- 6:47 "four elements" is not exact equivalent to "elements" in chemic sense.
- 12:06 I agree that big bang is stupid, but on another point. IF all matter and energy were one time squeezed into a space as small as a period, well, it was very crowded and very hot and that would explain why it exploded. The theory neither says it came from nothing, nor from a great squeeze or crunch, and obviously also not it was eternally a dot in eternity past before big bang, it leaves the question "open". It is just that each of these secondary interpretations has a huge problem, crunch to bang having a spring quality perhaps least problematic, that the theory has a huge problem at this level. It's the next level which is REALLY idiotic. Matter and energy explode outwards, and somehow each bit starts to rotate and matter starts to gravitate together along each of the directions. How do you explain THAT? As to all matter and energy being in that small space, it is per se less problematic as to space question, as long as you believe atomic theory : since atomic theory (as accepted by Creationist Edgar Andrews) says matter is mostly empty space. Mount Everest, squeeze all protons and neutrons and electrons together with no space between = smaller than an armchair. To squeeze even more, you would probably have to squeeze a lot of matter inside the larger particles too. But it is at least conceivable. It is only very unnecessary : you don't have to buy atomic theory on everything between protons and electrons in atom and one and other atom's electron shell being empty space, and you don't have to believe the whole stuff either, unless you believe in projecting expansion of space (see redshift) backwards to the utmost opposite from the direction to where things seem to be going.
- 13:01 Alan Guth has a problem in geometry. Divisions of space are potentially infinitesimal. There is no such things as an infinitesimal actual division of space. Divisions of a pizza are infinitesimal (unless you ask about the atoms which take some space not divisible while they stay the same), but actual divisions go like "undivided - two halves - half and two quarters to four quarters - three quarters and two eights to two quarters and four eights - on quarter and six eights to eight eights". You can go on infinitesimally, but you cannot reach an actual infinitesimal. This is also why Thomas Aquinas has a point in Prima Pars, Quaestio II, Article III. Or, he had [Alan, not Aquinas] - not sure if he stays with his stupidity from 1996.
- 18:58 If God created from nothing, some things would perhaps have looked a bit like big bang, when He did it. In the beginning - how many nanoseconds? If any at all. God created Heaven - how many nanoseconds, if any, before earth? And Earth - appearing in the middle of Heaven, and it took it how many nanonseconds (if any at all) to do so? Assume verse 1 conceivably could have taken three nanoseconds, or less, if you have a slow motion of them, it might have looked a bit like Big Bang. Not that the theory itself as a whole is correct or anywhere near it, but the part you object to is the part we have as Christians too, in a way.
- 20:44 the idea of "things that are not going to burn" - was that an idea in OT too? Because, even if Odin was a fraud and an apostate, he seems to have had some Hebrew good sense left, even in Sweden (I know, it's hard, that is why I left the place). About thousand years from when he said it, in Old Icelandic his words sounded like: "eitt veitt ek ther aldri deyr : dóm om daudhan vern" One thing I know, which never dies : judgement on a dead man.
- As to the end, Chesterton did find he liked to have someone to thank for water - and for wine and beer. And he did go to a priest, to confess before "God and men" he was sorry for some things he had done before that. If YOU want to get God's absolution, why don't you go to Topeka and ask Pope Michael for details (he may ask you to be faithful to your first wife though).
co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Long Reply to Hovind
7/20/18 -Dr. Kent Hovind: Creation that Destroys Evolution - Beryllium Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 20.VII.2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N55HEpU0qRw
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 9:54 AM
Labels: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment