Tuesday, July 4, 2017

... to Quorans Challenging Catholicism, Creationism and Spain

Can a creationist explain the second and fourth days of the biblical creation story (Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 1:14-19, KJV)?

C on Q
Explain what the “firmament” is and, especially, what the waters above it might be.

…and please deliver the explanation in a lucid, logical, vivid description -- in effect, a “word picture” -- so that anyone can form a clear mental image as to precisely what’s going on in those two passages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered Thu
On my view, the firmament is the rotating part of the ether (ether in “heaven” above the stars is not rotating, but still), which can be viewed as a fluid in which atomic nuclei are comparable to solid grains.

It is the rotation of the ether which makes the Sun, Moon and Stars rotate around us each roughly 24 hours (less for stars, more for moon).

Since firmament was created on day 2 and light started rotating around earth already on day 1, in that interval, it was light alone, a quality of the ether, not the generalised whole ether medium below the upper heaven, which rotated.

Note, rotation of Sun and Moon around earth are NOT year or month, these being changing positions between Sun and Zodiak or between Moon and Sun along Zodiak.

This would mean there is no unclarity about day 4, suffice it to say that with geocentrism the parallax measures are moot and stars are not billions of light years away.

Remain water above firmament.

I take this as mainly waters in upper (supra-atmospheric) part of firmament, namely the water molecules and hydrogen molecules observed by spectroscopy.

The implication for Genesis 6:11 would be that hydrogen layer went low on a back then higher oxygen layer of atmosphere, and the resulting Brown’s gas was lighted by lightnings into a rain water not depending on previous water cycle and afterwards resumed into greater ocean depths, as with waters of the deep.

I believe in evolution. Can you prove me wrong?

Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Thu
Explain the changing number of chromosomes, especially changes upward in number, if all mammals have a common ancestor.

Explain why so far land vertebrates have not been found in two layers strictly speaking above each other, except by talking of “one upper layer” on one place of a country or state, and “one other lower layer” on quite another one.

Maggie Eriksson
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have been in Christian ministry for close to 50 years, but my university training and professional experience was as a research scientist in biological sciences prior to becoming Christian. On the geological time chart, land vertebrates have such a recent history, that you can’t expect them to have a major place in Earth’s history. The Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. It took 4 billion before ANY life formed. It took 2 billion just for Earth to cool down enough to accumulate its first drop of water and first molecule of atmosphere. The first multicellular organisms did not develop until half a billion years ago, and the first land organisms until just 200 million years ago. 200 million seems like a long time in terms of building up sediment layers, but it is only 5/one-thousands’ of the time Earth has existed.

Adding chromosomes, or even creation of chromosomes was merely an advance in the stages of evolution through mutation. Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3m ago
  • Maggie, you forget that layers like Hadean and even Palaeozoic ones are not all layers geologists believe there are : there is plenty of late Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers where such a above and below of two beings (a dinosaur above a biarmosuchian, for instance, or a pterosaur or Tertiary big extinct mammal above a moschops) could have occurred. Specifically in Karoo, where you find Permian, Triassic, Jurassic all three side by side, but somehow you never dug through a Jurassic layer to see if there was any Triassic or Permian fossil under the Jurassic one.
  • “Additional chromosomes were added by the breaking of pre-existing chromosome-pairs.”

    Oh, you did look into it. How about explaining that mammalian chromosomes all have two telomeres and a centromere, except individual variations?

Tyler Vornberg
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
“Explain the changing number of chromosomes”. It’s due to evolution. Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance. They survive and have kids with the rare variant, who have more kids with the rare variant and before you know it that rare variance becomes very common.

Regarding your second point, can you elaborate? I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
  • “ Individuals from the same species don’t have identical number of chromosomes. There’s always those rare variances. When those rare variances just so happen to cause an individual to be better suited to the environment they live in, that individual survives to adulthood and makes babies that also have that rare variance”

    An extra chromosome is not an advantage. An extra chromosome 1 or 3, you die usually before you get born. An extra chromosome 21, you have Down’s syndrome. An extra sex chromosome (female with three X, male with YXX OR with YYX) will make you less fertile.

  • In Karoo, there are places where they find Jurassic fossils (Drakkenberg, I think). They have so far not found any Triassic or Permian fossils straight under those.

John Ruland
1 upvote including Hans-Georg Lundahl
because of the ice age the earth went through

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
What does that even have to do with either?

Why doesn't Catholicism educate the laity on the scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures and artwork?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
I am not even sure of what you mean by "scientific nature of the symbolism that they codified into the sacred scriptures" and would like to know what you mean by implying they are educating clergy on it.

First, Biblical history is history, before there is any symbolism in it.

Second, Catholic Church as extant today is not codifying anything into sacred scriptures but just inheriting what was codified in them prior to death of the last Apostle.

Third, the symbolism in Genesis is not symbolically accounting a history which in scientific terms would sound otherwise, it is symbolism inherent in a literal historic account and it is symbolism about later history, namely about Jesus Christ.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church is truly heir of the Jewish Church in which Moses codified Genesis, She received the Old Testament from the predecessor, from the Jewish Church, as extant up to when Kaiaphas broke the Covenant with God by plotting Crucifixion of Christ by iniquitous judgement. The Catholic Church did not codify Genesis Herself, after Pentecost, and has no liberty to recodify it.

Fifth : it sounds like you had been listening to some theory about Catholic Church being some kind of freemasonry, She is not. Laymen are not forbidden to learn Latin, laymen are not forbidden to learn Scholasticism and no learning as learning is reserved to priests, though application of some in practise is so reserved : a layman can know everything there is to know, everything the priest is taught, about Holy Mass, it is just that he cannot say Holy Mass; he can be an expert in moral theology, in canon law and on the Sacrament of Penance, but he can neither give absolution to himself (no one can, not even a priest), nor to someone else (only a priest can do that). That, and not degrees of learning, is the basic difference between clergy and laity.

EDIT : "I have written four books and two academic works and another 39-independent academic papers showing scientific with DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE this inexplicable esoteric (hidden) science I speak of. Go to my face book page WILLIAM JOHN MEEGAN and you can read a lot of those independent papers freely."

If there is truly scientific knowledge encoded* in the Bible, this is the work of God, in order to validate the Bible as His word.

It does not in any way detract from the normal reading of the Bible, not any more than the Bible code does.

It is not per se the work of the Church, but it is for the Church to validate, to reject or to wait and see about any such claims, whether Meegan's claim or the claims about the Bible code.

* Note : encoded, not directly visible to a normal reader not looking specifically to break such a code.

Why is the Bible so hard for me to understand?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Mon
I think I’d be more useful if you told me exactly what you found difficult.

Two things, though.

Has Spain ever issued a formal apology to its former colonial empire?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Answered 3m ago
Why should they?

They were, with the French, the best one.

They did not conquer any land really guilty of nothing prior to their arrival, Yaquis were especially not conquered, since they said they were already basically Christian, just needed some more instruction.

Catholic priests were sent, but not Spanish military.

In the taking of Tenochtitlán (now Mexico City) which was bloody, the conquering troops were more Meso-Americans fed up with Aztecs than Spaniards.

As to the misdemanours of Pizarro, which there were, he was punished for them by Spain, I think he even died as an outlaw, killed by Spanish troops, despite his undoubted bravery.

Is there historical documentation of pagan extremism/revanchism against the Christianization of Europe?

Alex Pismenny
upvoted this :

Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Mon
St Erik of Sweden was going to Holy Mass before a battle against the followers of Erik Blood Axe.

He went out and was killed by an axe in his head, but this did not stop the Christianisation of Sweden.

Earlier example, Penda of Mercia.

And some have said that the Viking age was a revenge for the felling of Irminsul in Saxony after Charlemagne conquered the Saxons.

Why do you think your sacred scriptures are right? And why aren't others right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sat
First, in so far as sacred scriptures are historical, I think the sacred scriptures of some other religions are right in many details as history : they are only wrong as theology.

Second, if we take Mahabharata, Iliad and Odyssey, Genesis, Exodus, Gospels and Acts as all historically true or close to, it is actually the Christian history which best backs up the own theological claims.

Krishna and Homeric gods are not ultrafamous for raising the dead.

As to historic connection, Iliad and Odyssey are not very good at backing up the gods believed by their author, and Mahabharata has lots less than Iliad and Odyssey, meaning Gospels have a record close relation to other history in the same time span. On the other hand, they include very direct backing up of the theological claims. Theogony and Book of Mormon and Quran were revealed with a direct backing up, but in a similar and insufficient manner, cancelling each other out in theological claims.

As a Christian, why do you believe it is possible for god to have come from nothing, but not the universe?

C on Q
I am curios as to how you find it more realistic that a god has created himself/ came from nothing/ always existed. Then the possibility of the universe “coming from nothing”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
No Christian believes God can have come from nothing.

We believe God always existed, which is sth else.

No comments: