... Satanist to Christian

I am basically just promoting the video with one simple comment added. Or two.

Satanist to Christian {UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONY}
Benn K. Joe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GScx6cw55Ls

8:21 John, you might want to read up on how St Christopher converted. You might like it. And, that is one reason I dislike Vatican II : they took away the feast of St Christopher from the Church.

16:39 Here I break off. Making up with Christ, if we have had a quarrel, I pray from the inspiration He gives, including especially set prayers of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I did receive Him your way before becoming Catholic.

Adult content on my Hypno Journal

Blog 37, on Auto Hypnosis Experience
I Katherine Anne, Interactive Induction
[links to following in combox, XII messages so far]
https://hgl-hypno-journal.blogspot.fr/2017/03/i-katherine-anne-interactive-induction.html

... on Jen Fulwiler's conversion : believable

Her story:

Atheist to Christian Testimony - Powerful!
A New Light Dawning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3n2zZlLdw

0:33 Carl Sagan's Cosmos?!

Kind of Corny. A bit like Mork and Mindy. I was already Christian when watching it, and YEC, so I didn't believe all he was saying, but I enjoyed his presentation.

A criticism of her story (other longer version of it?):

Calling Bullshit on Atheists: Jennifer Fulwiler
Prototype Atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60DYKNiGVNg

1:28 "inventing gods to explain things"

There may have been some other reasons as well, but that's a very crucial and true statement, you say?

F i n e ... she gave her research as encompassing a reading of Greek philosophers which somehow invalidates that history of ideas (not sure how that would apply to pre-philosophy gods, if any, but it applies to Christian God having been invented for such a purpose after the Greek philosophers were available).

Now, where is your research for your statement? Perhaps I'll be hearing it next minute? Going on with video ..

1:49 No, I didn't hear the explanation of former.

I am not sure how you would consider Marco Rubio or Santorum who are my favourites as espousing social darwinism.

I also don't see how your support of abortion is not espousing social darwinism.

And as to Jen Fulwiler, I just checked she is less conservative than I (no surprise) and her favourite political blogger is "right of center". Not sure how you would stamp that as social darwinism either.

Nor Chesterton, whom I suppose to be common ground between me and her.

1:58 I think the examples you gave, you would have a supporter in Fulwiler and on some a supporter in me.

Catholics are not Protestants, you know.

4:58 There is a difference between:

• the first or last religion you investigate
• the first or last religion you actually go to and try to practise.

I don't agree with you she contradicted herself, rather, Christianity was at once:

• the last religion she looked at intellectually, investigating and deconstructing claims of (or trying to)
  AND
  
• the first religion she actually tried to practise and in that sense went to.

I don't see anything more remarcable in her own biographical claims you find so interesting than in Dawkins - except that with her, God was leading the way. Which of course is less remarcable to a Christian than to an Atheist.

Is her biographical claim, as given, so "God laden" to you that you feel a need to feel sceptic about it?

Or is it, perhaps, that she claimed Catholics have and Protestants haven't the fulness of truth (a very commonplace Catholic claim in its weakest form ....)? If so, is your Atheism a bit parochial in a Protestant way?

Or that she gave some insight into Atheist prejudice you find embarrassing the way she was putting it (putting all the Bibles in the section for fiction, considering Christianity last)?

6:43 "five of the six were - surprise! - Catholics"

No surprise to me. Ex Protestant convert to Catholicism.

Atheists at my school were asking me how the Bible could get through as true word of God by being passed over an unreliable and partly un-Christian and un-Biblical Catholic Church, as I saw things when I came to the school (not that I wasn't pro-Catholic anyway, Catholics were just a little less Biblical and even more so earlier in history).

Well, solution is, it is the Catholic Church which is Biblical, and therefore no surprise it can produce a correct transmission of the Bible.

And since then I learned some about Catholic intellectuals which makes the claim very much not surprising.

So much of what Atheism is arguing against is the Protestantism they came from, not Catholicism. So much of what Protestants of a certain type are arguing against is Catholicism, or even internal conservatism, not Atheism. Catholics have had intellectuals all way through dealing with both types of anti-Catholic claims.

"as if people belonging to the world's largest religion" (perhaps bypassed by Islam by now?) "were somehow miraculous"

I don't think the six people were all Christians she found at the atheist blog.

I think they were those arguing best - and five of six being Catholics in that category is overrepresentation, compared to 1 of 2 being Catholics in statistics.

[Later I hear the atheist blogger is now also a Catholic. Instead of deconstructing his claim to have been atheist in another video and link to it, he is not even disclosing the blogger's name. Perhaps Jennifer did?]

7:32 for about half a minute you have been going some half indignation over her concluding conservatism in doctrine is correct.

Well, if Catholic doctrine has even a chance to come from Jesus two thousand years ago, while Anglican / Episcopalian is known to come from Lambeth conference of 1930 which contradicted Lambeth conference of 1920, where WOULD a Christian reasonably find one more correct than other?

Unless of course by "reasonably" you mean exclusively non-adherence to Christian "irrational" dogma, which begs a lot of questions, but clearly shows you don't really care what Christians stand for, you just like to argue against them no matter what it is, anywhere they disagree with you.

7:53 She does in fact consider atheism more reasonably than Evangelical fundies.

She has not come to the point in her Catholic studies where she actually realises Catholc traditional doctrine really is as YEC as Kent Hovind and as Geocentric as Bowden (Malcolm?).

Which is where I disagree with her.

[About Pedophile Scandal and her stance on it, the following:]

8:18 About ten years ago, I checked stats about US pedophile scandal.

Catholic priests were not worse than gym teachers or boy scout leaders, as I recall, but the outcry was directed to only one of these. Priests got sued more often when nothing could be proven, and for smaller things.

A Father Svea FSSP was given one or two years in prison, for touching a butt, which if a gym teacher had done it, he would probably have kept his job.

The issue is, Catholic priests do and gym teachers do not set a higher standard of conduct by condemning contraceptives.

However, stats from a more recent scandal in Australia are a bit different.

Also, when hearing of those, I heard 800 and some priests had been defrocked. That means their superiors are doing something right - whatever one might think of wishy washy doctrine of Robert Barron and some.

8:30 Care to get into detail about what you think you know better about Church history than she?

[If he does, I'll see if debate gets large enough for a separate post or comes into update here. He had claimed that if Jennifer Fulwiler really became convinced because of history, she can't have known it.]

9:33 Again, you seem to be so upset someone used a life to conclude differently from you, you can't believe an autobiagraphic claim as given.

There is no miracle involved. If she had claimed to have seen someone rise from the dead ten minutes after death certificate and that one given in hospital and wounds rapidly healing, I could understand you would, as Atheist and therefore miracle negationist feel sceptical about that.

But it seems your atheism has some kind of over suspicious prejudice about how people's minds work about religion and how they don't work about religion. If you claim to have that solely from not believing in God, from a negative answer to one single question, I don't think your claim is believeable.

9:50 No, her claim does not fall flat, insofar as Scripture is a very complex kind of writing. You read fifteen pages of a modern author, you know what he is talking about. You read fifteen pages of Old Testament, outside historic narrative, or even in it if you are not prepared to believe the history in a way she would have considered too fundie, you usually have less secure grasp of what Biblical authors were about.

So, she read tons of books easy to understand and admits skipping the book she finds hard.

How is that unbelievable?

10:14 You have just admitted that your view of her conversion story is not just Catholicism as seen from the standpoint of an Atheism actually sympathetically asking what it contains and how it could attract an Atheist - if he or she ceased to be Atheist.

Your view of the Eucharist is a Puritan and Calvinist Protestant rejection of the Eucharist as what some called "blasphemous fable", it is not simply an Atheist rejection of "miracle, so not true".

... on Palaeoindians

Video commented on:

Europeans & Asians In Pre Historic America Journey to 10,000 BC
Juliane Mauer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ssr1OjYwLk

When asking a question as a comment, it is in answer to sth said on the video. None of my questions were answered.

11:30 sth - why would Cro Magnon and Neanderthal be "less advanced" cognitively than either us or paleo-Indians?

15:29 "but these are not primitive cave people - strategy, cunning and guile are all part of their arsenal"

Why would "primitive cave people" not have "these"?

Why are they noted as three different things?

29:54 Smilodons are related to tigers and lions?

I thought I had heard the opposite, somewhere!

47:23 Your theory of very rudimentary ships is very logical on an evolutionist view of human history.

On a creationist one, this period is misdated by c-14 and real date would be a few centuries after the Flood, around Tower of Babel.

And the expertise used by Noah to build the Ark would not have been lost.

Observation about rising sea levels obfuscating earliest evidence of boats (excluding Ark) is of course very good and to the point.

58:21 How exactly do you know at which level or whatever an ice piece is "13 000" years old?

Is C-14 from ancient carbon dioxide involved?

[Later:] On Younger Dryas: "The Younger Dryas is a geological period from c. 12,900 to c. 11,700 calendar years ago (BP). "

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

My table for 12,900 BP, 10,900 BC ...after 2778 BC.

My table for 11,700 BP, 9700 BC ... a little after 2733 BC, orTower of Babel.

Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html

1:13:44 [They had been speaking about an Impact of a Comet during Younger Dryas, and had mentioned electromagnetic impact]

Could the electromagnetic impact have involved momentarily wiping out linguistic capacities of a brain?

It is after all about the time of T o Babel .... if my tables are correct.

1:19:24 9000 BC?2733 BC, 2688 BC outer values in my table.

... on Chesterton and Nietzsche

G.K. Chesterton The Apostle of Common Sense - God is Dead: Chesterton vs. Nietzsche
ChesterKhan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh1ToGbVZOI

19:23 "Germany" is as dubious a term as "America".

By America, do you mean US exclusively, or do you mean everything between Alaska and Newfoundland and Tierre de Fuego?

Germany is as ambiguous.

Do you mean the German state of Prussia, formerly North German League (which at Königgrätz fought AGAINST what is now the flag of West Germany or after 1990 Germany, either way Federal Republic)?

Or do you mean that + Austria + Liechtenstein + German parts of Switzerland + again French territories like Alsatia and Lotharingia + Luxemburg + one corner of Belgium + certain villages in Romania and other Balkanic countries + certain territories of Czechia and Poland?

Note, if "Germany" in the Prussian sense adopted one Nietzschean philosophy (though not as extreme as Marxism, Psychiatry, certain attitudes within Capitalism, esp. towards the homeless), this is not the case for Germany in the broader sense.

Dollfuss was as sickly of constitution as ever Nietzsche, but he remained sane for the same reason that the similarly cold plagued and nose blowing Atterbom remained sane. By assuming his weakness. He took Mussolini's invitations to healthy baths. And Mussolini requited the friendship by defending Austria in 1936 against Hitler.

Do read up on Dollfuss' successor Kurt von Schuschnigg in his own books "Dreimal Österreich" and "Ein Requiem in Rot-Weiss-Rot", s'il vous plaît, bitte, please!

20:25 "worst and most horrible war in history"?

In history up to then, perhaps.

There is another war coming up. It ends in what is called "battle of Harmageddon", not sure if that is where the battle is held or whether that is just where Antichrist's troops muster. I have heard the latter and that the actual battle would be closer to Mount of Olives, which makes sense if Jesus is returning there.

But perhaps you are saying that as soon as I turn on the video again.

Either way, exulting brutality was done by Lenin too.

Recall the eggs and omelette's quote?

Sounds as if some Nephelim of cannibal persuasion was resurrected from Mahabharata wars in pre-Flood times ...

20:33 Did WW-II really begin at the Polish border, 1 Sept 1939?

Or had Stalin started it against Ukraine a few months before that?

Or was it the major part in a war starting 1936, namely 13 July 1936, when Calvo Sotelo was assassinated by the Reds?

Because Our Lady seems to have predicted a worse war than WW-I was beginning before the death of Pope Pius XI. And 1 Sept. 1939 is after that date. Prediction given at Fatima no Portugal, 1917, 100 years ago in a few months from now.

21:03 I have seen "transvaluation of values" in a certainly not anti-Jewish context as the student party "Kulturradikalerna" at Lund University.

They are Marxists.

Speaking of murdered Jews, why not mention murdering Jews at Ukraine conflict and the Jewish International Troops in the Spanish Conflict? In a Paris library (there are about 24 normal + some special) with some Judaica, they had an exhibition where the recruitment of Jews to International Volunteers was hailed as Jewish heroism!

22:58

Hitler and Chesterton both started their carreers after school as painters.

Would you agree when Chesterton changed to writer he was getting a competence he deserved, but when Hitler changed to politician he had the immense misfortune to be elevated to his "level of incompetence" (as one of the Murphy laws put it)?

I mean, Hitler's paintings of architecture are remarkably similar to the very pretty architecture in the background of Disney movies?

24:16 [Chesterton's dictum on the only religion in which God Himself is a rebel] Actually not quite.

Zeus was a rebel - and a rebel against a rebel - before Christ got the crucifixion usually reserved to rebels.

Now, in Greek mythology, the original rebel does seem to be Satanic. Rebelling against his father, but tyrannising his children by cannibalism ... the Nine Muses sang hymns to all Olympian gods, starting with Zeus, and ending with one to Kronos of the crooked thoughts (Kronos Ankylometes).

Are you reminded of a certain generation which C. S. Lewis foresaw in his The Abolition of Man (which is essentially about Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values, but doesn't mention him)? The most disconnected and liberated from their fathers, the most ruthlessly impressing their own new values on their children?

25:32

I am not quite sure if it is true that Christ confessed He was forsaken of God. He was quoting a Psalm in which King David had this as a first impression.

He could have had more than one reason to quote this psalm.

• 1) It had foretold his passion. They have numbered my bones. And the Centurion did number correctly the ribs to the two between which his Lance could touch the Holy Heart like the staff of Moses had touched water in the desert.
  
  
• 2) It had foretold the Eucharist. And the Church:
  
  [26] With thee is my praise in a great church: I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him. [27] The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live for ever and ever. [28] All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: And all the kindreds of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight. [29] For the kingdom is the Lord' s; and he shall have dominion over the nations. [30] All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him.
  
  [31] And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him. [32] There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall shew forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made.
  
  
• 3) He declared that He had been serving God since before He was born, unlike those born with original sin.
  
  This verse does not necessarily mean King David was born without original sin, but it means by excellence that Christ was:
  
  [10] For thou art he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother.
  
  [11] I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother' s womb thou art my God, [12] Depart not from me.
  
  
• 4) He was answering the Bulls of Bashan. Now, one prophet called Samaria Cows of Bashan.
  
  King David has prophecied about the Bulls of Bashan, about a sect as machist or male chauvinist as Samarians are overly feminist.
  
  [8] All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. [9] He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him. ... For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me. [13] Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me. [14] They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring.
  
  Pharisees foretold both as New Samaria and yet in some sense still Lion of Judah.
  
  
• 5) But perhaps most importantly, conforting Her on whose lap He had learned the Psalm in the First place and in whom He had served God from Day 1, from a March 25, like the March 25 on which He cited it.

27:31 Nietzsche seems to have said also:

"If I should have a God, I want one who knows how to dance"

Have you seen the Icons of God in His Human Soul trampling on the Gates of Hell? It looks as if he were performing a Cosack Dance.

One Frenchie cited him (Onfray's his name), and I showed that icon.

An icon which fully justifies :

The Dubliners ~ Lord of the Dance
Alec John
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtM8BRF7Bd0

Today's the day on which He was starting a nine months often precisely dance in the womb or Our Lady.

Unless certain Palaeohimerites were to be more right on calendar and I am 13 days too early.

... on CMI's Stone Age video

What about the Stone Age? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 6-06)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCsMxuAZAE

1:36 speaking of the dates BC, do you think it is better to give BC dates or AM dates?

[They had, reasonably, complained about the PC crap of remaking it BCE.]

Incarnation and Resurrection are kind of God's deal with a NEW creation, which is why Sunday can fittingly replace Sabbath (if Christ had only been a creature in the first place, Resurrection would not have confirmed Incarnation of God Himself, and therefore not have signalled a New Deal in which God is also for eternity One of His Own Creatures and Sunday would not have been as important as God's deal back with no new creature types at end of Creation week), so for dates after Christ, by all means AD.

But before, the pro of BC is, you know how long back the event is you are comparing to, there are hardly many competing AD chronologies, but there are competing Anno Mundi for Birth of Christ (5500, 5199, 4004 being the major Christian ones).

The con of BC is, you are counting the years backwards. The "first millennium BC" (with BC as a counting device) is actually also the "last millennium BC" (with BC simply taken as Before Christ actually came in the Flesh).

Anyway, I used BC in this one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Prehistory of France
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/03/prehistory-of-france.html

It is France from Neanderthals to La Tène, unlike Osgood I don't consider C14 as totally invalid, and you might know Tas Walker made a similar kind of YEC calibration curve.

2:00 When is iron mentioned in a pre-Flood context?

I think Neanderthals in pre-Flood world used iron oxide as red paint, but the metallurgic use of iron might have been neglected up to Noah and some centuries more.

Sorry, my bad memory, Genesis 4:22 says "brass and iron".

5:44 How cremation is more advanced?

Like Neanderthals of Belgium in pre-Flood world were more advanced in corruption than those in Spain : they were cannibals. The Azteks were in that way more advanced than the Spaniards.

It means more advanced away from the primitive good manners of primitive Church or primitive post-Eden humanity.

I think all before the Flood believed Final Resurrection, or were otherwise simply led to reject cremation anyway, while beliefs such as Hindoos deteching soul and body into a system of a temporary coincidence which is finally past after death was unknown not just before the Flood, but first century or centuries after it.

It is "more advanced", like a OEC Protestant or Theistic Evolutionist "Catholic" is more advanced than a YEC Protestant away from Tridentine and pre-Tridentine Catholic Christianity.

8:46 a Creationist licit use of pre-history : areas where artifacts cannot any longer be tied by historic narrative to producers and skeletons cannot any longer be tied by historic narrative to historical persons.

We can guess if Göbekli Tepe was the city of the Tower of Babel (Shinar meaning all between Euphrates and Tigris, plains meaning all south of certain mountains, a part of East Turkey is still Shinar).

We can guess if the man carbon dated to 28 000 BC in a place in Russia, buried with lots of ivory beads, like two children also buried there, was Magog or not.

It is not like Colosseum where you know this is what Pliny referred to as Rome and where you know this is where Christians were thrown to lions.

It is not like the bodies of St Joan of Arc or Vladimir Lenin, where we know this is the Catholic or Atheist chapel where one or other is honoured (with Lenin, I argue even honour as due to saints would be idol worship, since his "sainthood" is as unconnected to Christian sainthood as "godhood" of Krishna to the real God we believe in).

11:24 The People that Time Forgot ... I suppose while it is hardly realistic in its philosophy or about today's conditions, it could be fairly realistic about pre-Flood conditions in some places.

Neanderthals of Spain would have lived close to Dinos in Morocco. Neanderthals of Belgium may have preferred Woolly Rhino to Iguanadon, but they were living "next door" to Iguanadon, since it hs been found among others in Belgium, in a coal mine.

I think that experience of such conditions would have been why Noah would have chosen a wife partly Neanderthal for his son Japheth (which is my theory of why he later gave Europe to Japheth's kin, and why Europeans have more Neanderthal genome than Africans).

13:45 Neanderthals could have descended from Nodians or Sethites precisely as this people of Yellow Leaves descend from the Tinh Preï* people?

A bit tough on them, some even went cannibal in their rebellion against God or alliances with devils or Nephelim (unless the Neaderthal bones found with marks showing cannibalism were victims of Nephelim instead), but some also remained veggies (up to Genesis 9:3, as you know) and these Spanish Neanderthals might be the exact origin of Japheth's wife (Noah would perhaps not have chosen one from a cannibal tribe).

* Sorry for spelling, if wrong! I did not even dare try to spell Mlabri until I saw it written in the video.

[Btw, spelling is Tin Prai, and as language is arguably neither English, French or Modern Greek, ai should be pronounced as diphthong in "rye" or "pry". Alternatively as two vowels, ah-ee or uh-ee.]

14:26 The Guaranís were also a vulnerable people.

Jesuits certainly preserved their language, but not the lifestyle of lacking agriculture.

They called their "Reducciones" that name, because in them they were "reducing" = bringing back the Guaranís to the agricultural heritage which was really theirs as descending from Noah.

19:17 Just after Flood, we probably had too moist a ground (most places, if the wind in Gen 8:1 was a miraculous exception near Ararat, which even there took two months to change ground from "dry land as opposed to water" to "firm dry land") to start agriculture immediately.

What evolutionists call discovery and I consider rediscovery of agriculture is usually carbon dated to c. 10 000 BC or even later.

But in one place in Holy Land, they found ears of wheat carbon dated to c. 20 000 BC.

With ten thousand years between a false start and a real beginning, one would have to take the men back there for either extreme conservatives (as some say in a straw man against conservatism) or very dense. But with a steeply rising C14 level, that reduces to c. 100, 200 years. Maybe there is still wheat or spelt to find with carbon dates between 20 000 and 10 000 years BC (or BP.), or maybe climatic conditions had to change before agriculture could have a full scale start (drying out by ice age?).

A little after, but before 20:05.

"There never was a stone age".

There was a pre-Flood one before Tubalcain, there were probably people beside the general pre-Flood culture who continued or were sent back to stone age life, and there are post-flood centuries from which carbon dated finds (misdated to 40.000 - 5000 BC roughly) do not include metal artifacts.

Except of course, if the OOPARTs have some carbon dated material.

It is great to carbon date dinos, but why not carbon date OOPARTs too?

As to pre-Flood stone age peoples, the arguable reason they are found, they were less corrupt than most city dwellers, so God had less reason to wipe them out (even with Neanderthals partly cannibals? Hmmmm Mahabharata would be leaving out some gross details from pre-Flood wars between citydwellers ...?)

Now AT 20:05, if you were in any doubt, I am NOT a scoffer.

21:21 You are aware that over in France, some people are regarding me as a down and out, precisely racist or racialist (I prefer the term Trotski didn't coin anc GKC did use), precisely for the sole reason I am YEC?

They make two connections :

• 1) conservative Calvinists in the South were pro-slavery and conservative Calvinists in the South are most into YEC (btw, what is this man claiming to be Catholic doing around THAT), ergo YEC is racialist and pro-slavery;
• 2) slavery has been condoned by reference to curse of Cham, YEC believe Noah cursed Cham (or Canaan), ergo, YEC are pro-slavery and racialist.

So I hope you haven't concluded I am racialist just because people in France tell you so, if they do?

24:17 "Is obesity a crisis, or just the latest stage of evolution"?

Not only morals get very relative when evolution is presupposed!

[The final minutes are somewhat disconnected from rest of video, with a "in the news" section.]

... on Genevieve von Petzinger's view on human religion and symbolic behaviour

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs · ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's view on human religion and symbolic behaviour · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Prehistory of France

The Roots of Religion: Genevieve Von Petzinger at TEDxVictoria
TEDx Talks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zgwz_m7sRs

1:16 There was a time further back when we didn't have any religion?

Maybe not with Homo Sapiens?

OK ... Homo habilis is by creationists often termed a false taxon, mixing ape bones and human bones.

The other two, or at least Heidelbergians, are simply men, descending from Adam, like you and I, descending from Eve like you and I.

Possibly not having Y-chromosomes of the lineage of Seth to Noah, as we have.

Possibly not having mitochondriae like the lineages of Noah's three daughters in law.

But at least having Y-chromosomes going back to Adam (the Biblical one, while the genetical one, termed "Y-chromosome Adam" could in fact be Noah) and mitochondriae going back to Eve (same observation).

Those of them who were not religious were perhaps not so thanks to some secularisation - or the fact they lived in the wilderness (if they did) or were buried in caves might have been some sort of religious expression in its own right, like a protest against Nod East of Eden - and against Sethite society outside Noah's family getting more Nodian ... or it could have been a kind of Gulag too.

2:54

Ah, mental templates and preplanning are not tiable to any spot in the brain?

Thank you!

You have just given a neurological argument for soul rather than brain matter being the seat of mind!

4:01 Not necessarily sth other species can conceive of?

Thinking of past and future (mental time travel) is exclusively human (excluding for the moment the capacities of God and of angels)?

But you are arguing that man is NOT one animal species among all the rest, and if that is not where you want to argue, that is what your facts are arguing despite you!

5:46 One reason to watch the video : hearing her laughter about the neurological investigation about the God spot.

Résumé for others : people were told to think about God or their concept of God while in a brainscan, searchers found one spot turning up again and again, and ... after they said they had found "the God spot" they found that spot always "lights up" whenever people concentrate.

6:29 Homo erectus skull is obviously not carbon dated.

We can't date when it's from, probably they used the totally worthless K-Ar dating of lava it was found under or even (as with Lucy) above. Perhaps pre-Flood, perhaps post-Flood. Neanderthals probably pre-Flood on genetic grounds (other Y-chromosomes and mitochondriae than in Noah's close family which we descend from).

Homo sapiens 20 000 BP = > post-Flood.

There were Homo sapiens race pre-Flood, the Sethites of Noah's line were or evolved to such, plus their inlaws also getting ranged within "taxon" (we are really no different taxon than Neanderthals, if taxon means species or kind, I'll have to look taxon up ...) - but a carbon date 20 000 BP on my view is clearly post-Flood.

It has 8.898 percent modern carbon. This means near a halflife ago it has 15 - 16 percent modern carbon in the atmosphere. And that means there was a stage in the carbon 14 buildup reached after the Flood, on my view.

8:11 When did they become us?

They always were. The skeletons you find may have been found in positions where no religious expression you think of is detected, but that may be you are not looking at all possibilities OR it could also be we are dealing with people deprived for external reasons of means of expressing themselves.

Some tribes send people out into the wilderness as now death penalty is used, and in pre-Flood times or even somewhat early post-Flood ones (beyond humanity = 8 people, obviously) could have used banishment into the wilderness in similar fashions.

In the time of Nod, they could be saying "ha, they are off to the swamp to meet a T Rex" and in the time of Nimrod they could say "wonder if there are any Dimetrodon grandis back now in 875.5 km NW of that bay in Mediterranean" (Viking ships argue there were even later than Nimrod, or the memory was very well preserved).

9:10 120 000 years ago, not just misdated, but as not a carbon date, I don't even know how to reduce it to a useful date.

If Flood layers consistently have "older" K-Ar lava layers further down, I suppose that the deeper down it was, the more excess argon you got, because the more it was covered the less argon could escape.

This makes the division you say somewhat suspect of being a non-temporal one, with K-Ar dates from possibly non-Flood layers coinciding in excess argon.

11:37 Haven't you a bit forgotten or missed "symbolic behaviour" in Neanderthals and that flute carbon dated 50 000 BP?

And Neanderthal cannibalism, could it have been a symbolic rather than prosaically utilitarian behaviour, as with Aztek priests ripping out hearts and eating them?

It wasn't even done by all Neanderthals, those in Belgium did (take that, Brussells! as of late you are not just Tintin!) and those in Spain didn't, they were veggies, like pre-Flood godfearing men were supposed to be (Genesis 9:3).

13:12 I would say 28 000 BP (carbon dated, I presume) is already post-Flood, but some creationists disagree (CMI is willing to take fossils dated 20 000 years old as still being from Flood).

Sungir, Russia ... we could be looking at Magog ...

14:04 It is possible that their beadmaking techniques were better than those used when it took an hour per bead.

Even so, I think this démise cannot have been first decade after Flood, even apart from fact that no adults were around who died then. All 3 Surviving Sons of Noah (3 of 4 adult males in all mankind) were having all their children after the Flood, meaning they remained alive while making them.

14:43 Some suggestions (for the lion-man figurine):

• transgenics (according to Rob Skiba one of the ways in which pre-Flood Nephelim and men (outside Noah's line) were provoking the Flood);
• demons or perhaps even angels appearing;
• someone who was both good at yoga and good at hypnotism made people see him as a shapeshifter (Odin could do that, if you check with Saxo Grammaticus, that being one of the ways in which he fooled Swedes he was a god).

32 000 years old [the lion man figure]- could also be pre-Flood.

One of the ways in which man provoked God, or a Neanderthal telling his children (pointing at it) "don't go to town in Nod, you don't want to be making offspring like that against your will!"

15:18 Alternatives to hunting magic as proposed.

• Some artist with enhanced photographic memory watched the kill (it could be the hunter himself) and wanted to capture the moment;
• It was drawn so as to instruct "you attack the bison from the side, and you point at these two spots".

15:34 banging a real spear against the image on the wall?

I was banging real bullets against images of men when doing military service, and by now those paper men probably have so many bullet marks they are replaced.

Practising marksmanship.

16:23 And it is possible that men buried alone without decorations in caves, like Tautavel man (Heidelbergian, I think?) were dwelling there either as non-godfearing shamans or as godfearing hermits.

16:43 Beginning of sentence, your way of pronouncing "about" ... are you from Martha's Vinyeard?

... on Papacy

On the video

How to Become Pope
CGP Grey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF8I_r9XT7A

Mitchell Dale

I'm actually rather amazed at how much the system accommodates corruption. All you need is one bad pope and bam, every cardinal chosen from now on is a hand-picked crony and any potential bishops that are genuinely pious and might oppose your corrupt rule are vetoed out of any real power. Then you have an unbreakable cycle of corrupt cardinals electing corrupt popes who appoint corrupt cardinals.

...

Graup

Mitchell Dale Luckily that cycle can be broken and has been, source: history. The current pope thinks the poverty part of the church is very important while there surely have been many popes who were just like 'Fuck it, I'm gonna build a giant cathedral+palace for myself and make sinners pay for it!' (Which partly led to a hippie called Martin Luther starting a new church the members of which still aren't considered Christians by the Catholic Church, even though he just wanted to get some reformation to a horribly corrupt system. What he did was about as crazy considering church standards as what Franziskus is doing right now, just that one of them is a pope and the other got excluded from Church).

But yeah, at least you can't just buy yourself into being a bishop any more ...

...

CantusTropus

That's not true, actually. Well, it should be, because the Pope ought to be morally good (otherwise he'd be a very bad inspiration, and a bad shepherd). But it can happen, and it has (vis the Renaissance Popes). And YET, by and large, things keep ticking over and things don't fall apart. Why, you might wonder?

Well, even just looking at purely human affairs, there's Papal Infallibility. A LOT of people misunderstand this (the specter of past Protestant propaganda trying to portray the Pope as some kind of brainwashing dictator doesn't help in this regard) - papal infallibility is limited. A Pope can only pronounce infallible statements on matters of faith and/or morals; he cannot contradict the Deposit of Faith (he cannot, for instance, revise the Bible), and he cannot contradict another infallible statement. You personally happen to be pro-abortion and want to change Church teaching on the issue? Too bad! You can't, not even if you're Pope.

Catholics also believe that the Holy Spirit assists the Pope in making infallible decisions, and given that the Holy Spirit is 1)Omniscient & 2)Infinitely Good, the Holy Spirit will never do anything out of malice or ignorance.

Lastly, an old self-depreciating joke Catholics often use goes roughly like this: "The Church must be protected by Divine Providence, because such a dysfunctional organisation run by such flawed people could never have possibly survived for so long otherwise."

Not infallible in the sense of being morally perfect or even morally decent (necessarily). Infallible in the sense of being able to authoritatively define issues of faith and morals, yes.

That's Evangelical Protestantism. Catholicism doesn't believe that (or at least, not quite that). They ofc believe that Christ wants everyone to be saved, but they do not believe that (or at least, are not required to believe) that absolutely everyone without exception will be saved.

sleeptyper

[Not his first, I missed several previous to this one

but this one is important]

Poverty, heh... If you walk into a catholic church, does it look like simple and undecorated - like Jesus taught people to be - or does it look like riches exaggerated beyond reason?

Politics? Jesus refused to be crowned earthly king for jews. Churches everywhere have been keen to get into politics and influence matters for their own benefit.

Finnish evangelical protestant church is currently torn with the question about wedding gay couples. Crowd demands it and almost half of bishops would allow it.

Ironically, all this has been predicted in the Bible itself. 2. Peter 2:1-3 says: "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping."

If you want to learn what the Bible truly teaches, i suggest that you pay attention the next time your doorbell rings (or visit www.jw.org). :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All you need is one bad pope and bam, every cardinal chosen from now on is a hand-picked crony and any potential bishops that are genuinely pious and might oppose your corrupt rule are vetoed out of any real power. Then you have an unbreakable cycle of corrupt cardinals electing corrupt popes who appoint corrupt cardinals."

There are corruption and corruption.

If the corruption touches FAITH, the breaking of the circle is recognising that the pretended current "Pope" has deviated from the faith of his predecessors, is no Pope, see is vacant, cardinals are invited to distance themselves from him and elect a real Pope and judged as being accomplice if not.

Also, cardinals have longer carreers than Popes, meaning a one corrupt Pope would not be in a position to make all cardinals of his choice. The ones previous to his time would still be around.

"(Which partly led to a hippie called Martin Luther starting a new church the members of which still aren't considered Christians by the Catholic Church, even though he just wanted to get some reformation to a horribly corrupt system. What he did was about as crazy considering church standards as what Franziskus is doing right now, just that one of them is a pope and the other got excluded from Church)."

Martin Luther can be described as a lot of things.

A genius and a crank are two of them.

But hippie is NOT one of them.

I am an ex-Lutheran, a Catholic, I know some about the guy.

When he told German princes to slaughter rebellious farmers with no mercy, which he did, you don't want to call him a hippie.

And, other big no, the Catholic system was NOT terribly corrupt.

Except, someone said "it must have been if men like Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox could have become priests" (back then). Well, perhaps there were years in which Luther, Calvin and Knox looked nearly as Catholics ...

"That's not true, actually. Well, it should be, because the Pope ought to be morally good (otherwise he'd be a very bad inspiration, and a bad shepherd)."

A Pope is not there to be an inspiration mainly. I accept Pope Michael as Pope. I can feel with people who don't find him inspiring. But he is not (as far as I could ascertain) a bad man.

Tokun

Eh, no shrewd corrupt person would let things get that far, you want to keep up appearances and make sure a good number of your appointments are respectable and presentable (you need someone to do outreach). If you don't, you quickly lose authority and then people outside your cabal (and outside of the clergy at times) get involved and pressure you into making changes. And people change (especially old men in fear of their fast approaching death and subsequent damnation) so the balance between corrupt/genuine can tip at certain times.

But the system is designed to be conservative and cronyist. The ideal they're going for here is the passing on of untarnished tradition of church and faith, there's little room for innovation. Change is bad as a general rule and only to be undertaken when it's truly inevitable. The system ensures stability, that's why it lasted for so long.

Lex Luthor

Mitchell Dale, yes, take a good look at the current Pope.

Gusty17

That, my dear friend, happened over and over again since the kidnapping of the papacy in Avignon, and maybe a little earlier, but still from that point onwards, many countries had a lot of interests in the selection of a new Pope...even today!

nicolapodgornik

Mitchell Dale yeah that's what happened for...... 800 years! welcome to italy!!!

Kahmoj

Mitchell Dale That's what it has been for the 1000+ years this has been happening.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

People who say corrupt pope has elected (via cardinals) corrupt pope for 800 or 1000 years, what are you talking about?

What do you mean by the word corrupt, in the context?

General Dix

Mitchell Dale Does it really matter though?? What real power does the Pope even have?

Kahmoj

General Dix One billion mother fuckers, some willing to kill.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kahmoj, did you just describe one billion Catholics as mother fuckers?

As for "willing to kill", we do believe soldiers and people involved in just defence do have that right on occasions.

Carlos Eduardo Aguiar

redhandsbluefaces This is false, that's actually close to paganism then Christianity, please study more

King King

Mitchell Dale bro the vatican has been the epicenter of corruption for hundreds of years need and example try Rodrigo Borgia the most famous corrupt pope

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the vatican has been the epicenter of corruption for hundreds of years"

I don't think so.

"need and example"

Do you have a good one? My best ones would be from the last decades.

"try Rodrigo Borgia the most famous corrupt pope"

Er, a corrupt priest in the sense of not staying as chaste as his celibacy required, but apart from trying to force his son Cesare Borgia to become bishop of Carpentras, I don't see how his Papal acts show much corruption?

nicolapodgornik

Hans-Georg Lundahl you are so dumb man. can't even argue with you, if he is not a corrupt pope, i could easily say hitler was a Saint and you would agrrr -_-

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not saying Alexander VI was a good MAN, I am saying he was a generally good POPE.

He knew his faults and mostly had the sense to keep these OFF his actions as a POPE.

You can argue John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a bad president, if you like, but at least you would be ill advised to do it because he was a bad man in his sex life, often cheating on his wife.

I argue Clinton was a lousy president, but not because of Monica Lewinski (and Alexander VI never did any such evil thing as those of which Clinton so rightly said "that is not sex").

King King

Hans-Georg Lundahl he bribed his way to becoming pope and he increased the amount of cardinals so he could fill the college with cardinals loyal to him so his rule wouldent be challenged and im not talking about modern day,the vaticans power is so useless compared to what it was its pointless to be corrupt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, suppose JFK had paid the campaigns for his election by bootlegging money from his father and suppose lobotomising his sister was part of the father's way of campaigning for him.

That would have made JFK a very corrupt man, but it is not in itself an argument against any single act he made as a president.

Alexander VI filled the college of cardinals with cardinals loyal to him, by augmenting the number.

I did not know that. I don't have any clue what difference it would have made, certainly it was not cementing Roman Catholicism as a product of his own corruption, since the cardinals who were already there were anyway not Protestants.

The one difference it did make, if true, was probably just this, it gave him more ecclesiastic charges to give to his friends and close ones, precisely as he tried to abuse the diocese of Carpantras, which was foiled by the fact his son Cesare Borgia didn't want to be bishop. For the Church as a whole? A bad moral example, that is all, if true.

With people like "John XXIII", "Paul VI", "John Paul II" I have heard a similar charge on one of them, and on precisely "Paul VI" I have heard another charge too, he deprived cardinals above a certain age of vote (above 80, I think). With these guys I know very well what difference it could and arguably did make, they could marginalise conservatives and fill the college of cardinals (if still speakable of as such, arguably not so) with Modernists.

sleeptyper, "Poverty, heh... If you walk into a catholic church, does it look like simple and undecorated - like Jesus taught people to be - or does it look like riches exaggerated beyond reason?"

I have heard of Jesus driving out cattle sellers and money changers from Temple, but not of His trearing down decorations from it.

"Politics? Jesus refused to be crowned earthly king for jews. Churches everywhere have been keen to get into politics and influence matters for their own benefit."

Sure, but some OT High Priests did also get involved in his ancestor King David. Whose kingdom certainly was visibly on earth a political kingdom.

"Finnish evangelical protestant church is currently torn with the question about wedding gay couples. Crowd demands it and almost half of bishops would allow it."

You might note they broke with Papacy a little less than 500 years ago.

"Ironically, all this has been predicted in the Bible itself. 2. Peter 2:1-3 says: "However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you."

You are very right that this has predicted the Protestant Reformation!

MiguelPmp

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Our local Catholic Church isn't decorated much except for a statue, lights, cloth, electric fan, and chairs. Actually most I've been to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did you note I was quoting sleeptyper's words before answering them?

On your admission, your Church is a victim of Liturgic Reform of Vatican II.

I have been to the Cathedral of Tulle, where Monsignor Lefèbvre had been Archbishop. People there were very kind, he must have given them good advise on alms, and his successors must have kept it up.

But the Cathedral was, apart from strictly architectural elements, like pillars and vaults, as you describe.

I can't recall seeing any statue apart from Crucifix, though that may be my bad memory (12 years ago I was there, minus some months) and certainly not many icons or other religious paintings.

It was as if a Protestant, more Calvinist than Lutheran, had been given authority over the Church buildings.

... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's 32 late palaeolithic signs · ... on Genevieve von Petzinger's view on human religion and symbolic behaviour · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Prehistory of France

First her excellent video:

Why are these 32 symbols found in caves all over Europe | Genevieve von Petzinger
TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnEQCMA5Sg

She is married, guys!

Then, my comments to some time signatures in it:

2:36 "the evolution of creativity and imagination"

I suppose if you take cave art of the Cro Magnon styles (Magdalenian and Aurignacian, Grattian, some more perhaps) as having perdured 30 000 years, from 40 000 BP to 10 000 BP, it would seem human creativity was less evolved in these artists than it is now.

[I meant Gravettian, not Grattian!]

Now, if this is about the time between Flood and Babel, like 100 or 400 years, it could even be a single artist or dad and son.

Now the thing is, if C14 was very low at Flood (say 2.15 percent modern carbon) and rose very quickly so Babel gets the carbon dates of Göbekli Tepe, that is a lot of doublings in real short time, and resolves in retrospect as a lot of halvings and therefore a lot of halflives if you presume original level to have been close to 100 pmc all or most of the time.

And in that case, you don't get a 30 000 year long stasis of styles which would really mean we were less creative back then than between 1200 and 1600 AD (and even than between 1600 and 2017 AD, while this was more static).

4:15 You are forgetting versification and memnonics, unless you mean by message not self same "message content", but self same external "message package".

You can learn Pater Noster in Sweden while converting to Catholicism and you can transmit an identical text of it in France more than 20 years later, if you find someone to teach it to.

If you look at the first chapters of Genesis (pre-Flood or even up to Babel, i e to chapters 6 or 11) each is so short, it would not be a very remarkable feat for one taking special training in it to receive it correctly from Adam or whoever of his successors was dictating and transmit it a few centuries (for the pre-Flood chapters) identically, as long as the language remained identical.

5:52 You might be the right person to ask ...

The geometric shapes that look like dots packed together which we just saw, could these possibly be representing clan size households of Noah's family or at first even the growth of it?

In other words, are the dots either increasing in numbers or staying abround a fixed number which would be practical for a camp while mankind was roaming towards the plains of Shinar, from Ararat, with lots of to and fro?

7:08 32 is also roughly speaking a nice number of phonemes for a language ...

8:52 ... however, it does not quite look like words spelled out, more like mindmaps with abbreviations in each place.

Have you checked trying to match (all combinations possible) signs with Hebrew alphabet letters and see if anything looks like Table of Nations Genealogies in Genesis 10, or rehearsals of the 10 generation genealogy in Genesis 5 or the 8 generation genealogy in Genesis 4?

Like Adam, Seth, Enosh abbreviated aleph, shin, aleph ...?

Like Cain, Henoch, Irad abbreviated kaph, heth (or he?), iod (or aleph)?

10:10 Things like pronouns, adverbs, adjectives ...

If you are writing a text to be readable as a new message, you need all that.

If you are writing a memory aid, initials of key words is enough.

Adam genuit Seth, Seth genuit Enos, Enos genuit Cainan (same style as genealogy in Matthew, while that in Genesis 5 is more fleshed out) ... all you need to write for Latin would be ASECMIHMLN.

As Latin wasn't, but Hebrew (or protosemitic or gheez or aramaic) was pre-Babel language, I obviously mean for that kind of language instead.

Obviously, I mean that the first version of a Genesis 5 genealogy someone learned as a child would have been Adam genuit Seth, Seth genuit Enos ... and then the extra information would be added as explanations to the fully learned between Adam and Moses.

10:44, where you saw star constellations, I saw population.

Recall God's promise to Abraham? (But Genesis 12 and certainly 14 is probably Chalcolithic already).

Update 20.VII.2019: when reading Irving Finkel's L'Arche avant Noé, translated from The Ark Before Noah I find, on page 89, that the Ugaritic proto-alphabet had 31 signs, including one for separating words. Very similar to the 32 number here, and Ugaritic is a Semitic language of the North West Semitic subdivision required by either Hebrew or Aramaic for original post-Flood language./HGL

Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers

New blog on the kid : A Yogi was Very Sure of "Science" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Two Quorans answering "What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?" (quora, obviously) · New blog on the kid : An Unpleasant Debate with a Scandinavian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Malcolm-Baker

Malcolm Baker

former Not a Pheasant Plucker, a Pheasant Pluckers Mate

Written Sun

To point out all the obvious evidence is pointless, because these strange folk believe that “God” created all the evidence that shows that the planet is 4.5bn years old and the universe is 13.8bn years old “on purpose”. My question would be, “why did he do that? What does he achieve by misleading us in this way?”

Also, if humans are indeed special and we are the only intelligent beings in the universe, then why did the creator make the universe so absurdly big? The overwhelming majority of it is off limits to us, but, apparently, barren?

You really do have to be very stupid indeed to believe that the universe is only 6,000yrs old, and it's not really a debate that belongs outside of a church or a home for the bewildered (same kinda thing).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"To point out all the obvious evidence is pointless, because these strange folk believe that “God” created all the evidence that shows that the planet is 4.5bn years old and the universe is 13.8bn years old 'on purpose'. My question would be, 'why did he do that? What does he achieve by misleading us in this way?'"

Do they?

Can you document any who say that, currently, or are you speaking of Strawmannus Maximus and of Homo Foeni?

"Also, if humans are indeed special and we are the only intelligent beings in the universe, then why did the creator make the universe so absurdly big? The overwhelming majority of it is off limits to us, but, apparently, barren?"

God created angels too, and I don't buy the 13.8 billion lightyears distance as the real one to the furthest off stars.

"You really do have to be very stupid indeed to believe that the universe is only 6,000yrs old, and it's not really a debate that belongs outside of a church or a home for the bewildered (same kinda thing)."

Ah, you are not very familiar with the debate, nor with the arguments of the opponents you try to infantilise ...

Mark de Haan

‘I don’t buy the 13.8 billion lightyears distance as the real one..’ WHAT THE FUCK?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, the details of my argument.

If Earth is not moving the phenomenon called parallax has a misnomer. The so called parallax is not parallax and does not allow us to construe by trig the distance of 4 light years to alpha Centauri, unlike, perhaps but not necessarily, if parallax had been parallax.

If angels are moving stars and planets, “parallax” can easily be a proper movement.

This means that the stellar statistics on which Herschel built his series of stellar sizes and types involves fake distances and fake real lulinisities and sizes.

This means that the steps in cosmic distance ladder from there on are also moot.

I e, if they disagree with known history including Biblical, throw it out!

Mark Bolles

Lulinisities? Wow!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Luminosities. Double typo.

[Luli for Lumi, L next to M, Nisities for Nosities, I next to O.]

Mark Bolles

That certainly improves your credibility, but I must tell you that parallax is real because the Earth is clearly in motion around the Sun-Earth barycenter. We have seasons, eclipses, differences in northern and southern hemisphere weather—from our elliptical perigee and apogee, motions of other planets that agree with calculated positions and…wait for it…wait for it…luminosities, and other empirical evidence. I can see most of this evidence with my natural senses and it is logical to me. I do not see evidence of angels or angelic majesties. Of course, I can't see x-rays but I have complete confidence in their reality.

We all make choices in our our beliefs. I cannot accept any religious dogma or supernatural explanations. I choose science and only science to guide me toward ultimate truth. May you find your way as pleasant(Star Trek quote).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I must tell you that parallax is real"

You mean "phenomenon of parallax is really that and nothing else"? I presume.

OK, because Earth's motion is proven by "parallax"? I presume you do not mean that. It would be circular. BUT that you instead mean this is proven by physical theory, as in your next words:

"because the Earth is clearly in motion around the Sun-Earth barycenter."

But motion around barycentres are only one theory of celestial motions. How do you exclude celestial bodies are moved by angels?

"We have seasons, eclipses, differences in northern and southern hemisphere weather—from our elliptical perigee and apogee, motions of other planets that agree with calculated positions and…wait for it…wait for it…luminosities, and other empirical evidence."

I am not in the least doubting that luminosities of planets as seen here can be related to real luminosity of the Sun, since we DO know the distance of Sun to us (at diverse parts of year, somewhat variable, as you mentioned).

All you enumerated can be perfectly true with Tychonian orbits in geometry and with angelic movers (and God as prime mover) in causality.

It is for stars that the “proper luminosities” are calculated from observed luminosity and a distance presumed to be known from “parallax” (taken as really such, and as accurately observed as to precise angle).

"I can see most of this evidence with my natural senses and it is logical to me."

I totally agree the pieces of evidence are there to be seen. I totally do NOT agree they are evidence logically disproving Tychonian Geocentrism.

"I do not see evidence of angels or angelic majesties."

Well, with Tychonian orbits, which are the ones we directly see, directly observe, we may have difficulty in tying down the causality to purely mechanical factors, like barycentres and such.

"Of course, I can't see x-rays but I have complete confidence in their reality."

I am confident in x-rays because they produce radiographs, which we can look at, and I accept angels because they produce Tychonian orbits, which at least astronomers look at.

"We all make choices in our our beliefs."

Indeed.

"I cannot accept any religious dogma or supernatural explanations."

Not being able to accept a supernatural explanation is an antireligious dogma.

"I choose science and only science to guide me toward ultimate truth."

That is at least a quasireligious choice.

"May you find your way as pleasant(Star Trek quote)."

I usually do.

Except when Heliocentrics and Evolutionists more fanatic than you are destroying the fun.

Feel free to continue debate if you like, you seem like a polite and civil guy.

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Martin-Silvertant

Martin Silvertant

amateur astronomer, researcher, writer

Updated 19h ago

Ask them how large they think the universe is. If they say 13.8 billion light-years or more, that defeats their argument already. How so?

Because the most distant galaxy observed so far is GN-z11, which, at a redshift of z=11.1[1] was at a distance of 13.39 billion light-years when its light was emitted.

Due to the expansion of space the galaxy is much more distant now (it has a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years), but the fact that we observe it at this distance now is due to the fact that it took 13.39 billion years for the light emanated from that galaxy to reach us.

So the universe has to be at least that old. In 6000 years, the light from that galaxy would have traveled only 0.000045% of the distance to Earth.

If the universe were really only 6000 years old, then God would have had to create the universe starting at a moment where the light of GN-z11 was already 99.99% of the way to Earth. Why would God do such a thing?

God doesn’t do redundancies, does it? I would like to think God created the universe beautifully, harmoniously and perfectly, with a cosmic evolution that ultimately lead to the emergence of life.

If God really created the universe with the light of many galaxies already traveling, and with millions of fossils planted on presumably all planets where sentient life is located—despite those fossils not being a result of a long evolution—I would say he’s the greatest magician, but not a respectable creator.

I’m an atheist, but even I don’t think so lowly of God as to suggest he created a sham.

Footnotes

[1] [1603.00461] A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy

[Own note]

He also has answered how he realised he was transgender. Or if it was transsexual.

Am omitting the diagrams, they show on the link.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Ask them how large they think the universe is. If they say 13.8 billion light-years or more, that defeats their argument already.”

And if I say that I believe the Bessel phenomenon (discovery 1838) is not parallactic, the cosmic distance ladder from parallax on is wrong and the universe has some probable chance of being one light day from here to the fix stars, I think you have some little more trouble refuting my Young Earth Creationism.

Iñaki Rodriguez

Perhaps you believe that, but can you back your claim?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Since Martin Silvertant is the one trying to prove 6000 years wrong for whole universe, he is the one who has to prove that it is 13.8 billion light years across.

We see and with equilibrial sense also feel earth as non-moving, we see heavenly bodies across the sky. So, the a priori probability is Geocentric.

Walter Brameld

The standard reply is some version of Last Thursdayism, only without the irony. You can counter that with, “How do you tell the difference between a 13.8 billion year old universe and a 6000 year old universe that appears in every respect to be 13.8 billion years old? If there’s no way to tell the difference, then why propose the more complicated explanation of youth-with-appearance-of-age?”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Maybe I don’t agree the universe “in every respect appears to be 13.8 billion years old”.

Valentine Ojieh

Maybe the person who thinks that way views the earth as Benjamin Button. Haha

Jay R Worsham

The claim is that the EARTH is 6,000 years old. This makes the billions-of-light-years-old universe example moot. Believers in the 6k-old earth have not, in my experience, mentioned the universe.

Of course, the Bible does say God created “the heavens and the earth,” so maybe they interpret the heavens as the universe.

Assuming they don’t figure the stars as pinholes in a dark canopy up there. Anything’s possible when you chuck scientific data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Heavens is space of universe and spiritual objects, i e angels.

Stars, Moon and Sun were created on day IV.

“Assuming they don’t figure the stars as pinholes in a dark canopy up there. Anything’s possible when you chuck scientific data.”

There is a difference between raw data, which we don’t chuck and conclusions presented as “scientific data” which sometimes we do chuck.

The idea of pinholes in a dark canopy implies bright light everywhere above it … not sure I could disprove it, but not my theory.

[Not one I would regard as dead wrong or heretical either.]

Karthik Rao

I suppose someone daft enough to believe the Universe is 6000 years old, will also believe in stuff like

• You are lying , there is no such galaxy, it is a conspiracy.
• Science is wrong, so I am not listening anyways.
• Do not questions God’s will. If (S)He wanted to put light there to confuse you lowly mortals, (S)He will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“daft enough” is about as much a general dismissal of your opponents without hearing their arguments as “you are lying” or “I am not listening anyway” would have been one on your strawman version of our attitude.

“there is no such galaxy,” is actually conceivable on other grounds, such as it being wrong to analyse Andromeda Nebula as a “galaxy like our own”.

Martin Silvertant

Well, I tried. If citing papers is not enough, I don’t know what else can be offered.

Karthik Rao

Just walk away, I suppose. Let them spread the word among their (hopefully) small group of people and convince themselves that the rest of us are going to Hell for questioning God.

But your argument is good enough for someone who is open to scientific arguments, and is willing to think logically.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except when it isn’t.

Ted Krapkat

Creationists have an answer for everything;-

Has the Speed of Light Decayed?
http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/

The Decay of c-decay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have a less exotic one.

Geocentrism, hence no parallax base for trigonometry, hence no cosmic distance ladder beyond “stars are further away than Pluto” etc.

[The trigonometry for Pluto is based on simultaneous angles of sunlight on Pluto as seen in telescope and angle of Sun, as known, usually by the clock, + known distance to Sun.]

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Dave-Consiglio

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Silvertant

Dave Consiglio

I teach physics. This is literally my day job!

Written Sun · Upvoted by Barry Blatt

I show this video to people.

[Not linking to Monty Python's "Holy Grail", for other reasons, obvious to Catholics, but scene is "the killer bunny" - probably none of the blasphemous parts, but not checking./HGL]

I know, I know. Bear with me.

In this scene, Arthur and his knights doubt that a tiny white bunny rabbit could be the fearsome monster described by Tim the Enchanter. They mock Tim for thinking such a silly thought.

Tim’s response is one for the ages:

“Look at the bones!!!”

If someone thinks that our Earth is but 6,000 years old, those are the exact words to show them that the world is far older. Look at the bones. The bones of creatures long since dead and fossilized. Then, tell them that we’ve done experiments to see how long it takes bones to fossilize, and how long it takes them to be encased in sedimentary rock, and how fast that rock forms its layers. We’ve also used radioactive dating to get good estimates of how long that rock has been solid.

They all point to one very clear answer: fossils are often MUCH older than 6,000 years. In fact, they’re almost always older than 60,000 years. Many are older than 600,000 years. Some are older than 6,000,000 or even 60,000,000 years.

Every single dinosaur bone is older than that.

In fact, the oldest fossils on this planet that are recognizable as animals are nearly 600,000,000 years old. All of this data is corroborated and agreed upon by independent scientists all over the world, and has been for over 100 years.

In fact, this amazing woman:

Mary Anning - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning

found some of the first intact fossils that suggested that an “Age of Reptiles” preceeded the “Age of Mammals”. Anning was well aware that these fossils must be older than 6,000 years, and most likely very much older.

Biography, Facts and Pictures
https://www.famousscientists.org/mary-anning/

If the scientific evidence pointed to these fossils all being 6,000 years old, you’d have a case. But some are 60,000 years old while others are 6,000,000 years old.

In addition, some fossils are found in some strata and nowhere else. This is good evidence for the notion that these animals lived, bred, became fossilized, and eventually went extinct. The fact that no dinosaur bones have ever been found in even adjacent (or nearly adjacent) fossil strata strongly suggests that dinosaurs were extinct long before human beings came into existence. This fact doesn’t even require carbon dating.

For the people who say “Noah’s flood killed the dinosaurs”, you have a nice rebuttal there. If that were true, we would find human bones from the millions of people God slaughtered right next to the bones of dinosaurs that God slaughtered.

But we never find that.

All that being said, you’re likely to lose this argument. The true believer believes what he wants, and evidence and facts need not apply.·

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If someone thinks that our Earth is but 6,000 years old, those are the exact words to show them that the world is far older. Look at the bones. The bones of creatures long since dead and fossilized."

OK?

"Then, tell them that we’ve done experiments to see how long it takes bones to fossilize, and how long it takes them to be encased in sedimentary rock, and how fast that rock forms its layers."

Have you also done experiments on how much of the moments could happen quickly at once before getting the process to the final result?

"We’ve also used radioactive dating to get good estimates of how long that rock has been solid."

You mean things like K-Ar on lava, or Zircons, right? C-14 is another matter.

"They all point to one very clear answer: fossils are often MUCH older than 6,000 years. In fact, they’re almost always older than 60,000 years. Many are older than 600,000 years. Some are older than 6,000,000 or even 60,000,000 years."

Father Brown said about lie detectors that a stick which points in one direction automatically at the same time points in the other direction as well.

"Every single dinosaur bone is older than that."

According to an estimate which in most places has not gone through your described process, but the process of saying "a Ceratopsian? Cretaceous!" after someone else said of Ceratopsians in general "found in Cretaceous? Ceratopsians are an index fossil then".

But when once in a while they get tested for C-14, they are NOT much older than that ...

"In fact, the oldest fossils on this planet that are recognizable as animals are nearly 600,000,000 years old."

According to the current estimate of these dating techniques, most of which are faulty.

"All of this data is corroborated and agreed upon by independent scientists all over the world, and has been for over 100 years."

Most of the precise datings are much younger than 100 years as to the scientists who made them, and the corroboration involves rejecting radioactive dates which seem too out of the way and involves rejecting the carbon dating of dinosaur bones.

[Mary Anning] "found some of the first intact fossils that suggested that an 'Age of Reptiles' preceeded the 'Age of Mammals'."

Other interpretation : Lyme Regis was in immediate pre-Flood times a reptilian fauna.

"Anning was well aware that these fossils must be older than 6,000 years, and most likely very much older."

If she thought they could not be from anytime in the Biblical timeline, she ignored the possibility of diversified immediately pre-Flood faunas.

"If the scientific evidence pointed to these fossils all being 6,000 years old, you’d have a case. But some are 60,000 years old while others are 6,000,000 years old."

In fact, if you carbon date them, you get a first rough estimate of how low C-14 level was during Flood.

If you further count on diversified pre-Flood faunas (we have diversified faunas today too), you lose the case about 6000000 years, except when buttressed by K-Ar which was shown worthless on Mt St Helens and in other occasions of lava flow which is historically and factually dated.

"In addition, some fossils are found in some strata and nowhere else."

Except that diversified pre-Flood faunas will do as well as the strata, in the fossil finds (outside Cretaceous fossil finds, there is often a non-fossil bearing Cretaceous stratum under or over possibly fossil bearing non-Cretaceous strata, and so on for other "layers").

"The fact that no dinosaur bones have ever been found in even adjacent (or nearly adjacent) fossil strata strongly suggests that dinosaurs were extinct long before human beings came into existence."

If ever a stratum was preliminarily labelled Danian, once you find a dino in it, you quickly change label to Maastrichtian (or other part of Cretaceous or of generally Mesozoic).

"This fact doesn’t even require carbon dating."

No, but it does require some thinking inside the box only and taking evidence presented as evidence for x, as only interpretable in terms of evidence for x, nothing else.

"If that were true, we would find human bones from the millions of people God slaughtered right next to the bones of dinosaurs that God slaughtered."

You don't find bones of most dead people and you don't find bones of most animals.

You do find both cannibal Neanderthals and Iguanadons in Belgium, though.

Iñaki Rodriguez

“But when once in a while they get tested for C-14, they are NOT much older than tha”

Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils

“According to the current estimate of these dating techniques, most of which are faulty.”

According to whom? Sources, please

“If ever a stratum was preliminarily labelled Danian, once you find a dino in it, you quickly change label to Maastrichtian (or other part of Cretaceous or of generally Mesozoic).”

When this change of label has happened? Sources, please

“You do find both cannibal Neanderthals and Iguanadons in Belgium, though.”

In the same place and substrate? Sources, please

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils"

I didn't say the ones who dated dino bones with C-14 were conventional palaeontologist.

"According to whom? Sources, please"

I'd first of all have sources to your current estimates.

But knowing some are based on K-Ar, here are sources against that one:

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

"When this change of label has happened? Sources, please"

I said "if ever", not "whenever".

"In the same place and substrate? Sources, please"

I don't think Neanderthals liked to live too close to Iguanodons, so I don't think they died in the same place either.

Can YOU point to a place where an Iguanodon has been found ten meters or five meters or whatever below a Neanderthal? That is the kind of evidence one would like for your version of the story?

Here are however my sources for both being in Belgium:

Iguanodon:

The largest find of Iguanodon remains to that date occurred on 28 February 1878 in a coal mine at Bernissart in Belgium, at a depth of 322 m (1,056 ft),[6] when two mineworkers, Jules Créteur and Alphonse Blanchard, accidentally hit on a skeleton that they initially took for petrified wood.

Iguanodon - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguanodon

Neanderthal:

Caveman menu: Woolly rhino in Belgium, mushrooms in Spain
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/90250357/caveman-menu-woolly-rhino-in-belgium-mushrooms-in-spain

And before you tell me “that is not the same place, Bernissart and …” - well, the second link doesn’t say where the woolly rhino eating Neanderthals were found - I’d say I think you are right (unless the Neanderthals were found in Bernissart), but paleontologists or at least geologists are stating that a dino in one end of North Dakota is “above” a pelykosaur in the other end of it.

Belgium is not bigger than North Dakota and I am at least not introducing spurious “above” and “below” which cannot be verified in situ.

Bonus

Two references were out of haste not given on quora.

I

"but paleontologists or at least geologists are stating that a dino in one end of North Dakota is “above” a pelykosaur in the other end of it."

Reference

My debate with Howard F:

Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2015/05/geological-column-not-palaeontolical.html

Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2015/05/same-debate-uncensored-one-step-further.html

II

"Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils"

I don't know if that team are professional paleontoligists or not, but by being creationists, they are not conventional ones:

Reference

Collagen and C-14 in Dinosaur Bones
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/collagen-and-c-14-in-dinosaur-bones.html

Two Quorans answering "What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?" (quora, obviously)

New blog on the kid : A Yogi was Very Sure of "Science" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Two Quorans answering "What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?" (quora, obviously) · New blog on the kid : An Unpleasant Debate with a Scandinavian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Mihai-Chitoiu

Mihai Chitoiu

Sales Consultant

Written Tue

In case of a debate on whether the Universe is 6000 years or older, you should just walk away, people who still believe that in 2017 will not understand any scientific observation or reasonable argument, you’re just going to get a severe headache and astonishment.

Firstly you will say the evident: dinosaur fossils, they will say you have no idea that carbon dating is accurate, or that they are part of a diabolic conspiracy, or that God put dinosaur fossils there to test our faith.

Its just a case of psychology, i think: you will never be able to change someone’s mind over his beliefs if that somebody has been indoctrinated all his life with religious crap. From a natural explorer of knowledge (which is what a human being should be), these people are grown into mindlessly believing Bible “facts”.

Now take an example: you live in a small religious community, you were told all your life the same Bible stories, all your life, over and over, everybody in that community agrees, there is no debate, nobody questions anything.

Then you come to a big city for work or school, and get into a debate with somebody that says: the Universe is infinite, and was formed billions of years ago in the Big Bang.

That statement would seem to you as clear blasphemy. Then as a shock, you will simply deny yourself evident facts, struggling to stick to your own beliefs and clinging to whatever explanation that disproves, even by a long shot, all valid arguments.

I think psychologically its called: argument from ignorance, everything religion related comes from that:

you see the world - have no idea how it got there - assume God did it - debate everyone by saying they can’t disprove God did it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Excuse me, please tell me that you went to school before the fall of Ceaucescu?

If your teacher taught you that kind of crap about creationists and about what we reason, I hope he lost his job 1990 or so?

Or ….?

Mihai Chitoiu

Hello,

I started school in the post-Ceausescu era, so sorry about that…

I guess my answer made you angry and unsettled? Like the example i wrote ;)?

Well then, you are in denial phase! You can look it up in wikipedia :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am as unlike your guess as you are unlike my hope.

I feared that kind of attitude could still remain even after Ceaucescu.

Sorry for Romania about that.

I had a stepfather from Romania / France / Germany who had gone in the schools under Ceacescu or perhaps Ana Pauker.

He raised me evolutionist the early years, and was later (after divorce) upset at ma for bringing up creationism and considered me weakminded for believing it.

Apparently, in Romania, both under and after Communism, Creationism has a cultural “tag”, of the sort you bring up.

The example you wrote does make me angry because it reduces Creationists to a stereotype and because it tries to pretend the cultural isolation of what you presumed to be a typical one is relevant, while your own cultural isolation is not relevant.

Just because you are culturally isolated with lots more people than I, right now, if I had been culturally isolated.

Have you heard anything about one Emil Silvestru?

Mihai Chitoiu

Emil Silvestru is trying to “scientifically explain” Bible events and creationism, but anyone with a logical mind can see that he is full of crap.

You are seeking refuge in the explanations of somebody just because they seem logical and because it makes you comfortable with your beliefs. Everything you say falls under the specific psychological profile of religious people: you are never satisfied with any valid argument that debunks your beliefs.

Whereas atheists, i think, all secretly hope for that evidence of miracles, that will make them wonder… it never happens though… Its all logical processes.

The only thing weird from what you said is the fact that even though you were raised on science and evolution, later on you turned to religion, i’m not sure what to make of that, maybe some childhood trauma related to your father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have showed one thing to full satisifaction : you have no valid arguments yourself, you are just eager to discredit those who have such, whether Emil Silvestru or me.

I am not even much relying on Emil Silvestru’s particular arguments, he is somewhat marginal to my own research in Creation Science.

I mentioned him, because he is - like I - unlike the stereotype of Creationists from middle of nowhere in most rural Kentucky, he is not ignorant of Evolutionist arguments, he is an ex-Evolutionist.

You can explain that away with his being “full of crap”, but you can’t change he is not what you just tried to portray us creationists as.

And you are trying to discredit me as well, by talking psychology, instead of adressing the fact you were wrong, you were speaking without thinking of a man whom in fact you knew of.

I am glad I didn’t here link to his profile on CMI, since this proves you knew of him before I mentioned him.

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Tom-Briggs-2

Tom Briggs

worked at Singapore

Written Sun

I like George Carlin’s response, “What are you, fucking stupid?”

There is no point engaging the proudly ignorant. They didn't reach their point of view using reason and evidence, so why bother trying to convince them using reason and evidence? It is a waste of breath.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“They didn't reach their point of view using reason and evidence, “

What do you know about that?

Tom Briggs

I know that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, magic, faries, bigfoot, any of it. If there was, there wouldn’t be such violent disagreement about belief systems. If these assertions were real there would be no argument about their validity. It would be obvious to all.

That it is not obvious and agreed upon, like all sorts of other data about the universe, is all the reason I need to dismiss these assertions. Religion is a culturally transmitted folk belief. It serves some utility in social organization of less educated societies, but is not subject to empirical validation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I know that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural, magic, faries, bigfoot, any of it."

Either you are wrong on what "empirical" means, or you are simply wrong on fact.

There is lots of empirical, that is historical evidence of all of above. It is just filtered out by historiographers of modern convictions or conventions.

"If there was, there wouldn’t be such violent disagreement about belief systems."

There is a violent disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists, does that mean there is no empirical evidence life began?

Should one from that conclude Epicure was right and Universe including Earth eternal?

"If these assertions were real there would be no argument about their validity. It would be obvious to all."

Simply false. There are lots of real issues where there is also real disagreement, and even very violent one.

That you have been culturally shielded from noting it or taking part in it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

"That it is not obvious and agreed upon, like all sorts of other data about the universe,"

You are even wrong about other data about the universe.

There is disagreement.

"Religion is a culturally transmitted folk belief."

So is science, so is history, so is anything worth having. Some having furthermore some buttressing in very well kept records, and religion of the Christian Faith being in that category.

"It serves some utility in social organization of less educated societies, but is not subject to empirical validation."

You have just shown you are less educated and of a less educated culture, since your teacher had such an easy time convincing you of that.

Tom Briggs

I chose not to engage for the reasons stated above.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Feel free to do as you like there.

Update

here is a third one:

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Hayley-More

Hayley More

I'm a Christian

Written Sun

“Cool. Hey, we could have a fun debate over that sometime, if you'd like. Anyway - have you done the maths homework for next lesson?”

I actually know multiple people who think this. I am fully able to continue regarding them as valid human beings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“I am fully able to continue regarding them as valid human beings.”

I. Feel. So. Flattered!

Hayley More

I hope you could tell it was sarcasm (aimed at anyone who for some reason has a problem with anyone disagreeing with them)!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It seems you are the guy who in this question has a problem with anyone disagreeing with you.

Or did I get wrong whom your meant?

Like, sarcasam against those who do NOT consider us as valid human beings?

Would be welcome, but is a bit hard to hope for … right now.

Hayley More

Dude, I'm getting confused now, but the point I was trying to make was that there should be no issue in getting on with people you disagree with, and yes, that obviously includes considering them valid human beings. I'm not sure which side of this you fall on, but I can guarantee that whatever your opinion is on how old the Earth is, I won't take issue with you yourself because of it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks.

I have just had an overdose of people unlike you, lately!

Hayley More

You're welcome, and I’m sorry it's been that way!