Wednesday, May 10, 2017

... on "a Creation Scientist Discovered Earth was Not Flat" (sic!)

The 'ape to man' evolutionary image is a fraud. (Creation Magazine LIVE! 6-10)

A dialogue
which is off topic, since beginning with announcement for next week's show:

Alpha Beta
About the next weeks show (Flat earth myth): It was creation scientist that figured out the earth is not flat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aristotle counts as Creation Scientist?

Alpha Beta
Copernicus and Galileo. Believers in the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Two problems.

  • 1) Their theory is not what you think, but that Earth moves around Sun;

  • 2) They were wrong and their theory is unbiblical - about like Hugh Ross;

    here is a third one:

  • 3) They were not extremely good scientists either, when it comes to reasoning about the evidence.

Alpha Beta
Yes they were good scientists. Both clearly stated God used the language of mathematics to establish the universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That statement by itself is not enough to make someone a good scientist.

Alpha Beta
Then who is a good scientist if not the founders of modern science. Newton believed in God too. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Newton believed in God, but Aristotle did so too and Aristotle was a better scientist about shape of Earth, than were Galileo and Copernicus about its place.

Alpha Beta
Doing scientific research means thinking the creation process backwards. That we can describe the universe mathematically makes perfect sense if creation is true. Because he made everything according in his language (math). In order words, if atheism was true then science would not exist. Atheism was killed by science long time ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Alpha Beta's last comment is not showing here*, but I answer anyway:

"Doing scientific research means thinking the creation process backwards."

Not necessarily. Research is not always about finding a process, sometimes about a law.

"That we can describe the universe mathematically makes perfect sense if creation is true."

One reason why I prefer Geocentrism and small universe over the CMI solution to Distant Starlight.

"Because he made everything according in his language (math)."

I don't think Math is God's exclusive tongue. I think it is a true thing, but also a tool.

"In order words, if atheism was true then science would not exist. Atheism was killed by science long time ago."

It was already killed by Aristotle, very long ago.

Alpha Beta

[Not shown under video]
[I only saw this in the feed.]

George Bond
Alpha Beta the President of the flat earth Society is an evolutionist. lol

Not exactly, it was common knowledge back in the day to believe the earth was a sphere. Sailors for instance knew full the earth was a sphere. This belief of a flat earth only came about because of a Greek philosopher but was rejected.

My comment here
It was not very common knowledge among precisely sailors, perhaps. At least Columbus had some problems with sailors not believing circumnavigation could be done - which could also be because people believed there was a zone in the West preventing safe and alive passage because it was so windy, this was what his academic opponents thought).

And Flat Earth does NOT hail back to a Greek philosopher, that one being Aristotle, nor to Greek philosophers who actually did believe in Flat Earth, since they were marginal and unimportant to Middle Ages.

It was an opinion held by Jews and possibly Muslims (but at least Jews), and also by the Nestorian, precisely sailor, Cosmas Indicopleustes.

Its roots among Nestorians are probably their closer ties to Jews, and its roots among Jews is probably their Babylonisation along with the Talmud Babli.

Babylonians and Egyptians were as much Flat Earth as they were Old Earth (compared to Biblical Chronology), and it has probably nothing to do with "common sense" or "believing the senses", but rather with especially in Egypt the view of when the Sun was shining for the dead, so they could have a life in the Netherworld : during night hours, obviously!

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Flat Earth theories - Common Sense or Solar Mythology?

* It is showing here on blog, by "here" I mean in the comment series under the youtube video.

Side notes more on topic to the video, very few, since not much needed to be added to their exposé. Which I recommend you to watch, warmly!

1:35 - 1:40 sth
"as best or most evolved" Western Atheism has a kind of god, in fact. You know the Five Ways?

First three ways : they pick energy for first mover, natural law for first cause, matter for first existence.

Argument from order : they pick failure, disintegration or death of everything which can fail (in biology : natural selection).

Argument from series of diverse perfections : they promote as most perfect, as ultimate perfection, whatever is, for the moment "most evolved".

That is a kind of parody Theism in Atheism.

8:26 even if the drawings are wrong the reconstructions serve a purpose in showing how these creatures might have looked, said he ...

If so, why not make a series of several educated guesses which all could be possible?

When I make carbon 14 tables, I precisely try to make many tables and leave traces of earlier tries where some detail proved wrong (to my mind) : like where I took from Osgood that Abraham must be contemporary to a population in En Geddi which is dated at raw Cambridge dates to perhaps 3400 BC, I made a new table, but did not erase the older ones.

Here is the recalculation after that one, but there are more of them:

Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi

17:00 or sth
Solo MAN, ErectUS add up to 665, 667 in ASCII.

With more regular capitalisation, it is more lower case, and therefore higher numbers.

Final parts
Still not sure I agree with John Sanford's conclusion.

Creation vs. Evolution : Number of Alleles Question (on Junior High Genetics Level)

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : CMI / Carl Wieland on "Genetic Entropy" Theme

No comments: