Saturday, October 29, 2016

... on the Honour Given the Blessed Virgin : Praising Her Blessed


Video commented on
The Virgin Mary | Protestant vs Catholic | Walter Martin vs Mitch Pacwa
Theology, Philosophy and Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV36Vv2crQc


I
7:14 "which means she was transformed into a new body"? Where does Walter Martin get that from? Of the four doctrines he challenges, two were accepted by early Protestant reformers, like Luther and Calvin and Cranmer : mother of God, everlasting Virgin.

8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

II
8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.
Reply. OHhhhhhh The Power of a Woman. I'm sure Satan KNEW he could not persuade Adam to obey him, BUT! Satan KNEW Who COULD, & SATAN KNEW WHY TOO! 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
True enough.

And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You said, > "And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion."
Hans!!! Where is that written? What Book, or, where in, anything?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed.

Even if we leave out the dispute on translation of the second half of the verse, and keep to the first verse, Mary is sinless.

Christ is called "seed of the woman" as Son of Mary. God is speaking to Satan (or to a serpent no longer speaking, but still representing Satan who spoke through him). ENMITIES means complete enmity. And complete nemity with Satan means never sinning.

ALSO in Luke. Hail thee full of Grace.

Full of grace = no place for sin, in Her soul.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed."
THAT WOMAN WAS Eve. Her seed was her children. Cain was the first child, Abel was the 2nd. Adam & Eve also had other children. Cain turned out to be the spiritual seed of Satan because he did the works of Satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Eve may have been an incomplete fulfilment, but the complete fulfilment of the words are in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg-Lundahl,
Hans! What are Your thoughts about what is written in Luke 1:46-56? < verses 46 thru 56.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It includes a prophecy about the faithful : all generations shall call Her blessed.

It is also (up to verse 55) a set Catholic prayer, called the Magnificat.

Check Latin text for those verses, and you'll know the liturgic text. And add Gloria after it.

Gospel According to Saint Luke : Chapter 1
http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm


Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
Hans. What is your understanding of what the word, "blessed"? What does the word "blessed" mean? Different people have different opinions on/about what it means. What is yours?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One of the things is "She is in Heaven".

Another is "She was blessed already on Earth".

A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?

We Catholics use the words of the angel combined with those of the cousin Elisabeth and some additions for praising Her blessed.

What do YOU use for praising Her blessed?

The Orthodox have prayers similar to the Hail Mary, also restating the words of the angel and of Elisabeth.

What prayer of YOURS is regularly praising Her blessed?

One more.

Blessed as such refers to five women, Her and four in the Old Testament. Jael, Ruth, Abigail, Judith and the Blessed Virgin.

Blessed among womens to only three of them : Jael, Judith and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Jael earned it by killing Sisera. Judith earned it by killing Holophernes. Whom did the Blessed Virgin defeat or kill? Only one enemy of Israel comes to question : the old serpent, Satan. She had never laid unfriendly hands on any man. That is why her reaction to the angel's words was at first "what does he even mean". When Elisabeth says "blessed art thou maong women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", THEN only does the Virgin understand she and her seed are meant. And that means a reference back to Genesis 3.

In other words, this proves she had already defeated Satan. In his dominion over mankind in general? Not quite, Christ still had to die. In his dominion over her? Totally, he never had any. God had placed ENMITIES between him and Her, that is total enmity, not a moment of his peacefully enjoying dominion over her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You asked, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and I replied by another question: what do YOU, Donald Bailey, mean by the full phrase "praise someone blessed".

I am praising the Blessed Virgin blessed every time that I pray Ave Maria which includes "benedicta tu in mulieribus" as both St Gabriel and St Elisabeth said. Greek Orthodox include such words in the prayer "Theotoke Parthene chaire". What time each day do YOU, Donald Bailey praise Her blessed as she foretold all generations (namely of the faithful) would do.

If you had been less eager to answer, you might also have seen that I gave a military definition of the phrase "blessed art thou among women" from the context of Jael and Judith. I answered that too. And there are only five women who are at all called blessed in the whole Bible - the other two being Ruth and Abigail. Ruth who, by marrying Obed became ancestress of King David and ultimately the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Abigail who pacified King David and averted him from shedding blood - as the Blessed Virgin has averted Her Son many times over from punishing the Christian people.

Actually, I had answered your question very shortly first, before giving you another one.

Do you imagine you are the only guy who has a right to quizz me, and I can't quizz you?

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg Lundahl
You, HANS asked me, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?
How can you imagine I am so dense not to SEE that You, HANS, are playing mind games?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Playing mind games? What are YOU then doing all the day quizzing people about verses YOU think relevant?

III
10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hey Hans!! Satan HAS HIS INSPIRED BIBLE BOOKS TOO! E.g. Judith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No.

God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book).

Donald Bailey
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@> "No. God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book)."
Mr. Lundahl. There is a Bible Book called, Jude!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Suppressed comment linking to Douay Rheims Bible Online, might it have been here? No, it is further down and not suppressed.]

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hey Hans! You did not answer my 2 questions!!! Are ya harelipped? 😊 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Donald Bailey
Actually, the question had been suppressed, by someone else.

Yehuda and Yehudith were as common names among Jews as "John" and "Jane" are among English speakers.

There was a man called Yehuda who become a disciple of Christ (another one too, but he was from Ischariot and not the author of the Epistle) and a woman called Yehudith who became a military heroine of the North Kingdom and therefore a prototype of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The book of Judith is her story.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Thanh You for responding but your response did not answer my two questions. Once again, It is written in the Book of Jude, Chapter 1, verse 3, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." < Douay-Rheims Bible.
Mr. Lundahl. 2 questions here. Which came first, the Book of Judith, or, The Book of Jude?
2nd question. Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament.

And the faith is the same.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament. And the faith is the same."
Thank You Hans! What Chapter & verse would that be?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What chapter and verse of what?

There are no chapter and verse in any Book of the Bible, even of the 66 you acknowledge or even of the 73 (including Judith) I acknowledge, which gives a list of all Bible books.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hans. I asked You, Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

You responded and said, > "the faith is the same."

Then, next, I asked You, > What Chapter & verse would that be?

What I meant was What Chapter & verse in the Book of Judith.

Anyway, since I am failing to get my point across, maybe You can answer this question. How can I find this Book of Judith? I want to read what is written in it. I want to see what is written about faith. When I say faith, I mean a faith system, e.g. The RCC is a Faith system.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Any Catholic Bible includes the Book of Judith.

Here is an English Catholic Bible, online:

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
http://drbo.org/index.htm


And in case you find it troublesome to look up the book of Judith among the 73 books, here is Judith chapter 1:

Book Of Judith : Chapter 1
http://drbo.org/chapter/18001.htm


Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
HEY!!! Thanks for the link!!! I just now downloaded it! I DID & DO use the Douay-Rheims Bible in/for the 66 Books of the Bible that I do have. BUT! There is not a Book of Judith in those 66 Books. I have the Book of Jude. BUT, NOW, thanks to You, I have Judith TOO!! Thanks again! Btw. Do you know a Poster, DancesWithBears??? I like her very much! She is Catholic. I love GOOD kind hearted people! I HATE REPROBATES!! AND, I MAKE NO BONES ABOUT LETTING THEM KNOW SO!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not know her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ >"I did not know her."
ok I'll rephrase my question. Have You ever read any of her messages?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I had, I would not have said so, I would have at least known her in passing by that fact.

No, I haven't.

IV
Donald Bailey
Regarding the "Mother Mary"! This is ANOTHER Scripture all of You "Mother Mary" WORSHIPERS ACT LIKE YOU DON'T GET THE MEANING OF! Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and obey it. < CAPICHE? EASTER SUNRISE SUN WORSHIPERS!!! DO YOU K PEACH E?? NOoooooo! YOU REFUSE 2 SEE!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My mother, my brethren and my sisters.

Believing and lively acting Christian men : brethren.

Believing and lively acting Christian women : sisters.

Who is left to be His mother, whom He mentioned first?

Well, in a backhanded way He said SHE was innocent of the occasion and She was more than other believers doing the will of the Father.

Misquote alert?
In Douay Rheims, I found "my mother and my brethren" and not the words "my sisters". This is however not how I recall the verse from memory. From Swedish. In case I should have remembered wrong, which I don't believe, the singular for "mother" makes the same point, and the other female believers are included in brethren. 

Monday, October 24, 2016

[belated title : Comments on Conspiracy Road Trip : Creationism]


Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
Tr3Vel0cita
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug


On the FIRST stop, I wrote no comment. That is because I had no idea how to explain Horse Shoe Bend myself. I took Tas Walker on CMI to help out, and here is THAT link:

CMI : Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona
Carved by the receding waters of Noah’s Flood
by Tas Walker, Published: 18 September 2012
http://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona


17:17 I know Jerry Coyne somewhat from his blog and he is certainly a COMMITTED secularist. When he claims the Creationists are committed and he is not, he lies.

Here is his blog:

Why Evolution is True
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/


Huge minus, he is evolutionist and fanatic enough to have banned my from commenting, huge plus, the Hili dialogues - a cat and sometimes a dog speaking Polish with translation. Here are three occasions when my arguing has involved him, which can be seen as a huge plus (from my p o v, since I enjoy arguing) or a huge minus (if you really hate what I write):



He's a pretty dedicated evolutionist.

18:13 Coyne says "morality does not come from God" (according to Evolution, but that is what he believes in as "science") and says it is hard for us to accept.

Well, claiming universally valid morality issued from evolution is a theoretical impossibility to him, and renouncing claims of morality being universally moral, at least it is hard to most evolutionists, not sure about him. See Wettstein's attitude:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Wettstein on Abortion and Sodomy, Chanaaneans and Old Age Pensions
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/09/against-wettstein-on-abortion-and.html


25:28 Wonder if Andrew Maxwell could as successfully get evolutionists to dig for Triassic straight below Jurassic or for Permian straight below Triassic in Karoo?

If these were different epochs, surely some place you would find a Permian layer below a Triassic one, palaeontologically speaking and not just by default geological labelling?

The professionals of Karoo seemed less than eager:

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


26:26 Hypothesis on why not finding human fossils along dino ones.

  • A) Most basically. Where T Rexes or wild Brontosaurs abound, you don't settle if you have any sense. And since man lived to 900 years sometimes pre-Flood, by the time of the Flood (when fossils are mostly from) man and dino had separate habitats.

  • B) Some dinos are actually so little documented, that they theoretically also could be human/nephelim fossils. Here is my mirror for a page on the now lost site palaeocritti. I added own comments in square brackets or signalled as own:

    Palaeocritti Blog : Uberabatitan ribeiroi
    http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/12/uberabatitan-ribeiroi.html
    


He mentioned pterodactyls and condors. But solution is basically same there : different habitats.

26:59 To squish His creative power into a ... 6000 year [literal?] framework ... false point. It would be a true one, if creating a world or any number of worlds could in any way exhaust God's creative power - or if God was suff ering from an irrepressible itch to use it through "millions of years" before or after His creating time. But read a little St Thomas Aquinas! If God had been creating world after world, allowing each an infinite time, it would still not in any way exhaust His creativity. And the "outside" the finite creation, either locally or temporally, is not there to bother God - God is rather Himself outside as well as inside creation. Saint Juliana of Norwich had a vision of Christ as God the Creator. In that vision, He held all He had created in his hand, and it was not bigger than a nut (obviously in that vision compared to His human form). So, God's creative power is not squished into what He has chosen to actually create.

27:10 ... is to tarnish His glory? Er, no. Denying His truthfulness is tarnishing His glory, as far as we speak of His external glory among us.

[debate under these two, upcoming]

28:19, sth before. "But you interpret science whi chever way it fits" - Andrew Maxwell, are you treating science as an absolute we have to bow down to?

29:09 "the point of the show is for you" Oh, Andrew Maxwell sees fit to treat creationists as some half looney guys whom one should try to treat ... never mind the debate or all that! Well, I'd say it was easier for Coyne and Prothero and that other guy to play Andrew Maxwell's game than taking on Kent Hovind or Tas Walker or Woodmorappe in oral debate - or me in written one. Via internet.

31:43 Chimps can cry, but they don't have tears like us. They also have emotions, but cannot signal them by the eyes that well, since they have nearly no visible sclera. They have opposable thumbs, but apparently don't do crafts either. And if they are taught any kind of language to communicate with keepers, the least impressed with it are linguists who have a hunch of what grammar or a human language is.

And at age seven, the chimps is behaving i n a way which would get a seven year old boy spanked - or given psychiatric treatment. (31:54)

39:07 Phil suspected of being a bully by Andrew Maxwell? More like, he is (rather consciously) setting a standard of not being concessionist. Simply by not being so himself.

39:22 If A M or director is bullying or not depends very much on what we do not see. Some are more likely to complain than others.

39:30 Taking leadership over the group? Or receiving it? Two different things.

43:00 "I always thought Adam and Eve weren't meant to be taken literally" - and who the Hell gave you that impression, Andrew? I suppose you won't admit it was the serpent himself, so who?

By 47:00 looking back a bit. Something has been edited out. Oldest dated fossils from a valley in Ethiopia are NOT carbon dated. If you date anything to "4 million years ago", it is not by carbon 14. Can I guess that the valley in Ethiopia is called Olduvai? Here goes ... oh, sorry, it is Laetoli in Tanzania:

Creation vs. Evolution : Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/10/isnt-there-geological-column-in-laetoli.html


52:03 Question in two parts : do the bacteria there have cell walls made by phospholipids? Are phospholipids likely to be produced without previous life in such exact places?

53:42 "that for hundreds of years scientists have concocted absolute nonsense, just so we can do as we please" I do not share Phil's analysis of motive on the level of every scientist. But those who are honest have been formed an an environment which is not. Check out Dawkins, Coyne, Salman Rushdie, AronRa and a few more like those. And of course P Z Myers. They do have a hatchet to grind with Christianity and with Christian morality. And some of them are natural scientists, of above all except Salman, as far as I know.

[comment debate under this one]

55:01 Abdul has been the voice of reason throughout ... no, we could never ever in a thousand years have guessed a Muslim would think of himself as that, could we?

55:07 And Abdul thinks Christianity didn't do too well? Well, who has been teaching him its history?

55:14 Islam absolutely unscathed? Yea, in this roadtrip. Unless being too conceited is a bit ... scathed.

55:52 Really pleased JoJo has taken a step to his position ... right. Was she honestly Young Earth Creationist at the start? Perhaps. "I don't want to be blinkered" Right, we have all heard, time after time, about Fundies being blinkered. I wonder if the five scientists would accept a similar roadtrip with Creation Scientists hosting - or if they are too blinkered.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

... 3 QQ on Evolution / Creation (Quora)


Q
What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?

Answer A
by
Claudio Delise,
I have read the bible (OT and NT) cover to cover 2 and 1/2 times and more.

Quick example off the top of my head are Tuberculosis, Gonorrhea, and guess what Syphyllis.

In my lifetime TB has changed (evolved) to not respond to medicines that used to work in a 6 months of treatment.

Gonorrhea has changed (evolved) to be resistant to common (simple) antibiotics.

But most interesting: Syphilis was first introduced to Europe probably by Christopher Columbus travels.

Initially it was a more impressive than small pox. So it became colloquially known as the Great Pox. Now it has evolved to be milder and more indolent disease.

See Knell, RJ (7 May 2004). "Syphilis in renaissance Europe: rapid evolution of an introduced sexually transmitted disease?" (PDF). Proceedings. Biological sciences / the Royal Society. 271 Suppl 4 (Suppl 4): S174–6. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0131. PMC 1810019free to read. PMID 15252975.

When syphilis first appeared in Europe in 1495, it was an acute and extremely unpleasant disease. After only a few years it was less severe than it once was, and it changed over the next 50 years into a milder, chronic disease. The severe early symptoms may have been the result of the disease being introduced into a new host population without any resistance mechanisms, but the change in virulence is most likely to have happened because of selection favouring milder strains of the pathogen. The symptoms of the virulent early disease were both debilitating and obvious to potential sexual partners of the infected, and strains that caused less obvious or painful symptoms would have enjoyed a higher transmission rate.

(bold face added by me.) Notice that there were no antibiotics available to “interfere” with God’s plan for the disease.

Edit 9/17/16 this is a followup to a dialogue in comments section.

There are several sites that elaborate on topics of evolution, if you are really interested. These sites include a detailed explanation of of the evolution of the eye (a favorite counter-argument used for years by Creationists against evolution). You can also look up “humans have 46 chromosomes while other Apes have 48”. In particular check out human chromosome number 2. You will find a detailed analysis with a timeline a) First a prediction that would potentially falsify the hypothesis of common descent, followed by 2) detailed study followed by 3) confirmation of hypothesis.

A classic case of hypothesis, analysis, verification. This allows an hypothesis to begin a journey to a Theory (capital T) if there are many more verifications and no falsifications. One unequivocal proven falsification would be sufficient to turn evolution on its head and lots of biologists changing careers.

Oh, I forgot.

Your comment statement “genomic errors are by and large destructive,” is partially correct. Look up a gene (name escapes me) that controls the mammalian jaw. In humans it is defective but not in other apes. Result: A chimp can and sometimes does bite your face off. A human even if crazy cannot do it because muscles too weak.

This genetic “defect” resulted in larger and larger skulls in humans and and increase in brain size. So now humans can do math chimps not so much.

When I was an engineer I had on my dest a sign “ DCMWFMMIMUA” (don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up already). Did you by chance find my sign? (gentle humor). If you did not you can do a lot of easy reading and make your own mind.

My comment
“What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?”

I take it the word evolution in above is not contrasted with an absolute fixity of species, but rather with special creation of for instance, man, ape, donkey, sheep, bird, bacterium, fish, insect separate from any other in this list.

That is NOT evidenced by bacteria adapting and changing.

[Yeah, I know, should have read the answer through, not just blurted off my response to beginning.]

Answer B
by
Habib Fanny,
Political Animal, Goofball, Heathen, Physician, and all around Nerd.

I’m scratching my head, here.

Not really sure what the argument is.

You couldn’t possibly be saying that because people with no scientific knowledge wrote their legends of creation in a book a few thousand years ago, that should invalidate what we have learned since then.

Because, I’m not sure if you’d noticed but there are a lot of things the writers of the Bibles didn’t know about:

  • computers
  • avocados
  • the germ theory of disease
  • airplanes
  • chocolate
  • AIDS
  • MRIs
  • Gunpowder
  • spaghetti!!!


Do you really mean to insinuate that we should consult the Bible before deciding whether these things are real?

My comment
It is possible most authors of the Bible were not familiar with below list, but I'll comment on it one by one.

"computers"
Actually, I think Hezekiel in the verse about "flying scroll" was shown sth about computer technology - some take this is robotics directed missiles, I might tend to think more of satellite communications (with deleting of accounts described as burning of house).

I also think St John on Patmos was shown about ASCII Code (and obviously the name or names of Antichrist and/or False Prophet in appropriate case and spacing) before writing verse 18 of chapter 13.

But suppose these hunches were wrong. Suppose all Bible book authors were ignorant of computers, which I don't think is the case, either way, there are NO Bible verses actually contradicting possibility of computers being made.

"avocados"
They are plants, right? Specifically fruit? Right? Well, if no Bible author (after Adam as part-of-book author and probably Noah too) ever knew of avocados, they knew of fruit and knew there were many kinds of them.

[part-of-book author - namely of certain parts of Genesis]

"the germ theory of disease"
I'd say that considering devils as guardian angels of bad bacteria functions rather well with considering them as guardian angels of flies. And Beelzebul is a title of the devil in the NT.

"airplanes"
What specific Bible verse positively excludes them?

"chocolate"
Extract of a certain plant, more specifically a fruit, see avocado, above.

"AIDS"
Bible authors however did know bad manners draw after them punishment of God.

"MRIs"
Don't know what they are.

"Gunpowder"
I'd probaly agree only known explosive in pre-Flood and early post-Flood times was Uranium, see Mahabharata and confer it with the real context in Genesis 6 about wickedness.

Probably Tower of Babel was meant as a rocket (of which only the top reaches space), but they were going to use propulsion by exploding Uranium, and God mercifully averted this, while ensuing technology loss helped to continue averting it, until other rocket fuels had been studied and are adopted at Cape Canaveral.

"spaghetti!!!"
Bible authors knew you could make both bread and beer with cereals, so being able to make spaghetti or other pasta should not come as a surprise.

By contrast,
Evolution over millions or billions of years are positively excluded by certain verses, about creation days having evenings and mornings, and earth being comparably old is positively excluded by the genealogies and other chronological stuff after Adam was created. See for instance Genesis V.

Two other QQ
Q
My mother is teaching my younger brother creationism. He's a smart kid, and it hurts to hear him learn something so incorrect. What should I do?

Descr.
He’s nine and learning Young Earth Creationism. My mother even has a timeline that goes from 4,000 BC to the modern era, wiping out most of ancient history and replacing it with the Old Testament mythology. Nobody deserves to learn something this bad.

My Answer
  • 1) Your mother believes creationism is true and has a right to teach it to children staying at home.
  • 2) If she doesn’t forbid it, you can of course offer him evolutionist stuff.


I don’t see any point in fretting over “a smart kid” becoming a creationist. Creationism is not exactly stupid.

Q
Is jurassic world satanic propaganda?

Descr
(not read bef. answering)

Jurassic World | creationsciencestudy
https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/tag/jurassic-world/


Note: i know ist not, but this is a provocative question

My Answer
You mean the film?

I’d say it is more like stupid and ignorant propaganda, insofar as it portrays the Jurassic biotopes as having existed and gone partly extinct 145 million years ago.

“Satanic” I reserve for more depraved things.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

... on Dendrochronology, LXX Dates and My Own C14 Research


With CMI, I half appreciate, half polemise against certain points.

Tree ring dating (Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-21)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGNJDwXwa8


3:10 4700 sth? Predate Noah's Flood? Not according to LXX chronology, they don't!

2957 BC = Flood year, according to the Christmas proclamation (replaced in 1994 with non-Biblically based chronology things, which as a Trad I reject). St Jerome's Ussher-method chronology, but he did it on a LXX text.

Christ was born 5199 after "the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth" and 2957 "after the Flood of Noah". References to Abraham, Exodus and King David + to Rome and to Olympiads + "in the sixth age, when the world was at peace" ( = during the peace of Augustus).

So if we take LXX as more correct text, oldest living bristle cone pine is from AFTER flood even by conventional dendrochronology.

During commercial.

A thing in favour of LXX, not very decisive, but still.

If organic material from Flood dates to 20,000 to 50,000 years before present, that would be a medium of 35,000 years before present, which if Flood was 2957 BC (as per St Jerome's reading of LXX), means an extra of

35000
02957
32043

32,000 years which implies a C14 level of around ...

32000
11460 (two half lives)
20540
11460 (two more halflives)
09080
05730 (one halflife)
03350 (nearly another half life)

100 > 25 > 6.25 > 3.125 > somewhat more than 1.625 %. Of C14 content compared to present stable level.

I actually counted a few percent more at flood than that. If you think Flood was more recent, you need to add more years that are there for original low C14 content and lower the percentage further.

Then even if the Flood is as far past as 2016+2957 years ago, you need to get the rise in C14 by additions faster than those of the present near stable additions. In medium about 3 times faster to reach stable level at around 500 BC.

Then you need the graph to curve so as to smooth out to horizontal at 2500 years ago. This means it must have been steeper before.

THAT in turn would be even steeper again if Flood was more recent.

So, by my LXX calculation, I get a milliSieverts per year of over 7 of just cosmic radiation at time of Flood. That is higher than total background radiation at Princetown, which has one of the higher in the world.

Meaning, your milliSieverts at Flood would have to be even higher than that. Which would have been unhealthy.

20:16 "another time zone" - a solution reminiscent of yours to Distant starlight paradox ... thank you!

Obviously, since I am geocentric and believe stars are one light day away, that is not a paradox for me. (Two light days might work too).

27:46 I'd like you to have also adressed the overlap of tree ring series and how matches are erratic.

I saw examples of that (or one example with a "bottleneck" in European series, one about 2000 years ago), but lost the reference.

The graphs showed very erratic overlap of ring thickness, so that matches can be considered as far from certain.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws


1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
N a m e l y ...?

The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around.

Radiometric dating methods.

Dendrochronology

Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around."

If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

"Radiometric dating methods."

  • 1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.

    • 2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :

    • a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old;

    • b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.


  • 3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.


"Dendrochronology"

Used to impress me when I was a teen. I even considered pushing in some Silmarillion like scenario into some kind of gap theory (theory of times gap between two first verses of Genesis) in order to accomodate with the extra years before Adamic genealogies start.

No more so.

I actually took the trouble to look up - and typically me forgot the reference or mislaid it by self mailing to a mail account which went down or by a short link I forgot or which went down - and saw that European pine ring datings have a few bottlenecks. The reference I did find (and mislay!) showed a diagramme of how close the overlap between rings actually was.

After seeing that one, I am very positive dendrochronologists accept too loose fittings of patterns for dendrochronology to be really useful.

Most items "dated by dendrochronology" also typically use series where dendro gives only relative dates within series, while series as a whole is "placed" by C14 (see above).

"Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age."

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".
Very Late Update
Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement.

1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.

The other methods are much longer than C14

*2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :
a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old; b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.*


Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries.

3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.

No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad.

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".

This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth.

But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
« They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement. »

Right. Go for the detail which is a manner of speaking and which is least relevant for my argument.

Except for one detail : heliocentrism would have been far better proven if they HAD been fixed onto a perfectly solid shell.

« The other methods are much longer than C14 »

As you may have noticed later, I was doing an enumeration. I was coming to them.

[She could also have concluded it from fact of my putting a numeral 1 before.]

« Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries. »

For centuries back to 500 BC where the historical narratives and styles of artefacts and geographical coordinates are the method, granted. For ice core dates, not granted.

« No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. »

And quietly discard the results that don't match ?

« As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad. »

Is that your latest ? Actually, it is one we used to do about the Shroud of Turin – and me too, until finding out that there the computer giving the results could have been hacked.

« This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth. »

Tests which presumably did not take millions of years ? And you are STILL assuming that God needed to go through same process, or simply denying His existence, when using this argument. That remains an assumption. The one I was talking about.

« But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons. »

OK, creationism is « wilful ignorance » and « being a moron ». Debating climate has gone sharply downhill, hasn't it ?

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

... continuing a Real Oldie For you!


1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Hans-Georg Lundahl
13 déc. 2013
+realisticoppurtunist Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?

Seriously, I gave two or three different suggestions:

  • 1) God made the telomeres simply shorter - less telomerase as to quantity - for the starting point

  • 2) God changed its susceptibility to the shortening processes: shortening is in principle the same before Flood and now, but concretely simply faster now than then

  • 3) God added to the shortening processes or detacted from such as delay shortening, like more X-rays and less O2 / Nitrogen and less air pressure.


God does not need any of these things to be "divine mechanisms" to be able to do that. The basic law of nature is "creature cannot oppose its Creator". Or in other words "I believe in God Father ALMIGHTY" etc.

realisticoppurtunist
  • 1) What? "Well, the rascals are misbehaving, better lop off some DNA"

  • 2) How? That would mean changing the laws of chemistry. Which would be lethal to every living thing.

  • 3) This one makes no sense at all. How would increased atmospheric O2 have any effect on telomere deletion? Or Nitrogen? Or air pressure? More X-Rays? Coming from where?


Oh, and you said "Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?"

That isn't relevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed, and not even a chemical change in DNA Polymerase would make the problem better or worse. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Basically yes, except I would be more precise than "DNA" namely "telomerase".

  • 2) I would say God could do that without changing the laws of chemistry and without any change of such - supposing there were it - being lethal. Not just omnipotent, but omniscient and all wise too.

  • 3)
    • a) As I said, telomere's delete due to some diverse factors, and O2 levels might be combatting one of them. Which N (is it N2?) does not do that.

    • b) Also worse exposure to X-rays seems to have an effect, which was one case for the Hovind theory about the water canopy. You see the species that live the longest are those least likely to absorb X-rays. Trees, turtles, elephants, shellfish.

      Coming from where - on Hovind's theory from same place it always came from, cosmic radiation, but reaching earth more after water canopy is gone, on my view from stars obedient to God putting out some more of it.

      That would also fit well with C14 buildup starting mainly after the Flood.
    


"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

realisticoppurtunist
[answering this last point]

Hmm... maybe because nobody lived to be over 500. The only evidence you have for that is cryptic bible passages that you infer timeframes from. There is NO valid evidence that people ever lived that long at any point in time. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Bible is valid evidence for that, since it is true History.

It is validated as true History insofar as it is the word of God. It is validated as the word of God because accepted so by the Catholic CHurch since its beginning. And the Catholic Church is - like its Hebrew predecessor, Israel, then Judah - validated by the miracles that have followed it. And of course by its Divine founder Jesus Christ and His Resurrection. A Christian has no option except accepting those life spans as genuine. If you do not, cuts no ice with me.

[One could add that its human pretentions of being valid history aren't bad either.]

Shane Wilson
4 oct. 2016
There demonstrably was no global flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Then demonstare that!

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history.

Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them.

The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it, nor would it be seaworthy. Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
« No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history. »

How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population ?

« Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. »

Despite what you seem to claim, we don’t get palaeontological layers from more than one supposed era per dig down. We don’t get Permian under Triassic, despite them being side by side in Karoo. OK, we do get trilobites under elasmosaurs, but that would be because of how they live in sea (example : Napoleon Basin [see below]).

« We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them. »

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

« The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out. »

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later ?

« And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it »

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

« nor would it be seaworthy. »

If it had been navigating against waves and currents instead of floating with them, see previous answer.

« Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth. »

Apart from what was caught in mud, no. Like an elasmosaur in Napoleon Basin* or a whale or two in the Alps.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

[I meant Bonaparte Basin, but was misled by association with a Swedish name for millefeuille]

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population

Your comment has nothing at all to do with genetic bottlenecking.

In any population of organisms you have various genes, which is the genetic diversity (different genes). When you reduce populations to small numbers, you are removing many of the genes entirely from the genepool. This creates a genetic bottleneck, which we can actually see in the DNA. The cheetah suffers from a fairly bad bottleneck, thought. And this is thought to be from an event taking them to under a thousand, thousands of years ago. If Noah's flood were real, nearly every life form on earth should be suffering from even worse bottlenecking than the cheetah.

[I didn't bother to answer, but my point could have been that might have been one part of the case with, if not mammoths, that could be later in ice age, at least T Rex and Bronto : at least if Cheetahs are really endangered due to bottlenecking.]

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer.

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later

The Egyptians for one. In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood. In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out.

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting. Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

The salinity change would have killed sea life. The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase. Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything.

And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died.

There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Passing on Cheetahs for now.

"Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer."

Key word "a" Flood layer. The Flood of Noah would have made more than one, if sufficiently turmoiled.

"The Egyptians for one."

According to their King Lists or according to C14?

"In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood."

C14 I presume.

"In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out."

And once again, just C14.

In all these and any similar cases, the key factor is mostly only C14, occasionally also a non-Hebrew historiography.

The latter worked a bit like when Saxo divided up Frodo Haddingson the Peaceking, into Frodo I Haddingson and Frodo II of the Peace. In the sequels of each, you find kings of different parts of Denmark, but Saxo wants to give Denmark the appearance of having an old unity.

So dynasties that were really parallel come to be listed as if serial.

The key to the C14 problem is simply the buildup of C14 in athmosphere.

"First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting."

As far as I know, genetics do support hares and rabbits having common ancestry, since there seems to be an intermediate species, interfertile with both.

As to not all fitting, that depends on how many couples there were, which depends on how many kinds. Which reduces to previous question.

"Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit."

Except if there was lots of room in the Ark, which a feasability study by Woodmorappe suggests there was, this would not be the case.

"And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull."

You are still treating it as if it were a ship, navigating in any other direction than what was floating around. It was in fact - floating around.

"The salinity change would have killed sea life."

If it had happened fast enough during Flood, rather than slower after Flood.

"The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase."

Or both survived as salinity increased slowly in seas but not in rivers and lakes.

"Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything."

In some places they did. Fortunately, restricted ones.

"And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died."

The present coral reefs have an age which has been calculated by YECs as exactly fitting the Flood.

"There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth."

There is a reason why one learns to be on guard against rhetoric in schools.

Now back to genetic bottleneck of Cheetah.

I don't think God is a bungler and I do think the bottleneck of the CHeetahs is more recent than Flood - or that Flood struck Cheetas worse than some other critters.

And just maybe - as I was suggesting - struck dinos of diverse kinds so badly they never fully recovered. Though obviously, I don't believe there was a dinosaur world I believe the dinos lived about the areas we find them in - and other critters in other areas.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right? And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology.

And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all. Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads.

You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth.

And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous. People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right?"

That is one claim I have no reason to believe in, unless correctly means either:

  • a) limited to last 2500 years, when doublechecking with indubitable history is an option (carbon date Persepolis, for instance, it only stood for a short time, and therefore its carbon dates can be matched with a rather narrow historic frame); or

  • b) recalibrated with a drastically rising C14 content and even then, due to diverse options on how "curved" the rise was, only as a relative chronology.


Creation vs. Evolution : What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html


"And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology."

History of last 2500 years is sufficiently well documented to be a real double check, dendrochronology is not. If not in all series, at least all except Californian Red Wood ones, there are bottlenecks and loose matching allowed.

How often a Californian Redwood tree got rings in the past is a matter we could be wiser about if we knew exactly how climate had been there. I have seen opposed claims, and obviously have more confidence in the creationist one. When it comes to other series, I did some googling myself, but lost the reference.

"And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all."

Ah, really?

"Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads."

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

"You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth."

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

"And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous."

I did not say "in magical ways". I said that the Flood event overall was more events than just one flooding event.

"People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society."

Some of you seem to want to really rub it in by keeping a creationist blogger unprinted and unpaid for his writing. Not saying specifically you, saying some of you, meaning some on the evolutionist side.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Try using a scientific source.

On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it.

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points.

You have a single book of debunked myths, we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy.

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species.

And we can track mutation rates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Try using a scientific source."

For what specific thing?

"On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it."

I wonder if all Creation Scientists would agree on that one ... after seeing a scientific source about the overlap of two series, sorry, lost reference, and seeing how the matches are loose, I do not.

"It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points."

According to your preconcieved notion about where the evidence clearly points.

"You have a single book of debunked myths"

Oh, are you referring to the Bible as that? Then it is clear that your idea of where the evidence clearly points is rather worthless.

I have a bit "more" than that, at least humanly speaking as to arguments a bit more. But you wouldn't like to hear about that, would you?

It could spoil your preconceived notions.

"we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy."

On nearly every corner where it can be checked. A few exceptions : you are not checking the historic evidence of the Bible for details of chronology or geology which could become clearer in that light, even to you, as they are to me.

And you are not checking the logical points about the validity of your argumentations brought up by philosophers and creationists.

But on most other corners, where you can check, you do.

Trying to talk down my confidence was not a very wise choice for debate, especially if you are only here by yourself and not part of a group (I saw that other evolutionist claiming to be engaged in trying to "deprogram" me, which would imply some collective effort : in that case, trying to talk down my confidence would perhaps be last resort for your group, and sorry if you are not part of such a thing).

"Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species."

Not really, no. Suppose the ancestor of horses and donkeys was some kind of mulish thing, except not a hybrid like the mule, that would mean the variation narrowed down to horse and down to donkey. Suppose further that the couple on the Ark had as much variation between them as a horse and a donkey, except for not being such. And use the same idea for other kinds.

"And we can track mutation rates."

Usually by tracking a common ancestor who isn't necessarily such and by taking the time when that individual lived by misdating, landing you with too slow a "mutation rate". Tell me more?

Updates:
Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So your entire argument is "Creation scientists disagree with you" even though they are dishonest from the get go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So your entire argument is Creation Scientists are dishonest "from the get go" whatever that phrase means, even if they disagree with you?

Spoof. But perhaps apt even so about your attitude. Even if first and foremost a spoof on what you just said.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes they are dishonest because they have their conclusions before they even start. This is the opposite of how actual science works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you have finally realised that your evolutionist scientists are dishonest etc. ? [spoof - can we go back to debating actual ARGUMENTS as opposed to throwing apple pies at each other's sceince teams?]

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Scientists follow the evidence where it leads.

Creationists try to squeeze everything to fit the Bible. They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If one believes the Bible is evidence, following the Bible is part of following evidence where it leads.

YOU very clearly try to fit everything into millions and billions of years and man being a late comer on Earth, itself a late comer in universe and civilised man a late comer among men.

Civilisation depending ultiamtely on barbarous Cro Magnons, man depending ultimately on somewhat more clever apes who got some anatomical advantages about how to show it, life depending ultimately on mindless chemicals, these ultimately on Big Bang.

Instead of saying "that is where the evidence leads, and the Creationists aren't doing that", how about arguing about the evidence, rather than belittling opposite team?

We were arguing facts pertinent to possibility of Flood of Noah and its ramifications or not. Now you are "arguing" about the team I belong to. It's like starting to actually play rugby and then go back and start singing a taka about how bad the opposite team is, instead of continuing the match. I don't think New Zealand All Blacks ever did that!

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then circular reasoning is your answer.

And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened.

If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth. Hands down.

Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim. The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Then circular reasoning is your answer."

Then you don't know what the fallacies circular proof and circular definition are.

"And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened."

N a m e l y ...?

"If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth."

What's dishonest about looking at Flood myths as memories of the Flood?

What exactly does the word "myth" imply to you, as per definition?

"Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim."

We were discussing that and you retreated ...

"The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation."

Oh, only ATHEISTS are rational in your view. Then you are trying to fit everything into a certain scenario I just outlined, and which was not limited to just the timescale you commented on.

V e r y funny too, that an Atheist should be talking about reason ... on your view, what exactly is the ontology of reason?

(If you had cared about circular definition as a real fallacy, you might detect one where "scientists follow the real evidence, creationists aren't scientist because they don't do so, they don't do so because the scientists say so, and among the scientists - per definition, namely yours - noone is a creationist").

No more updates here
since Shane Wilson chose to accept the challenge of N a m e l y ? which brings about a newer discussion, upcoming post.

Monday, October 10, 2016

... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video


1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

23:34
Our Catholic view "radically different" from a Fundamentalist's view of Scripture? No, it is not. We believe in the four senses. The first of these is the literal sense. In any historic book, the story directly at hand as told there. This the Fundamentalist believes too. The Allegoric sense, however, they have varying views. When we see Church as Ark of Noah (allegorice or typologically), some of them prefer to see Jesus alone as it. Since Church is His mystic body and bride, the sense is not completely wrong, only incomplete in order to accomodate a Protestant view of the Church. So, no, this "radically different" understanding is simply not there. The literal sense is not THAT mystic.

[What is different is usually interpretation of certain passages + making their own interpretation, unchecked by patristics - as is yours! - the final authority in matters of faith.]

24:00
Baronius is not a saint. As in canonised. I heard he had considered also Apocalyptic expectations as the foundation of Protestant Reformation. Well, no. If you can read Apocalypse so UN-literally as to consider the rule of Antichrist as perduring over centuries, instead of the literal 3 years and 6 months, that is because Luther was NOT expecting Leo X to turn out to be THE guy who gets defeated by Christ at Harmageddon. I think Galileo quoted Baronius. I also think SAINT Robert Bellarmine had something else to say about the matter. Even Baronius had not explicitly dared to say there were obiter dicta in the Bible.

24:10
I happen to have written Guy Consolmagno more than once, and also not to have recived answers on my mail. It seems the "Pontifical" Academy of Sciences (which hardly as it stands has the approval of Supreme Pontiff Michael, as per Vatican in Exile) has a very cavalier attitude about Creationists and Geocentrics. If they are too polite to SAY "creatard" that seems nevertheless to be what they think, when challenged.

25:00
These meetings between scientists at Vatican ... were ever any Creationist or Geocentric scientific experts invited?

25:58
"the creator of Heaven and Earth" Is an Evolutionist Creator still a GOOD creator, as surely the Creed implies? And is He also still author of the books of Moses, as per qui locutus est per prophetas?

Is the beginning of the creed all that matters, or is all of the creed important? There is a religion which has a drastically shorter creed than we have. It is Islam. I would NOT follow their example in short creeds, or reduce infallibility of creed to its beginning.

26:24
"I would urge them to study the book of nature just as intently" etc as the "book of faith".

Ruiz, are you aware there are creationists who are DOING precisely that?

http://creation.com/qa#Geology

Creation vs. Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/



26:49
Miss/Mrs Morrissey, can you name ONE prominent creationist who thinks they ARE incompatible?

Quote from "John Paul II" How has science lately been "purifying" specifically the Catholic religion "from error and superstition"? Wasn't it founded by Christ on Peter or sth?

... on Chronological Snobbery, Mainly


1) ... against the concept of "Before History" · 2) ... on Chronological Snobbery, Mainly

6:25
"for the first time" - no. It was a recovery.

renge9909
You know, you could just keep your comments in one post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
For one thing, they are on successive parts of video.

For another, I tried exactly that on a computer which muddled the line breaks into one paragraph.

And third, this way anyone who wants to comment on ONE aspect of my criticism can comment on that one, and those wanting to comment on ANOTHER can comment on that one.

Lajos Winkler
It had to start at one point. That's what's being referenced in the video - when it actually started for the first time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And that is exactly what I disagreed with.

I am no longer sure 6:25 is about agriculture or metallurgy, but I am sure the date given is a misdating for a date after the Flood of Noah and that both arts existed before the Flood.

Agriculture from Adam, Metallurgy from Tubal Kain.

Lajos Winkler
+Hans-Georg Lundahl There was no flood. It's a myth from a book written by cavemen and later edited by the scholars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, you admit cavemen could write books, then?

Lajos Winkler
+Hans-Georg Lundahl It was a society developed not much more than actual cavemen of Europe. They lived in today's Middle East. They were imagining stories just like any other society, and transfering them by storytelling, later those got written on parchments, paper, etc.

Their crude life and primitive morality got saved in a number of savage stories that make up the holy books of abrahamic religions.

It still has nothing to do with the fact you believe in a myth. You're being irrational.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are believing in a myth which is as much a reconstruction and as much untrue as Ginnungagap (see Norse Mythology). How "developed" their society was has NOTHING to do with how reliable they are. Your saying they made up a story does not explain how they came to believe in it as fact, and it is inherent in the Flood Story of the Bible that Flood was to them presented as, not a reconstructed fact, nor a revealed fact, but as a traceable, historic fact, having tangible connexions with their genealogy.

No, the one really irrational about THIS question is you. Among other things, through Chronological snobbism

+ I presume you dare not even show your own name, since it seems you are hiding behind that of a previous known man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Winkler

Lajos Winkler
Pills, dude. Take them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, you are a Commie!

They have their attitude to Christianity and Psychiatry. The kind of thing I hoped the East Block was out off, back in 1990!

(If you are a Commie, that would ALSO explain why you hide behind a screen name taken from a dead man - you didn't say I was wrong on that one.)

Friday, October 7, 2016

... and continued


1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

Continued from previous remark

"That is in and of itself a scientific question, and that is not an area where a theologian need enter".

Wellll ... what about scientific questions that have implications on theological questions?

Like "qui locutus est per prophetas".

Cush had earlier in the video to say God inspired the prophets to speak according to their own understanding ... letting one suspect this might have been one inadequate as to modern science.

But the words are not "qui prophetas loqui fecit." As Pope Leo XIII said, God is author of every word in the Bible (autograph of each book at least). And there is only so much wiggle room for scribal errors in that.

A scribal error can affect one version of the manuscript tradition, not all of them.

19:25 But what if Darwin went from Heretic (which Anglicans are) to Apostate?

On another occasion he wrote, ‘I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age’.16 He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin’s biographer, James Moore, says, ‘… just as his clerical career had died a slow "natural death," so his faith had withered gradually’.17


CMI ... Darwin’s slippery slide into unbelief
by John M. Brentnall and Russell M. Grigg
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-slippery-slide-into-unbelief


Gives the references:

  • 16) Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658.
  • 17) James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Michigan, 1994, p. 46.


I don't think they would just lie about that. Especially since people can check (even if I can't) these references.

20:09 Cush, have you read Humani Generis lately? I had the impression from certain key passages Pius XII was permitting an academic defense from BOTH sides of the issue. You seem very set on exposing only one side of it.

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."


Cited by me here: MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchison
http://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2014/03/one-group-member-promoted-hutchison.html


However, there is something eery and mousetrappish about the suggestion that a Creationist would need to submit to any pro-Evolution (man coming from simpler life forms!) decision, since such a decision could have no basis in faith and deposit of faith. On the other hand, there is an underhand notion that the question COULD after all be one of the deposit - which would (and rightly) condemn evolutionism.

20:40 Strynkowski and Ruiz are VERY sure an evolution from previous species and from simpler life forms happened. Obviously Neanderthals are not "a simpler life form" (like the supposed latest invertebrate ancestor of all vertebrates), but are they a previous species?

Are Heidelbergenses (from which some evolutionists say both we and Neanderthals developed separately) a previous species? Or do they descend from Adam and Eve, like we do? Or have you ditched a literal Adam and Eve too?

To St Thomas Aquinas, the Virgin birth of Christ is one of THREE exceptions to having both father and mother biologically. Adam had neither. Eve was not exactly a daughter of Adam, or daughter at all, since not born, but she was of a man only, not of any woman. THEN came Christ, of a woman but not of a man (a muliere, non a viro - He is of course filius Hominis by his Blessed Mother). If you ditch the textual literal sense of Genesis 2, you make the Virgin Birth a TOTAL exception, kind of a contradiction against nature.

The process of evolution is supposed to reflect on God's marvellous wisdom ... what about His goodness? How many Heidelbergenses had to suffer and die, on your view, so man could be an even better receptacle for a rational soul? On my view, Heidelberg man and Neanderthal man are rather recent descendants of Adam. Not VERY recent, not fakes, but magnitudes more recent than the conventional dating.

20:58 So Father James Wiseman finds "humans are related to ALL forms of life" OK (which it is, if understood as "related by a common Creator"), but "man developed from apes" offensive? But that is what evolutionists are saying, except recently they have started saying instead "man evolved from OTHER apes, from which came also chimps".

If these are offensive, is truth offensive, or are these not true?

21:17 So Strynkowski says:

  • our spirit comes from God;
  • we developed from other species not having that spirit, who simply had bodies coming ultimately from God but via evolution;
  • but on ONE point (I suppose! if you are logic) man was there with such a spirit.


Was Adam orphaned after parents who had no spirit, like Tarzan was supposed to FEEL LIKE? Did Cain and Seth marry beings anatomically human, not descending from Adam and who got their rational spirit on completing marriage? Wouldn't that pose some problems about consent, for one thing?

21:53 Cush, was Wojtyla (see Cum ex Apostolatus!) saying that as a purely sociological and history of mentalities observation? Or was he - by using we - implying it was kind of normative in the Church as well?

Or was that kind of distinction abolished to him by the first paragraph of Gaudium et Spes saying we share all the concerns (not stating "only well founded ones") with the world?

22:02 Scientists keep discovering new aspects of evolution and of cosmos ... do ever creationists do so?

Or is "scientist" exclusive both of amateurs (like me) and of dissenters (also like me)?

Or can a creationist actually discover a SCIENTIFIC objection to evolution, like number of chromosomes problem:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html


Like a solution to problem of rapid C14 rise:

Creation vs. Evolution : Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/09/radioactive-methods-revisited.html


Like an alternative explanation of faunas labelled Permian, Cretaceous etc?

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


22:19 Most scientists, like the Church, do not find a conflict between their faith and their science? If you are speaking mainly of Catholic scientists, are you aware how little they know about the Four Meanings and Patristics? Mostly from recent, pro-Evolutionist, secondary sources.

... continued


1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

14:49 similarity between Lemaître and Genesis could be fine as long as only looking at 1:1 ... or not even that.

Heaven and earth created in the same beginning is a pretty clear indication they were created same instant.

Not 9 billion years (by a measure of time related to the later earth's rotation against a pre-existing sun, according to a theory in conflict with account of day 4).

15:00 But we do not find "in the beginning God created light" nor its denial. We find Heaven and Earth created, we also find Earth was dark - not that Heaven was. However, we find light reaching Earth before there WAS any sun or moon or stars.

17:38 "there are certainly parallels" - yes, but also conflicts

17:47 James Wiseman would not want to find Genesis anticipating modern scientific theory ... well, not the ones which are in verbal open conflict with it, at any rate ... that is for sure.

17:59 "only insofar as there might be some conflict"

Yes, and not only that of today's Magisterium, but also that of Bible with Church Fathers!

18:47 The Church would never say one must accept the theory of the Big Bang ... good, because it is not Catholic.

If and when Bergoglio lets you down on this, will you then conclude he is not Pope?

Monday, October 3, 2016

... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism


1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

Note, I stopped video at 13:00 minutes before collecting and reposting the comments made thitherto:

Mysteries of the Church: Creation and Evolution
NETTVCATHOLIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ztVJfytVU


6:46 Ruiz (not calling YOU reverend or father, see Cum Ex Apostolatus ...) would any Catholic Bible scholar by any chance have called the views of St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, St Augustine, St Basil "fundamentalist"?

7:21 Cush (see previous comment), what exact Creationist have you come across saying "Dinosaur fossils were just put in there to test our faith"? To me that sounds like a homo foeni

7:33 Strynkowski (see previous comments), "they want a security" doesn't kind of echo Protestant criticism of Catholicism as seeking a false security in Infallibility and Apostolic Succession? Aren't you playing the kind of psychologist whom Catholic apologists previous to V-II used to rebut? Like "such a security is nevertheless needed, unless you want complete doctrinal anarchy" or like "whether we have a motive is not reflecting against our being right" or some things?

7:49 The Church would never forbid a Catholic to hold that position. Thank you Father (?) Wiseman! I have however been treated as if my holding this position were forbidden. Both by diocese of Paris and by SSPX in Paris, at St Nicolas du Chardonnet.

8:00 One is able to explore such questions as the age of the universe using human reason. Oh sure, to a point. To a point. One of the criteria reason having to chose between these days being "what is the more credible evidence about the matter, between Martyrology of Christmas day* based by St Jerome on Biblical genealogies on the one hand and on the other hand dating methods where even half life cannot be checked, and where parallax measures of distance depend on accepting counterintuitive Heliocentrism, and on top of that seeing the Bible as it has never been seen before and changing the Christmas proclamation in 1994 to 'unknown ages' for the Anno Mundi date of Christ's birth?" My reason has made its choice and I have not been considered as a Catholic while defending it by reasons.

* Christmas vigil is when it is said, technically on Matins of Christmas day, though usually this happens somewhat earlier in Midnight Mass. "In the year five thousand one hundred and ninety nine after the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth ..."

8:17 "That is not healthy". As far as I know, no Creationists are Skoptsy. And as far as I know, the Skoptsy couldn't care less about Genesis chapter 1. I think you - forgot your name and certainly not calling YOU father - are superstitiously relying on "psychological analysis". As for "isolated and difficult to talk to" YOUR kind of attitude is making certain kinds of company, including YOURS uncomfortable to Creationists.

Back to Father Wiseman. 8:28 "In my opinion, that makes God a kind of trickster" Father Wiseman, we agree that God is not a trickster. I suppose your argument goes sth like "such and such a piece of evidence, which the scientists are certain cannot be reconciled with a young earth, is nevertheless created by God - would God be fooling them?" Well, an astrologer could argue that such and such a position of planets and stars in relation to Earth (like Sun in Virgo, Pisces in Ascendant, as I happen to know is my case) was created by God. And he would also be certain that this means something about those born under that circumstance, like about me. Are you saying astrology works? Or are you saying God is fooling the astrologer? Or could there be some third alternative? Hint, I think I can guess what you would say about the honest astrologer who pretends to know my character from facts like being born 18:15 in early September (Sun in Virgo, Ascendant in Pisces being guaranteed that date and time of day). And I think I would make a VERY parallel case about the scientist pretending to know the age of Earth as it is NOT written out in the Bible.

8:41 "If we fail to recognise that the Bible is an ANCIENT document" (emphasis that of Ruiz) ... and so? Ancients didn't care about truth? Ancients didn't know how to get it? Ancients were misled by superstitions inherent simply in their time? None of this works in any way whatsoever, if you know any history correctly!

8:48 "the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook" Homo foeni. 8:55 "It was in fact meant to be that collection of authoritative TESTIMONY" Before we get a collection, we get testimony. And that in Genesis reaches back to the first man and the first woman. 8:57 "to God's revelation" Yes, and if first man and first woman were misled by God or by circumstances God either couldn't or didn't want to help, how is that testimony authoritative? For instance, check how we know Fall of Eve and Adam into Sin, and its conjoint Proto-Gospel. If you are not taking Adam and Eve literally, why do you take literally "ponam inimicitias"?

9:16 The Church teaching for the last hundred years. OK, what exact document from 1916 or 1909 (!) do you propose to document this ancientness of your view?

9:41 True, but not scientifically true. If you mean scientific precision, like exact number of years between Promise to Abraham and Giving of Law (430 or 425?), you may have a point. If you mean scientific relevance (like in same thing 430 solar years or 430 lunar months), you don't have a point at all.

9:55 "it teaches us to rely on this higher power" Sorry, this wording is not quite Catholic. Are you promoting AA, who are using that heterodox and vague description?

10:21 "what we have in Genesis is an expression of faith" Of faith in God and in certain kinds of traditions, in a certain obvious sense "of men" (I think Christ used the word "traditions of men" in a very different and pregnant sense, like when he said "thy thoughts are human thoughts"). Science is also an expression of faith. In observation and thus also in traditions of men recounting observations. And in logic. In the case of Old Earth, it is a faith in the arguments for an Old Earth, they certainly don't claim millions of years have been accurately observed and transmitted by our ancestors. Dito for a univers billions of light years across. Dito for other arguments for other points in this ideology called science, but differring hugely from electro-mechanics or zoology.

10:33 It's remarcable that hundreds of years before Christ Israelites saw God as Creator?

So did Plato. When did Timaeus become part of the canon of Bible on par with Genesis?

The point not being this but being that is a bit like saying the Bible is ONLY inerrant when speaking "to its point" and hugely fallible by misleading language any other time.

11:17 "all that is is moving toward full redemption by that same loving God"?

Hmmm ... I think Apocalypse as well as Fifth Council of the Church have sth to say about that, which is not quite what you are saying, Wiseman?

"There is in other words a point to life" - and if some souls and angelic beings are to remain lost forever, there wouldn't be?

11:48 Noted Ruiz, taking a narrative as Church Fathers have taken it would be hugely mistaken ... hmmm ... Trent had something to say, perhaps?

11:54 Error we call Fundamentalism - condemned as error by what Council of the Church? Or perhaps you refer to some document by Wojtyla and Ratzinger in 1993 or 1994? Are you sure these men were in a position to speak for the Church? I am after seeing it certain they were not.

12:00 Pretending that the Biblical texts were written by contemporary authors. Pretending? Have you read FATHER George Leo Haydock's comment to Genesis 3?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Haydock Bible Commentary, Genesis 3
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html


I recently learned that St Augustine differs from Haydock in saying earliest traditions were unwritten.

Oh, 12:05 you meant contemporary to US?

Like anyone assuming any old author contains any fact is erring therein? Or are you singling out Bible books unfairly, like saying Egyptian King lists have more authority in chronology than Biblical Chronoloogy?

12:11 We don't ever have this literalist approach to Holy Scripture? Well, Catholics like St Augustine had, so you are counting yourself out of their (and my, which is less important but worth noting) company!

12:21 "he inspires them to say the truth as THEY understand the truth" And what about "qui locutus est per prophetas"? It's not "qui prophetas fecit loqui"!

12:32 "an allegorical Hebrew cosmology" Do you seriously know what literary genre allegory is? Psychomachia, Roman de la Rose, Pilgrim's Progress, Pilgrim's Regress (by CSL, with reference to previous work) are all allegories. Can you coherently explain as opposed to just affirming that Hebrew cosmology was of same literary genre as these works?

12:47 "whether you accept Genesis literally or as a metaphor for a MUCH greater truth" ... What exact other and greater truth would that be, how is it greater and how is Genesis a metaphor for it?