanderthals are simply human, so in this case they are) BUT close enough for one to evolve from other
b) x already being around at a certain time
c) AND y not yet being around at that time
d) AND not an as close or perhaps even closer z which y could have evolved from instead of from x

THEN one could say with some confidence "probably y evolved from x".

Pell believes in a "scientific" Evolution Narrative he doesn't master even the pseudo-science, let alone the part of real science of!

What Pell was getting at in the reply interrupted before 1:03 was this: "Neanderthals evolved before humans" (as in Neanderthals are not really human). Yes, so the Evolutionary Storyline actually goes.

Usually with this twist:

Homo Heidelbergensis first had a branch which evolved into Neanderthals;
Homo Heidelbergensis then had another branch which evolved into humans;
Then both Homo Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals died off, leaving humans behind.

On a Creationist view, "homo sapiens humans" (as if the rest were not human or homo sapiens) are as much descended from Adam and Eve as "Neanderthal humans" and "Homo Heidelbergensis humans".

All of which are grossly misdated to involve time for evolution to happen and by methods which are not reliable, either at all (as in Potassium Argon) or too far back (as with usual calibration of C14).

So, Neanderthals "evolved before humans" does NOT even on evolutionary terms mean "humans evolved from Neanderthals".

1:46 If Pell tried to have an intelligent conversation with Australopithecus Africanus (said to have developed in South Africa, as mentioned), he might NOT find a human soul in it.

1:52 But there are no drawings left by Australopithecus Africanus!

1:57 "no such thing from Neanderthals"?

Music instruments? Burial of dead? Really no such things?

C'mon!

You are not so much insulting the creationist in me as the ex-evolutionist, Pell!

2:07 "there must have been a first one"

And a book which the predecessors from which your Church apparently evolved a few decades ago considered and still (insofar as it survives) considers the word of God, that first man not only has a name (and his wife's name is mentioned too), but a lifespan, and a date at which the lifespan of the son from which we descend was born too.

Adam was obviously created 5199 years BC if Christ was born Anno Mundi 5199, as we say at Christmas!

2:24 Adam means Earth, Eve means Life. Ergo, "'Adam and Eve' means everyman".

Nero comes from the same noun root as Greek aner.

Perhaps there never was a KAISAP NEPON after all, perhaps that just means "everymale"?

And Peter means stone, perhaps there never was any St Peter either, since there was no Nero to crucify him?

C'mon!

2:31 "a mythological account"

You are as myth-educated about myths as about evolution, apostate Pell!

"Myth" does not per se specify whether it belongs to fact or fiction, any more than epic or drama do.

2:49 "to try to explain the evil and suffering"

To the Church which your community "evolved" from a few decades ago, Genesis chapter 3 DOES factually and adequately explain evil and suffering.

In Catechism of St Pius X there is not a trace of "try to explain" and "sophisticated mythological way".

Genesis 3 ALSO contains a promise about the Blessed Virgin Mary (3:15).

On Pell's "evolved" view presumably that promise was not literally pronounced by God either!

3:25 Pell was not sure God had written the ten commandments.

Here is what God / The Lord told Moses:

Exodus 24:[12] And the Lord said to Moses: Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and the law, and the commandments which I have written: that thou mayst teach them.

Dawkins bumps in with, actually a bit of sense:

4:07 "if Adam and Eve never existed, where did original sin come from" - hear, hear!

4:32 "there never was a last Homo Erectus who gave birth to a first Homo Sapiens"

How true, if both are simply human!

4:49 "it was always a case of just a slightly different from previous generation"

Which is a good reason not to believe evolution happened, from ape to man, from fish to lizard, from one-celled to many-celled, to name a few of the steps which defy this logic, if common descent were allowed.

6:09 a human has a soul, a principle of life, which is ... "immensely more sophisticated"?

The spot on is, "ontologically different, because a spirit"!

A few decades ago, Catholic Truth Society would have been ashamed of allowing you to speak, Pell!

7:53 A sceptic about the human contribution to dangerous climate change!

Wow, one good point for Pell!

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

... on Erdogan probably not being THE Antichrist but someone else being so

And in original version of the draft, I got 3 consecutive figures 6 in the post-ID. I deleted it for sake of readers, but I am not hiding the fact.

Video:

Erdogan Survives Coup! Antichrist Can't Die!
thirdeaglebooks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzFXl-l8b5k

My initial comment:

How do you tie Erdogan numerologically to Apocalypse 13:18? You can get ties for Putin (WLADIMIRA, V POUTINE), Bergoglio, Ben Rhodes (both all capitals, no space for Ben), for 666 value. You can get ties for Hitler, Silvia, Hovind for 616 value. And the 616 value depends on an upper case value of 456 which can by atbash inversion give 474, which will if rendered all lower case be 666. You also get 666 for C P Snow, for d bowie, for the cog, for COGGAYBEY - a Scanian pronunciation of KGB. And Putin can be tied to "the cog" via "cog gay Bey" = KGB, while Bergoglio can be tied to "the cog" by being Rotarian, notoriously so. As for d bowie, it's not the man's real name, but David Bowie was just an artist name. And in his art, he sang of "Ground control to major Tom", and you can tie Putin in no uncertain terms to space programs. I believe Tower of Babel was a precocious space program. If Putin furthers the space race or even just one sided space program, he might for that reason be reverting to the stupidity of Nimrod on the plain of Shinar, probably Göbekli Tepe. But perhaps you can tie Erdogan numerologically to 666? I can't.

For Putin, let's not forget VLADIMIRB - B as in "the second". A Vladimir Vladimirovich, unless his father was also Vladimir Vladimirovich, in which case it would be the third, is a Vladimir II in his family. Putin is also Vladimir II in post-Czarist Russia, after Lenin. Putin is also in a way Vlad II in the fight against Turkish Moslems - after the Roumanian Vlad Tepec.

WLADIMIRA
876677786
765837325

V POUTINE
838788776
620954389

VLADIMIRB
876677786
665837326

Details of counting:

8+7+6+6+7+7+7+8+6=620
7+6+5+8+3+7+3+2+5=046

8+3+8+7+8+8+7+7+6=620
6+2+0+9+5+4+3+8+9=046

8+7+6+6+7+7+7+8+6=620
6+6+5+8+3+7+3+2+6=046

Inserting in each case a 0 after the results in the tens row, a 0 before it in the units row.

And Vladimir Putin's father was NOT a Vladimir Vladimirovich, so he is Vladimir II, not III.

Here is what I get with Erdogan:

R 82
T 84 160 6
E 69 220 15
R 82 300 17
D 68 360 25
O 79 430 34
G 71 500 35
A 65 560 40
N 78 630 48.

RTERDOGAN is 678. NOT the number mentioned in Apocalypse 13:18.

Building on from RTERDOGAN?

Twice ". "

078
078
____
156
678
____
834

6*32 for lower case letters in Erdogan:

0192
0834
1026

Hmmm ... this IS a funny value. 1026 is also the value of: "Papa Franjo" Croatian for "Pope Francis". It is 666+360. One can read 360 as 360°. And thus 666+360 as beginning as Antichrist, turning away from it and going, not just 180° straight opposite, but actually full circle and coming back to it. What if o were replaced by ö, the real letter in his name?

1026
0079
0947
0246
1193

No, 1193 is not very suspicious to me - unless you have a tip. Also, I do not think the value of Papa Franjo would be sufficient without the confirmation in BERGOGLIO. As we speak of false Popes. Benedictus has a Greek transscription which numerologically (traditionally, Greek gematria) is 500+150+16. So, of all Benedicts apparently on the throne of St Peter - and usually really - "B16" would be sth to look out for. BUT, in Portuguese and ASCII Code this gets a confirmation. Check out PAPABENTO. No space, English alphabet going from A=65 to Z=90.

thirdeaglebooks

Where do you find any place in the Bible that authorizes gematria?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+thirdeaglebooks
Apocalypse 13:18 very clearly speaks of gematria, and also tradition takes this place as referring to gematria.

thirdeaglebooks

Revelation 13:18 says nothing about assigning numbers to letters. 666 is the number of a man; it represents man (2) over God (3), 2/3=.666.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) St Irenaeus, as reported by Eusebius, does say "the syllables of his name add up to that number" - and he had it from St Polycarp, who had it from St John, who had it from God;
2) St Hippolytus goes out of his way to say not everyone who has 666 in his gematria is Antichrist - but never says Antichrist hasn't.

He does specify some gematrias which he considers as especially suspect, among them TEITAN and LATEINOS.

Silvia has both these in her full name.

Putin has LATIN and IMIR - Ymir being one primal frost titan in Norse myth.

Bergoglio has MAGOG instead of LATIN and GEBOR instead of Titan.

Funny that Bergoglio who seemingly IS a Latin has Magog in his name, while Putin who seemingly is of Magog tribes, has Latin in his name.
3) 2/3 of 1000 is either 666 or 667. 1/3 is 333. And 333 adds up better with 667 to 1000.

On the other hand, 0.666 is only the good way of writing 2/3 if
- a) you decide on decimals
- b) you limit them to 3 decimals.
Also, these decimals are usually not pronounced 6-hundred 6-ty 6.

As to Gilgamesh being Nimrod, 2/3 "god" is perhaps less distinctive as a clue than Nimrod Ben Kush = 666 in Hebrew letters.
4) If Gematria had been bad, it would have been condemned.

Epistle of St Barnabas and Jews had a dispute of what it was meant when Abraham won a victory through 318 of his men.

318 =
300 = T = Cross
18 = IH = IHCOYC

318 = Eliezer.

BOTH readings support Catholicism. It is both about the Cross of Christ and in some degree about the Papacy - and St Peter was to Christ what Eliezer was to Abraham.

ALSO, I am not arbitrarily ASSIGNING numeric values to letters.

I take it, it must be a conventional system.

Greek and Hebrew letters served as numerals in normal mathematics with these two peoples.

ASCII-Code is in use in EVERY Computer over the world right now.

Friday, July 15, 2016

... on Radiometric Dating

... on Geological Column

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 16 The Geological Column
Tony Reed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKWuEcFheQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Geological column? You might enjoy this:

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

Tony Reed:
What was I supposed to enjoy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl:
My series of a kind of inquest into the geological column.

2:44 Actually there is also sorting during a flow. With alternate layers heavy and light. Confer the work of ... was it the Pole Maciej Giertych or someone he cited? Either way, two types of sand, different grain size and different colours to distinguish these, were mixed and poured along a rapidly flowing stream of water through a glass tunnel, one could watch dark and light layers alternate as they formed.During fullspeed, near horizontal, flow.

3:12 I think I saw a diagram with mentions "sand, silt, gravel, sand silt, gravel" varying, as you said, not from heaviest to lightest - but according to that other variation, alternate layers through sorting during flow.

3:32 Layers running perpendicular. Stage one - one strong flow forms nether layer at one angle. Stage two: stream changes, the lower deposits are cut off on their top by new stream which also deposits a layer - at another angle. Was that so hard for a Flood Geologist?

5:09 Flood as seen by Flood Geologists these days would actually qualify as a SERIES of Geological events, on more than one place.

7:22 Name fossil land vertebrate species from each part of column in Bonaparte Basin. Saying it has, for instance, Jurassic sediment, based on Jurassic shell fish index fossils, does not settle whether it contains any clearly Jurassic fauna - stillless whether there is Cretacean or Palaeocene or Miocene land vertebrate fauna above it or whether there is Triassic or Permian land fauna below it. It would seem quite a bit of the layers in Bonaparte Basin are petrol deposits. Not a place where you dig for fossils to find them in situ, on the right level.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate

1) [comments on] Testing Geocentrism, Part 2 · 2) Debate under one of my comments to previous · 3) Debate under three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part a · part b · part c · 4) Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me · 5) Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate · 6) Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Not correct to blame Bel-Shamharoth that I just "crashed" into your conversation. First I only wanted to add the "angel"-analogy with Vaia. Then my post became longer.

In my second post I thought most important is to make you aware yourself about your psychological motivations that take place NOT in your consciousness, but below. I am rather sure that for any person with deep faith it must be a hard and painful experience to find evidence that some parts of the faith are just in diametral conflict with reality how it is observed.

Now there are two possibilites: 1. Face the pain and accept the possibility that your faith IS (at least partly) just wrong. 2. Do ALL mindtricks man could do for NOT to face the pain.

In my opinion you chose (and stille choose every day) the second possibility.

And again the hint that someone like me who is in science because it works and for evidence I would feel very little pain (maybe none at all) if there was evidence for ANY of the thousands religions. But there is NONE. All the so called "evidence" that religious folks try to find in old books are pure interpretation-fantasy. But modern technology is NOT up to interpretation. Even if you would REJECT modern computer technology - it still works - even for YOU who reject it. The geocentries worldview has NO maths that would work. The modern astronomy has LOTS of results that work because of their math that is built up by the modern worldview that the earth is orbitting sun. Built a model that is BETTER than the existing one and that can provide all the solutions that science can.

This series shows enough examples what you would have to deal with. Bring a better scientific/math model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« Not correct to blame Bel-Shamharoth that I just "crashed" into your conversation. »

Could have been a collusion from start, but spontaneously you two took a tactic which has been explooited by Mormon missionaries for decades.

« First I only wanted to add the "angel"-analogy with Vaia. »

Again, as a Tolkien geek, I correct your terminology.

Vala. As in VALA. You are confusing with the other word Maia. And yes, Anar and Isil in Tolkien are only Maiar, not Valar.

Plus Quenya plural is in -r, for both words added to final vowel.

BBL to answer the rest.

[back:]

« In my second post I thought most important is to make you aware yourself about your psychological motivations that take place NOT in your consciousness, but below. »

1) I was not asking you to make me aware of anything.
2) If it is « below my consciousness » how can it be above yours ?

« I am rather sure that for any person with deep faith »

The phrase « deep faith » is not a Christian term. I do not know, nor want to know what it means, and I think you don't know the precise meaning either, you are playing (collectively with other guys using that « term ») on equivocations.

[At least not a Catholic term - perhaps Pentecostals and similar use phrases like "deep faith" and "shallow faith" where in the case of "shallow faith" a Catholic would be more inclined to speak about heresy or apostasy.]

« it must be a hard and painful experience to find evidence that some parts of the faith are just in diametral conflict with reality how it is observed. »

Reality as it is actually OBSERVED (precise meaning of the term), as opposed to analysed by atheists and semi-atheist scientists, is Geocentric.

Armstrong and co. may or may not have walked on the Moon and seen the Earth turn around itself. At shorter range some astronauts pretty certainly have. But they are a drop in the sea against all the billions who observe reality from Earth and are therefore making Geocentric observations.

« Now there are two possibilites: »

There would have been two possibilities if your proposal about painful had been the case, perhaps.

« 1 . Face the pain and accept the possibility that your faith IS (at least partly) just wrong. »

How come you atheists never take that step ?

« 2. Do ALL mindtricks man could do for NOT to face the pain. »

How come you pretty universally take that step, including trying to stamp my positions and arguments as « mindtricks » ?

Among Atheists of the New Atheists type, as well as its precursors in Communist psychiatry.

« In my opinion you chose (and stille choose every day) the second possibility. »

Your opinion is worthless, since you start with analysing and have not conclusively ruled out the possibility I might be simply right.

« And again the hint that someone like me who is in science because it works and for evidence I would feel very little pain (maybe none at all) if there was evidence for ANY of the thousands religions. But there is NONE. All the so called "evidence" that religious folks try to find in old books are pure interpretation-fantasy. »

Oh boy ! Sweeping statements, but extremely little argumentational susbtance !

« But modern technology is NOT up to interpretation. »

It actually is.

Three options :

1) It works because of mechanisms necessary due to the ultimate structure of reality and therefore eternally necessary (basically your option) ;
2) It works because of mechanisms which God built into the material parts of His creation, freely, and since Creation, and in a suspendable way ;
3) It works only due to angelic or diabolical interference exploiting the actions of our engineers and hanging on to their beliefs.

I am for the second opinion with caution, not excluding the third.

« Even if you would REJECT modern computer technology - it still works - even for YOU who reject it. »

I am not rejecting it.

Since it would work on either of explanations 2 or 3, and not only on explanation 1, this has no bearing on the metaphysical question which of these interpretations is correct.

« The geocentries worldview has NO maths that would work. »

The Heliocentric as per Newtonian view has maths which has been shown not to work (at least not to my satisfaction) in the micro-model of Don Petit.

Whether we take age of Earth as 7000 or 4 billion years, that are LOTS more orbits than the 10 to 20 orbits each water droplet makes around a charged knitting needle.

« The modern astronomy has LOTS of results that work because of their math that is built up by the modern worldview that the earth is orbitting sun. »

I think it has lots of larger and better supports than this particular idea.

« Built a model that is BETTER than the existing one and that can provide all the solutions that science can. »

If you mean solutions about astronomy, I just did : angelic movers.

If you mean solutions about technology observable on Earth, none of it is depending on the idea that Earth is turning around itself or orbitting the Sun.

« This series shows enough examples what you would have to deal with. Bring a better scientific/math model. »

The fact is, whether angelic beings could or could not move the celestial bodies is NOT a per se mathematical problem.

Any orbit you could model on physical maths, they could be doing for aesthetic reasons.

So, you have shown confusion of categories.

PS, drop the psychological act.

There is no mathematical model for how to correctly empathise "pains" that are below the conscious level of the one supposed to feel and still not to feel them!

Except perhaps "how many are we shrinks and how many of our Christian opponents can we bully without too much of a backlash" - but that model is far from reliable.

Update

... and leaves.

BoothTheGrey

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I was not asking you to make me aware of anything."

If you dont want to discuss... why do you? Ah - I see - actually you do NOT want to discuss. You want to be RIGHT. You want to "proof" your "faith". That is NOT what science is about.

Take your better models and bring them to university... you will get a nice nobel price if it is really better. But we both know that they arent. These videos are full of what is wrong with such a model. And although you seem to be an intelligent person you are weird enough to keep your "faith" and throw away all the evidence.

The psychological question is FOR YOURSELF. Not for me.

Bye bye

P.S. I read Tolkien only in german and searched to short for english names. Sorry. But fine you tried to get also there on a strawman. How surprising...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the psychological question was certainly the thing on which I mentioned I had not asked you to be made aware of anything.

I do want to discuss.

I do want to have, before the public who reads, a match between two people both thinking each himself right on subject, one of them me.

Psychology is, I will not say for loosers, much worse, it is for "winners" - for people who think they will always win in any kind of concern about their persons.

I'd like to win personally, but I am not a winner.

Except perhaps in discussions, where it might be some fun losing for once in a while.

On to : Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/01/where-tolland-proves-himself-jerk.html

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me

Continued: from 3 part a.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "I'm toying with the idea of blocking you and you ill-thought-out arguments altogether. Please don't influence me to do so."

Not sure whether my saying so will influence you, but do. However, first, take a look at my blog where these debates are being mirrored.

[links to previous three]

A notification is sooner or later due, and if you had already blocked me, it would be hard to make one.
Bel-Shamharoth: +Hans-Georg Lundahl Good. Now I can let all your viewers know that you are a sham. You have no citations other than yourself, no evidence for anything you say except for some snippets of text and a two thousand year old tome about an angry, unjust, unloving and unforgiving god, and no reason for anyone outside your circle to believe you. If you insist on continuing your belief, then fine. In my experiences, online forums are the worst places to convince people of anything. But I will say that the only the ones who will believe you are the ones who are already convinced that you are correct. So hello to all your subscribers. Believe what you want, but don't expect to be vindicated any time soon.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Incidentally, I would like to say that I am rather upset that you recorded our conversations without my permission. While There is not much that can be done about it, and in the long run it really isn't a big deal, I fear that all you have accomplished is worsening my already bad mood. I do not like being recorded at all, let alone without my knowledge or permission, but as I mentioned, I have been in a bad mood lately, so what you have posted online is essentially me at my worst. Had the circumstances been different, perhaps I could have put up a better fight, but as it stands, I simply don't find it worth the effort. So I would also like to tell your viewers that I am far from an exemplar of the scientific viewpoint. I am just an asshole on YouTube that stupidly got himself into a fight that should never have happened. So if this is going on record, I would like to officially apologize for my behavior, and retire from this debate. I would also like to encourage people to do the research on their own and find out for themselves, and not to just believe the first thing they see on the internet.

P.S. I realize after the fact that this message is drastically different in tone to my previous one. Consider this one my true response. Again, I have been in a bad mood lately, so I have been irritable as a result.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Now I can let all your viewers know that you are a sham."

Readers.

"You have no citations other than yourself"

Linking to Riccioli. But you already said that.

"no evidence for anything you say"

Some things I say are not so much factual claims as logical observations, therefore do not need to be backed up by evidence - other than the one provided by my opponents.

"except for some snippets of text"

Which is evidence enough for what Riccioli thought. I am btw not referring to any by myself known original research on his part, he was in the cited volume simply an author of a standard work - Almagestum Novum being the last standard work of Geocentric Astronomy (not even Sungenis can take its place, since that is not a work "teaching astronomy" in all aspects, but a polemic about a limited number of contested points in it).

"and a two thousand year old tome about an angry, unjust, unloving and unforgiving god,"

Unforgiving is blatantly false, He forgave Peter's denial and Thomas' doubt and Mary Magdalen's sins against chastity and Matthew's and Zacchaeus' against economic honesty and the to us secret sins of the lame man.

Two thousand years old is a few decades too many for books of NT and millennia too few for oldest ones of OT.

"and no reason for anyone outside your circle to believe you."

Except the reasons I give by logical deductions from points raised by opponents, or commonly known.

Or in very few cases, shown to be historically accurate by some snippets of text. I linked to a work where the context of those snippets can be verified.

"If you insist on continuing your belief, then fine. In my experiences, online forums are the worst places to convince people of anything."

To convince opponents of anything.

We argue not just or even not mainly for each other, but to convince one or other silent person among readers.

"But I will say that the only the ones who will believe you"

But I am not asking people to "believe me" as some expert on little known fact or some key witness to sth seen by a few. I am asking my readers to reason - about points I raise.

"are the ones who are already convinced that you are correct."

If believing were the main issue, perhaps.

"So hello to all your subscribers."

On this blog it's myself and kathleen, I suppose kathleen will appreciate your politesse.

However, judging from stats, my daily readers are more than she and myself.

"Believe what you want, but don't expect to be vindicated any time soon."

Might depend on how much our arguments become known to the public.

Btw, I felt I was mainly vindicated when I saw the video with Don Petit's experiment. Perhaps not for the last time.

"Incidentally, I would like to say that I am rather upset that you recorded our conversations without my permission."

I did so with quite a few.

"While There is not much that can be done about it, and in the long run it really isn't a big deal, I fear that all you have accomplished is worsening my already bad mood."

Read sth you like then.

Like my opponents on other posts of same blog - or like sth not at all related to me.

"So I would also like to tell your viewers that I am far from an exemplar of the scientific viewpoint. I am just an asshole on YouTube that stupidly got himself into a fight that should never have happened."

I am reminded of Tom Trinko. A Catholic but a Heliocentric.

On top of the posts of our correspondence, I have published his statement:

I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

He and you believe if you had only been in a better mood or less tired or less irritated at myself, you could have won.

I am homeless. I have toothache, scabies, too little sleep, too irregular meals (not just too little, sometimes opposite), people who spit when passing me mornings and evenings beyond library opening hours when I beg.

And somehow I never felt the need to take this into any apology for my own show.

"So if this is going on record,"

It is.

"I would like to officially apologize for my behavior, and retire from this debate."

Both accepted.

"I would also like to encourage people to do the research on their own and find out for themselves, and not to just believe the first thing they see on the internet."

My sentiments too, except I would add classrooms and text books to "first things they see on etc.".

After all, on your view Almagestum Novum, a standard textbook of astronomy back from geocentric days, decides for a view which you consider absurd.

Angelic movers is a thing you consider absurd.

"P.S. I realize after the fact that this message is drastically different in tone to my previous one. Consider this one my true response. Again, I have been in a bad mood lately, so I have been irritable as a result."

I have not suffered much, except a few moments of irritation, considerably less than some such provoked in my other main up to now situation.

[The one on the streets]

[plus link with notification.]
Bel-Shamharoth: +Hans-Georg Lundahl I read the post. Thank you for accepting my apology. And with that, I believe our business is concluded. Have a nice day.

On to next.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:23 Riccioli integrated all accuracy related detail where Kepler had been superior to Tycho. Namely adding elliptic shapes to orbits around orbits around solar anual orbit.

So, either you lie about history, or you are mistaken.

Let's suppose you are mistaken.

The error has been pointed out a few times by now, for instance by Sungenis.

So, why have you not heard of it? Has someone cospired to withhold that information from you?

Or, have you heard of it (before doing this video)? If so, how is your behaviour different from conspiring yourself to hide this fact from others?

Bel-Shamharoth

Before anything else, I feel I should ask for citations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Good idea! I give them, along with links, quotes and translation of quotes, some resumé of non-quoted, in this message:

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

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah...sorry...but that doesn't exactly look like a reliable source...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For Riccioli's position?

Did you look so short a moment on it you did not notice I did give links to the pages in Riccioli's book (old edition, scanned by a library) in Latin?

Or is it my translations from Latin you mistrust?

Or is it a book exemplar from Riccioli's own lifetime which you don't consider a reliable source for Riccioli's position, when he is on the title page as author?

C'mon, be a little serious!

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here.

I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« No, it's the fact that there is a masonic symbol with a circle-and-slash on the top that makes me question it's reliability. »

It’s my way of stating I thing Freemasonry should be forbidden.

So, does every anti-Masonic writer over the internet seem suspect to you ?

« Not only that, but I see the Latin phrases, but I don't see any translations. »

I seem to have forgotten that detail or to have preferred giving a service to Catholics who either know Latin or know priests who do. I wrote it after a debate with Sungenis and DeLano (who prefer a somewhat convoluted gravitational model over angelic movers, despite being Catholics and Geocentrics.

« Plus, it seems that English is not your first language, as reading that page is somewhat difficult with the wording of it. Like the first sentence: "I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move?" is gibberish. »

NOT SO if taken as continuing the rhetoric question in the title.

It means, with appropriate insertions from title, which is previous sentence, this :

I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]?

Writing that out in full would have been tedious after a title « What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One? »

I can only conclude that writing or reading texts meant for other purposes than technological or scientific or whatever instruction is not YOUR first SUBJECT.

I mean from when you studied on university.

[Do I need to make insertions or have I made my point ?]

« I can make out what you are trying to say, but this is far from decent English. »

So « I mean [What Opinion ]on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move [did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One]? » would have been better English on your view ? Discredits you as a judge of English or of any language.

« not only that, but citing yourself is not an acceptable source either. You're basically saying "I am rught because I say so". I hope you see my issue here. »

I see your duplicity.

I did NOT give my own blog post as the reference for Riccioli’s view per se, but because it included links to Riccioli.

So, I gave Riccioli as reference to Riccioli’s opinion. At least for those familiar with Latin.

« I don't need all that crap anyway, I just need a page that says, in plain English, "Riccoli came up with and published these ideas first". »

Oh, Riccioli’s Latin (on pages I linked to and transcribed to my post) is « crap » to you ?

And why should the page say Riccioli « came up with and published these ideas first » when he claimed absolutely the opposite, namely to be completely traditional by adhering to the opinion of men like St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa and I forget how long his namedropping list was when it came to prove he had predecessors ?

You have just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt you are incompetent to judge about older erudition, because you are incompetent in reading it.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl And why is that? They believe in the same God you do. Why are they so bad?

What would have been better English? I'm not even sure what you were trying to say, so I couldn't tell you. I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". Whatever the "fourth and most common opinion" means.

How am I being duplicitous? I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source. The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. Like I said, there are no translations, no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for), and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. If anything, it is YOU who is being duplicitous by claiming your opinions to be facts without citing any sources. Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time. You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for.

I am done talking about this. It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic. All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// I think you mean something along the lines of "My hypothesis is that the mechanism by which the planets and other heavenly bodies move is the same as that which Riccoli suggested to be the Fourth and Most Common opinion". //

That is NOT my language.

I meant to make a rhetorical question about what HE called "the fourth and most common opinion" on the precise matter of what caused celestial bodies to move.

I divided this into two questions:

1) the title asking "what opinion did Riccioli call the fourth and most common one"
2) line after title, clarifying on what subject Riccioli enumerated four opinions.

Only AFTER this do I clarify what the four opinions are and answer myself which one he called the fourth and most common one.

And I did so by quoting and linking to his work, scanned pages of a 17th C. printed book.

That my own opinion is the same as his is not "my hypothesis", it is incontestable historic fact.

[At least Bel-Shamharoth has done nothing to suggest any real contestation of it.]

// I am saying you can't cite yourself as a source, because that completely defeats the purpose of citing a source //

And I already clarified first time over that I was NOT citing myself as a source. I linked to a post of mine which links to Riccioli as a source.

// The reason I asked for citations was so that I could get accepted scientific literature that has been tested and reviewed and tested some more by academic authorities. //

You don't need that crap in order to know what four opinions Riccioli was talking about and which of them he considered the most common one and therefore enumerated as fourth and last of them.

// I don't trust some guy on the internet who just says "angels dun did it" as if that explains everything (which it does not). //

That was not the point. My point was to answer where I got it from, I answered [among others] Riccioli and gave good reason for so answering.

// And yes, you did use your own blog as a source. The link you gave me was to your blog. //

And it contained links to the pages of Riccioli, namely first to title page and then to the page where he was talking about it.

[Giving one link of mine which links to two or more of an author relevant is economising links.]

// Like I said, there are no translations,//

I probably reckoned on Sungenis having access to a Latinist.

// no peer-reviewed literature (which is what I am really looking for),//

The point is: did Riccioli or did he not think angels moved the orbits which (that you can look up elsewhere) he accepted as Tychonic ones, with the Keplerian modification of adding ellipses instead of perfact circles.

The need is not for peer reviewed articles, the need is for a page of Riccioli. And I gave exactly that.

// and nothing that really posits anything that can be shown to be true, basically just your own opinions. //

About what Riccioli opined?

You are trying to be funny!

"Setting aside you angels hypothesis, I asked for proof that Riccoli gave more accurate measurements than Tycho, who was considered one of the best astronomers of his time."

Tycho was contradicted on two items by his disciple Kepler:

1) the latter was a Heliocentric
2) the latter was also considering orbits to be elliptic rather than perfectly circular.

Riccioli accepted the latter as a valid correction.

If you know some geometry, you will realise that this means Riccioli was as accurate as Kepler.

That was my point in the first paragraph, first sentence.

On that one, I will gladly refer to Sungenis, who has done lots more than I on the history of the matter. The post I linked to was just my correction of his rash opinion "angelic movers" had been a fringe theory.

And do google Riccioli.

"You have failed to show me where his measurements are, only where his hypotheses about angels are. That is not what I asked for."

Your question as given was in that case imprecisely worded.

I did respond first with asking for a clarification whether I was being asked about a reference for Riccioli's position (on this matter) and you did not contradict this.

So I gave you Riccioli's position. Linking TO him THROUGH myself.

Where he discusses Kepler's elliptic orbits is another matter, I haven't looked that up.

"It seems you completely missed what I was originally asking for, to the point where I got distracted and off-topic."

Because your view of how to use language is inept, you mean to ask about one thing and ask in terms which could also mean another.

"All I will say is that your angels hypothesis does not really explain anything, just pushes the question away to be dealt with later."

Namely?

I would be fine to deal with that too. As long as your criterium for my responses is not that I cite modern peer reviewed academia on angels moving celestial bodies. We both know there is not any, or at least little and not very well known.

Btw, your theory of gravitation would explain lots, if it weren't for the detail (you could call it crap if you like) that its precise terms are two opposing forces, inertia and gravitation, both involving physical property of mass of whatever solid, liquid, gas or plasma is involved and NEITHER of which involved a solid body in between like a string in the stone and string experiment.

How about giving experimental validation for the theory that stone and string experiment works as well without any string (or tub of death experiment without any tub)?

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I mentioned tihis elsewhere, but my time is far more valuable to me than convincing you that you are wrong, which is never going to happen. I have dealt with your type before, and I don't want to waste my time here anymore. But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false. You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up. Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate. That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way. I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research, and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore. So good day, and happy 4th of July.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you should probably try to understand the opposing viewpoint before you go and say that it is false."

I was actually an adherent of the opposing viewpoint for quite a long time.

As an adult.

You should perhaps try to check things up before you tell someone he's not understanding your viewpoint. Since it is VERY common, most people who oppose it know about it, and many of them would perhaps have had an opportunity to get an understanding of it.

"You clearly do not understand what gravitiation is, nor the evidence that backs it up."

Here we go again ... "you clearly do not understand ..." ... have I heard sth like that before?

I have made very detailed investigations into the question, by debates. And by checking out tides.

"Not everything in the Universe is a solid, liquid, or gas, only matter, and gravity and inertia are not matter, therefore they do not need a solid, liquid, or gas to operate."

I was not saying that in your model gravitation would have a need for a solid in order to be a gravitation.

I was saying that your model is on that precise ground not a real parallel to "stone on string experiment" where there is a solid.

"That is like saying your bedroom lamp cannot work because you do not have a toaster in your room; they simply don't correlate that way."

Not so.

As said, my point was NOT as if gravitation had a need of a solid between the points to be a gravitation between them.

"I suggest you actually do research before you give a BS explanation like "angels dun did it". But you and I both know that you won't do any research,"

In my case because I know I already did it.

As I already told Aleksandr Sokolnik, here is a video of an experiment which only deals with force of attraction + inertia, no solid in between:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

As I observed to him:

I think this video is the one with slow motion, count how few orbits each droplet makes before it clings to the knitting needle because its gravitation takes upper hand over inertia.

You claim Earth has been orbitting Sun about 4 . 5 billion times. In the video, where electromagnetic attraction takes the place of gravitation, the water droplets come out of an orbitting balance after 5 to 20 orbits.

"and I don't have the patience to supervise you anymore."

I was not asking for your supervision, I was giving you a debate.

"So good day, and happy 4th of July."

Thanks. I am not US Citizen, but thanks anyway. I suppose you are?

On to:

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/where-bel-shamharoth-says-hello-to.html

As mentioned under part a, it is his response to my notification on that thread.

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:10 or a little before:

What "childish claims of cospiracy"?

Am I giving claim that God and angels "conspire" for anything?

Like being useful to us, by seasons and lunar phases, bemusing Heliocentrics and finally amusing your viewers and my readers?

I mean, conspiracy claims are usually about lower deeds, like Bilderbergers conspiring to impose "population control" or things like that.

I do believe that too, but am not entertaining that belief each time I give a Geocentric explanation, Sir!

Bel-Shamharoth

No, the conspiracy he mentions is that the (apparent) majority of flat-Earthers believe that shadowy overlords, typically NASA and the Illuminati, work together to spread "lies" that the Earth is a globe for reasons unknown. Nothing to do with religion.

That's another video series.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very well, but in that case, believing that conspiracy is NOT a requisite for being a geocentric.

He is simply wrong to claim this conspiracy is all that geocentrics have to offer.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's called hyperbole. It's not ALL they have to offer, but it's all that MOST of them have to offer, and the ones that don't offer that rarely have anything else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, I do offer some conspiracy too, but only after beiong confronted for so long with practical obstacles offereing the rest I have to offer to the world.

What was it a Brexit advocate recently said?

"Not a conspiracy, but worse : a confederacy of dunces".

Though the last word is vastly unfair to Duns Scotus!

So, when it comes to explaining why I have a hard time giving what else to give, I do offer the explanation "conspiracy or confederacy of dunces" too.

But if you really think this is all "we" have to offer, either you haven't met many of us, or you have been trusting someone who was dishonest about us.

It could of course also be you are in fact dishonest, you might be claiming to have read very many of us Geocentrics, and to have come to this conclusion about us, in that case you would be dishonest - like a conspirator, since very many people seem to share this same dishonesty (as perpetrators or as - as I just suggested for your case - victims).

If not, an uncautious reader might get the impression you had read many of us and found "no explanations, only conspiracy theories".

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You haven't been paying attention to a word I have said have you? I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying. Once again, I don't believe that conspiracy is ALL that geocentrists have to offer. But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government. CHL just exaggerated that into a generalization about ALL geocentrists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am not the one saying these things, I was just clarifying what CHL was saying."

What he said needed no clarification. It was simply untrue.

"But it does seem that a majority of vocal geocentrists DO believe that the globe theory is a conspiracy by the government."

1) "a majority of those believing X consider non-X a conspiracy" does NOT equal "those believing X only have to say in response to non-X that it is a conspiracy";
2) you are confusing geocentrics with flat earthers.

Most known geocentrics, namely Sungenis, DeLano, De Bouw, myself (perhaps, if I may propose my own case as known) are in fact ourselves believers in the globe theory.

Thus, we do not consider globe theory as a conspiracy.

Those who do are mostly Protestants who would also consider Magellan as capable of conspiring with the Papal States to prepare Papal reconquest of Protestant countries through globe theory.

Of the Geocentrics I considered as known in the enumeration I made, only De Bouw is a Protestant. And he also respects Magellan.

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently it did need clarification, because you still don't get it. It was a generalization. As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do.

1) See the definition of the word "hyperbole" and the above paragraph.
2) No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale.

I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As I said, most outspoken geocentrists are also conspiracy theorists, so he exaggerates it by saying that they all do."

Hyperbolé is one thing, hyperbolé within another hyperbolé is another thing.

Not only generalising from most of us to all of us, but "generalising" and vastly exaggerating having a conspiracy theory into having nothing else - even when the conspiracy theory is actually a minority of what someone actually says.

That is no longer within acceptable limits for hyperbolé, it is falsehood.

"No, I am not. They are both very similar in that regard. Many do truly believe in conspiracy on that scale."

Similar or not is not the point.

A geocentric who believes the globe theory will not pretend that precisely the globe theory is a conspiracy.

Either you forget what you said a few days ago, or you are being diffuse and obtuse on purpose.

"I am not sure you understand the theories CHL is referring to when he talks about these people's conspiracy theories. Typically, these people believe there are shadowy entities, typically NASA or the Illuminati, that control the world, and are trying to sedate us with "fake" knowledge of heliocentrism and/or a globe-shaped Earth."

Yes, I did understand precisely that.

I was being facetious in my previous remark.

But since I am a geocentric believing a gloàbe shaped earth, I will for one thing NOT say globe shaped earth is a conspiracy by people like the groups behind Nelson Rockefeller (responsible for the catastrophic building of Twin Towers!).

ALSO, when it comes to heliocentrism and specifically explaining what CHL thought I could only explain with "childish conspiracy theories" while I do indeed believe there is a conspiracy, that is NOT my explanation for the phenomena he is talking about. Angelic movers is, and on any Christian view, these existed long before Nelson Rockefeller became a conspirator.

He is deliberately shifting attention away from what I have to say on the subject at hand to what I am saying on another matter and what he can best ridicule by not doing so on THAT debate.

And you are trying to defend his foul tactics. Are you conspiring with him?

Bel-Shamharoth

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are taking things way too seriously. You need to calm down; there is no such thing as "beyond acceptable limits" for exaggeration; that is literally the whole point of exaggeration. And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory". I don't have the patience explaining this to you anymore, since if even the basic uses of literary devices eludes you so utterly, I don't think there is hope for you to understand the complex mechanics of the real universe, instead of your fairy tales. So I won't spend my time on you anymore. Good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By "acceptable" I mean the difference between exaggerating what is there and exaggerating what isn't.

You are not qualified to tell me when to calm down, you are not very calm yourself.

"And you STILL do not understand in the slightest what is meant by his specific use of "conspiracy theory"."

Perhaps not his specific use, but I do understand every one else means if saying the phrase "all you have to offer is childish conspiracy theories" something other than "all of you have on occasions offered conspiracy theories, which I consider childish".

Every one else's than his specific use would clearly involve the claim we have nothing else to offer. What is more true is that this is what we sometimes do offer, but some of you want to hear it over and over again.

On to next.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Saturday, July 30, 2016

... on Flood Stories vs Tony Reed

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed (update : and others)

... on Presentation of my Inquest on Geological Column, with Tony Reed

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

... against Pell on Evolution

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

... on Erdogan probably not being THE Antichrist but someone else being so

Friday, July 15, 2016

... on Radiometric Dating

... on Geological Column

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Where Booth the Grey Continues the Debate

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Where Bel-Shamharoth Says Hello to kathleen - and Good Bye to me

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part c

Debate under a three other of my remarks on previous to previous, part b

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers