Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: November 2021

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Joseph Pearce on Paganism

Lord of the Rings - Pagan or Catholic?
27th Nov. 2021 | Brian Holdsworth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev-PXD2c_No

The title is somewhat misleading, it is correct about Brian's initial question, but doesn't do justice to Joseph Pearce's answer.

0:35 It is very helpful to distinguish between Norse myth about gods and Norse legends about heroes.

And Norse legends about heroes are generally very much less pagan, less concerned with gods, than for instance Greek legends about heroes.

The Norse version of Sigurd's story has Odin give him some occasional help, but there is very much less of it than the really intense abetting Athena gives Ulysses in the Odyssey.

It is significant that the one prayer Sigurd and Brynhild do to any kind of god is to the Sun and Moon for powers of healing. And in Norse myth, standard version, Sun and Moon were not gods and had no powers of healing. They were just servants of the gods, like in St. Thomas (Ia P, Q 70, A3, corpus) the angels of heavenly planets are servants of God.

It seems perfectly possible to me that Sigurd and Brynhild were worshipping Apollo and Diana, as Apollo is called Apollon Iater in one quality and Diana is associated with childbirth - very unlike the case with Sun and Moon in Norse Pagan myths about gods.

3:02 If God could put allegories of Christ into real life people (like Abraham and Isaac) in the Old Testament, it stands to reason, some of the "pictures" were real life heroes.

I take it Ulysses existed, and that his return, the fidelity of Penelope, and the punishment of the suitors, prefigures the Apocalypse. And did so before the readers of the Odyssey became Christians.

This would stand whether the spiritual entity Ulysses took for Athena was his guardian angel or a demon.

One can also mention, some of the myths of heroes insofar as they feature gods, feature gods showing they are really demons, like Iliad, song I - which I think St. John and many of his audience had in fact read. Apollo is first called Apollyon in that song by Homer.

5:16 I'll give one example which I didn't get from Lewis or Tolkien.

When my university teacher of Latin poetry (who was also my second father confessor) gave us Aeneid VI, he obviously came to the Cumaean Sibil. He made a very clear reference to the girl from who St. Paul expelled a Sibylline spirit and with mediums of Voodoo to this day.

5:50 Aristotle and Plato refused to worship in their inner conscience and their teaching before students, gods who fornicated.

It is less clear whether they withdrew worship from the Pythonic spirit who misled people to their ruin at Delphi.

Let's be clear, because Aristotle and Plato point to valuable truth doesn't mean they were necessarily clean, just as with Ulysses - a foreboding of Christ's return, but perhaps even so led by a demon. I really don't know what Athena is, if there even is one single answer.

7:14 St. Augustine certainly thinks Aeneas existed, as well as Romulus, but he likens Romulus to Cain and he considers Aeneas saving a statue of Athena was on a fool's errand.

Read City of God.

8:00 "the desire for god, we see it in Homer or in Sophocles"

In fact, Sophocles, after Aeneid VI, is to me the black book of pagan gods in general, and especially Apollo, though the villains in Hippolytus were rather Neptune and Venus.

After seeing Neptune fulfil the request of Theseus to kill his son, I think Neptune was a demon with whom Theseus had a very bad covenant. Ulmo meeting Tuor at Nevrast is less readable to me (but outside LotR!) after I saw this aspect of Neptune. His Mycenaean name being Potei Daon reminds us, he's also the false Canaanaean god Dagon, whose temple Samson overthrew.

Saturday, November 27, 2021

Two Videos with Some Relation to Sedevacantism and Orthopapism

In the first one, the subject is directly brought up:

Is Sedevacantism really Untenable? (Response to Peter Kwasniewski)*
17th Nov. 2021 | Defeat Modernism*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrak73-s0x0

* Vidéo non disponible
Cette vidéo n'est plus disponible, car le compte YouTube associé a été clôturé.

Account closed, video not available ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl: I have no time immediately to watch the whole hour.

I would like to ask, not if it is untenable that "Pope Emeritus Benedict" and "Pope Francis" are not Popes, but whether it is tenable that the sedevacancy lasts to this day ... 1958 to 2021, some would say ... close to the time Judaea was in Babylon or Popes were in Avignon (even if that latter was only half as bad as Heretical Antipopes).

If Pius XII sinned against the faith in 1950 or 1951 or both and lost papacy, even past the Avignon timespan.

There are guys who claim to be validly elected popes. Have you looked at them?
Ab Fide Fidelis: Peaceful Universal Acceptance guarantees the legitimacy of someone as Pope. All bishops accepted John XXIII onward. No single bishop recognized your position until 1981. According to Leo XII in Pastoris Aeterni, the lack of bishops it is the proof that this position is schismatic.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis What kind of document is Pastoris Aeterni? On papal encyclicals I couldn't find it, in documentatio catholica I found a document in Italian, and I cannot quickly skim it through, but you may tell me what paragraph if you want to.

Up to 1981? You forget archbishop Thuc. In 1976 he consecrated the future claimant "Gregorio XVII" as bishop.

And you forget there has been no such peaceful acceptance by all bishops since in fact 1950, when bishop Duarte Costa considered Pius XII had lost his papacy.

The current pope, Michael, by civil name David Bawden, 21 years after his election received episcopal orders from precisely the Duarte Costa line.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
added later: @Ab Fide Fidelis I searched out Pastoris Aeterni and found, a probably shortened version in French.

In it, I could not find "Peaceful Universal Acceptance guarantees the legitimacy of someone as Pope," stated in those words.

He did indeed state that the lack of bishops for them spoke against the Little Church, but he did not define a set time limit after which this is so. Obviously, some lack of bishops temporarily doesn't disqualify a section of the true Church.

According to Pope Michael, the bishops who acted without admitting him prior to his election were not in the same position as schismatics now, defying the authority of an already elected Pope - including presumably those who, consecrated before the change of the Pontifical, were not too eager to follow out all the hints of new ways up to the consummation in what amounts to apostasy. Indeed, the pseudo-papacy has worsened since the anti-fundamentalist decisions in first half of the nineties, and that was after they had become schismatics against Pope Michael.

Note, all of above was debated before I came to even start the video. Here are some updates after that:

Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Did you also looed at Eximia Nos Laetitia ? The problem is that if you lack all bishops and all priests (as it happened for John XXIII and Paul VI), then you can't go nowhere to receive Sacrements.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis You didn't mention Eximia Nos Laetitia before, what Pope?

Under "J-XXIII" and "P-VI" there were priests left who were resisting them.

+ @Ab Fide Fidelis I note, both Pastoris Aeterni by Leo XII and Eximia Nos Laetitia by Leo XIII take a more respectful tone to Little Church than you do to Sedes, this after only a quick look at the latter.
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl In 1960, no single priest resisted them. And you'll need a bishop because how would you receive Sacrement of Confirmation ?

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl So what ? I don't want to be disrespectful towards them. I only want show you that they are mistaken and why.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis In 1960, the doctrinal need for resistance was very low key compared to now.
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl So what ? You were still deprived of bishops recognizing you as Catholic.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis Not really. People like Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga had support from some bishops allowing them spaces for Mass and confirmation as their faithful. Only later did the tone get much harsher and then sedes had bishops.

Since 1990, we have a bishop of Rome (in Topeka) who recognises Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio are not and were not Popes.
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Please prove that bishops recognized Joaquin y Arriaga. Also, in 1964 and 1965, there were no sede priests and no single sede bishop. Finally, Y Arriaga recognized John XXIII and Paul VI as valid Popes, but he thinks that the latter lost his pontificate. Antipope Michael isn't a bishop.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis I did not say bishops recognised Arriaga as being right.

I said they took a less stringent stand.

That Paul VI lost his pontificate is a possibility - it's one that Pius XII did so too.

Whatever you believe about the 1990 conclave, Pope Michael should by those not recognising him as such, since 2011, or Church year 2012, since Gaudete weekend, be adressed as "bishop Bawden" - he received first priesthood on Saturday and then episcopate on the Lord's Day from the vagante bishop Bob Biarnesen. He in turn ultimately had it from Duarte Costa.
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl First, Arriaga recognized John XXIII and Paul VI as Popes (Paul VI lost his pontificate in 1965 according to him). This is not what all sede bishops think. Moreover, Michael isn't a bishop. What bishop recognizes Michael as Pope ?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis Your last question : Bob Biarnesen with succession from Duarte Costa and who handed it on, with another bishop reconciled to him, to him, to His Holiness.

Discrepancies on when Vatican II Sect became an anti-Church may depend on how seriously one takes statements like "Muslims worship the one true God" or simply incomplete informations.
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl The fact that Muslims worship God has also been formuled by Saint Gregory VIII to the king of Mauritania.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis what was his exact wording?
Ab Fide Fidelis: @Hans-Georg Lundahl "Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world."
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Ab Fide Fidelis I think one key difference is, there is no "along with us" here.

As to second one, one commenter Michael Ciccone, brought it up, see "thread II":

NEWSFLASH: Exorcist Fr. Ripperger Says Devil Admitted "Our Time is Running Short" During Exorcism!
23rd Nov. 2021 | The Frontline TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOA-dcFX564

I: 1:22 Noting Fr. Ripperger has the good sense to get his tobacco smoke through a pipe with a long mouthpiece!

While smoking, that kind of pipe was among my favourites - or a pipe of that kind, rather.
II
Michael Ciccone: Why doesn't this venerable priest reprimand the Vatican in regards to PANCHAMAMMA idol worship at the Vatican October2019? And Holy Euchsrist to pro abortion. RC politicians as well?
mar: Fr Ripperger would recognise that scandal is a sin. Scandal is doing or saying what would cause others to sin. Talking about heretical people too much can lead people to lose faith, to despair, to become presumptuous about their salvation, etc. It's like the admonition not to pull the weeds, lest the wheat be damaged. It's always better to teach the faith and morals, and to warn against personal sins and heresies. Addressing heretical individuals publicly is the responsibility of the bishops. In terms of the pacapapa... turn off the news and revise your catechism, then pray.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @mar what about looking around if there is a real Pope who's orthodox?
mar: @Hans-Georg Lundahl waste of time, because whether you find him, or find none, it won't make any difference to the state of your soul. Imagine children constantly interested in the sins and faults of their parents, and comparing them to other people's parents. Can that in any way help the kids themselves grow in holiness?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @mar I read a Nancy Drew.

In The Bungalow Mystery, one orphan Laura is interested in the behaviour of what purports to be her legal guardian ... if she hadn't been, she might not have saved the real one.

A Video with Danny Faulkner, a Debate with YouToobeism

What is the Light-Travel Time Proble? And what about the Big Bang? Dr. Danny Faulkner
25th Apr. 2020 | Is Genesis History?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8of30xglU4w

I

debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3:31 If all the fix stars are either 1 light day away, or between 1 and 2 light days, Adam and Eve could see all the stars except those that are too small. They were created 2 days earlier.

If Geocentrism holds true, then parallax is not rightly so named and so the star distances are falsely based and 1 light day up is feasible.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "If all the fix stars [are within 2 light days].....". And if pigs could fly. Just because you have a dream, does not make it a reality. The nearest star our solar system is Proxima Centauri at about 4.24 light years distant. Astronomers never frame distances in light-days, but rather billions of miles. You are wasting your time when you introduce angels to move celestial objects to fit your personal needs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism As in astronomers are God omniscient, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God?

Or what are you talking about?

We can observe pigs at very close range, they don't fly. We can't observe fix stars at very close range or from different angles and we can't observe angels at all, so how do you manage to rule it out?

How about arguing instead of giving a bad comparison and an ad hominem disguised as psychoanalysis (your final five words)?

+ @YouToobeism I'll be back tomorrow, God willing and circumstances permitting, so take your time to find an actual argument!

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , the point being made is that by saying "I think angels move the celestial canopy" or that all stars visible in the celestial doom are less than 2 light-days away does not make it so. First you have to provide proof more convincing than that in place from the community of astronomers of a movable celestial dome, including its stars, proof that they are no more than 2 light-days away and then you have to prove the existence of angels capable of moving those stars in that dome. Your posts seem to imply "I think, therefore it is so". And without any reason why it is so other than wild hypotheses. Light on facts and heavy on conjecture leaves me unconvinced of your premises.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "the point being made is that by saying "I think angels move the celestial canopy""

Did not say those words nor write those words. I think God moves the aether (from fix stars down to oceans) from East to West each day - and that angels move individual celestial bodies, as for all planets, including Sun and Moon, from West to East in slower movement.

"or that all stars visible in the celestial doom are less than 2 light-days away does not make it so."

Fine, my thinking so doesn't make it so, your thinking the opposite doesn't make it the opposite.

"First you have to provide proof more convincing than that in place from the community of astronomers"

The community of astronomers are NOT providing any convincing proof. How I argue that? Instead of citing the proof they provide, you prefer citing their social prestige as "community of astronomers".

"of a movable celestial dome, including its stars, proof that they are no more than 2 light-days away and then you have to prove the existence of angels capable of moving those stars in that dome."

Observation -> Geocentrism is true -> Orbits are too complex to exist without voluntary movers.
Biblical history (based on observation) -> Adam saw the stars, which were created two days before -> the stars were one or two light days away.

You seem to prefer the opposite:

Angels don't exist -> Geocentric orbits are impossibly complex -> Heliocentrism is true -> "Parallax" is really parallactic -> Gives us distances like four light years -> Give us a distance / apparent size relation -> Give us more distances -> Give us distances beyond Biblical history.

Now, I think observation and Biblical history are very much saner starting points than an a priori negative like "angels don't exist" and that one is certainly a position limited to non-Christians, as here I would have taken an internal discussion with Christians.

"You posts seem to imply "I think, therefore it is so"."

No, it doesn't.

"And without any reason why it is so other than wild hypotheses. Light on facts and heavy on conjecture leaves me unconvinced of your premises."

Observation = facts, "angels don't exist" = conjecture. You are projecting. BY THE WAY .... just in case you are a shrink based on France who uses an umpteenth screen name to harrass me with what sounds to outsiders like debate but where I detect the assumption that YOU are the judge of how reasonable I am, YOU are the one person (with your little cotterie of peers) whom I should try to convince, chuck it!

+ @YouToobeism Other reason for my suspicion, you didn't cite my position from my actual words, but from what seems to be the resumés internal to a cotterie discussing me - and there is a certain profession which would do precisely that.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Fine, my thinking so doesn't make it so, your thinking the opposite doesn't make it the opposite." I understand that your desire is to make the world you see around you fit the origin story of the bible. That's fine, as it is your faith. But for men trained in scientific methods (state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work), such as Dr. Danny Faulkner, to abandon that rigor and substitute "because that is how I read the bible", is counter-productive to thousands of years of scientific discovery and advancement. (The PC or smartphone you are using right now did not come about through faith, but rather scientific discovery not even remotely alluded to in the bible).

My thinking that the only star within 4 light years (23,000,000,000 miles) of us is the Sun and that not since Kepler (a very religious man as well as insightful thinker) proved 500 years ago through careful observation and smart thinking that the known planets of our solar system revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits, have learned men considered the complex contradictions of geocentrism to be a viable alternative to heliocentrism. So I am not trying to have it my way because of my interpretation of my bible....er, brain. I am merely agreeing with the general consensus among astronomers with professional training and tools that we live in a solar system ruled by Newtonian physics and informed by Einstein's theory of general relativity. I think I stand on much firmer ground than saying angels move the planets. For example, does a generous reading of the bible predict solar eclipses, as the community of astronomers have predicted will occur on Dec 4th in South Africa? Did you have an opportunity to see the total solar eclipse cast its shadow across the breadth of the U.S. in 2017? Who predicted that event; astronomers or biblical scholars?

It seems that the retired "scientists" appearing in the "Is Genesis History" series have abandoned the training that earned them advanced degrees. And they fail to prove their new theories of "rapid sedimentation", "super-rapid radioactive decay" and super, super, super, super, super fast speed of light (that went back to normal in the second week after creation) using any scientific rigor. They state a few facts, being careful to not mention the millions of years (or light-years) related to those facts and then let Del Tackett interject, "Gee this must be due to the wonder of creation week (or Noah's flood) or some other biblical note. Very disingenuous.

Just as Kepler's theories have born the test of time, Hubble's discovery of the red-shift of the galaxies in the late 1920s, indicating an ever-expanding universe, filled with billions of galaxies (not just one), have shown that scientific discovery has taken us to an understanding and an advancement that the writers of the bible could not have comprehended (or cared about). For those of us living in the 21st century we are better served to believe in the god of our heart as we see fit, but to not abandon the scientific rigor that brought us the nice things we enjoy. We must nurture and applaud the thirst for more discovery as it leads to better understanding of how our world works and improves the lot of humanity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "I understand that your desire is to make the world you see around you fit the origin story of the bible. That's fine, as it is your faith."

Right off the bat you skirt away from my success in promoting my "desire" by actually arguing.

"But for men trained in scientific methods (state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work),"

Next, you give another version of an ad hominem, where the question is of someone else being so superior to me in science. AND you still don't show you have one even minimal glimpse of how proofs go in astronomy.

"such as Dr. Danny Faulkner, to abandon that rigor and substitute "because that is how I read the bible", is counter-productive to thousands of years of scientific discovery and advancement."

Most of these millennia were prior to Popper coming up with scientific method being // state a premise, give a hypothesis, try to disprove that hypothesis, failing that state a theory of how things work // except he arguably didn't start with "state a premiss" as that is part of syllogism, not his scientific method.

"(The PC or smartphone you are using right now did not come about through faith, but rather scientific discovery not even remotely alluded to in the bible)."

a n d
another example of skirting away from the actual issues ... the PC I am using didn't come about through faith in light years either as to stellar distances. It came about by science concerned with there here (as opposed to up in the sky) and now (as opposed to when Neanderthals lived).

"My thinking that the only star within 4 light years (23,000,000,000 miles) of us is the Sun and that not since Kepler (a very religious man as well as insightful thinker) proved 500 years ago through careful observation and smart thinking that the known planets of our solar system revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits, have learned men considered the complex contradictions of geocentrism to be a viable alternative to heliocentrism."

You are actually wrong on history of ideas. First, Kepler didn't prove the earth moved in an elliptical orbit around the sun, he presumed it. Second, Riccioli accepts his elliptic orbits - as an emendation of Tychonian Geocentrism. Kepler died in 1630 and Riccioli wrote in the 1650's. Third, it took reference to Newtonian mechanistic ideology and to the supposition Selenites and Martians would as much feel Moon and Mars as immobile centre of the universe as we do with earth, and this was a propaganda still ongoing in the time of Euler when he wrote to a Prussian Princess on mathematical issues.

"So I am not trying to have it my way because of my interpretation of my bible....er, brain. I am merely agreeing with the general consensus among astronomers with professional training and tools"

Their tools are great when it comes to make observations. Their training however involves a trap as to ideological closemindedness.

"that we live in a solar system ruled by Newtonian physics and informed by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

But the Newtonian physics cannot be observed directly; only from its results. Dito for Einstein's relativity.

"I think I stand on much firmer ground than saying angels move the planets."

Actually not. Angels cannot be observed (usually) any more than Newtonian vectors.
However, with angels our direct observations are possible as they stand, with Newtonian / Einsteinian only, apart from Sungenis, most of those who understand that math better than I do agree that it would doom us to reinterpret our sense data as basically the inverse of the real movements.

"For example, does a generous reading of the bible predict solar eclipses, as the community of astronomers have predicted will occur on Dec 4th in South Africa? Did you have an opportunity to see the total solar eclipse cast its shadow across the breadth of the U.S. in 2017? Who predicted that event; astronomers or biblical scholars?"

To predict that kind of thing, you might have an advantage as an astronomer. Since astronomers make tables for Sun and Moon along the ecliptic (popularily known as zodiac). However, the astronomer who believes Newton-Einstein only is at not advantage over the astronomer who believes in angelic movers.

"It seems that the retired "scientists" appearing in the "Is Genesis History" series have abandoned the training that earned them advanced degrees."

They have certainly abandoned some parts of it - like anti-theistic and anti-Biblical bias.

"And they fail to prove their new theories of "rapid sedimentation","

What was the name of that French physicist who had shown rapid layering into wharves in flume experiments ... it seems his work has become lots less accessible now, I can't find it.

""super-rapid radioactive decay" "

Heard of Chernobyl? Or of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"and super, super, super, super, super fast speed of light (that went back to normal in the second week after creation) using any scientific rigor."

But this fast speed of light is exactly what I disagree on : if the fix stars are one, max two light days up, each of them could be seen by Adam (at least if he had had a telescope) from day six, with our normal speed of light.

"They state a few facts, being careful to not mention the millions of years (or light-years) related to those facts and then let Del Tackett interject, "Gee this must be due to the wonder of creation week (or Noah's flood) or some other biblical note. Very disingenuous."

They do in fact talk of the millions of years, and debunk them. And if they don't debunk the millions of light years in this video, I do so.

"Just as Kepler's theories have born the test of time,"

... among gentle, civilised scientists who argue rationally and have no connection to any religious conflicts in the world around them ...? Do you believe Jules Verne gives a sociologically correct view of engineers too?

Come on! Newtonianism was heavily promoted from the Free Mason Desaguyliers, who on top of that was the son of a persecuted Huguenot. Partiality to own nearly-brothers and animosity to the men who condemned Galileo could have nothing to do with this supposed "test of time"?

"Hubble's discovery of the red-shift ... in the late 1920s,"

Yes

"red-shift ... of the galaxies"

This is no longer his observation, but part of his conclusion.

"indicating an ever-expanding universe, filled with billions of galaxies (not just one),"

Again, parts of his conclusion, and having good instruments doesn't make your logic infallible.

"have shown that scientific discovery has taken us to an understanding and an advancement"

Not really. Yet another exotic theory, with tenuous relation to the observations it is supposed to come from.

"that the writers of the bible could not have comprehended (or cared about)."

Hydrogen and water molecules have been fairly arguably observed by spectrography. In space. And Moses wrote of "waters above the firmament" and with his terminology, hydrogen would qualify as water.

"For those of us living in the 21st century"

I have a nostalgia for life in the Renaissance and Middle Ages ... and detect an unattractive whiff of chronological snobbery.

"we are better served to believe in the god of our heart as we see fit, but to not abandon the scientific rigor that brought us the nice things we enjoy."

Both nice and nasty things we enjoy or suffer from come from observable tests - sth which cannot be applied to science at a distance in either space or time.

"We must nurture and applaud the thirst for more discovery as it leads to better understanding of how our world works and improves the lot of humanity."

Observably, it doesn't. Ask teens trapped in school and blocked from marriage for five more years legally and ten more years socially. Or victims of child welfare or of psychiatry.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Actually not. Angels cannot be observed (usually) any more than Newtonian vectors." in response to my statement that the current astronomical picture of the solar system stands on firmer ground than your personal belief that angels are responsible for the movement of planets. I will again affirm that the scientific discoveries about our solar system, which have accumulated over at least the last 500 years, give even the non-trained, but naturally inquisitive, among us a better understanding of how the solar system works than is currently offered by any of the "Is Genesis History" productions.

When you say that there is no direct proof of the Newtonian theory, you discount out-of-hand Newtonian laws of gravity. At the same time you say there is no proof of the existence of angels, but hold out belief that such failing does not mean that we should not trust your opinion that angels move planets. Sounds to me like a double standard.

If I can show by dropping two similar steel balls into soft clay; one from twice the height of the other, and measure that the ball traveling the longer distance before impacting the soft clay creates an impact cavity that is 4 times the volume of the other ball, then one can rightfully infer from that observation that Newton is likely to be right that acceleration is the square of the time traveled and not just a doubling. (As was demonstrated in the time of Desaguyliers in France). Can you point to any experiments from which we can logically infer or deduce that angels move planets or that the earth is the center of our solar system?

More generally, the text book of Christianity is so under-nurished in scientifically-provable facts, that for the faithful to believe it will stand the test when compared to scientific discovery in the secular world, is truly a miracle of faith that thinking adults would suggest such a comparison will favor the bible. And why the need to put biblical faith on the same foundation as scientific discovery? Do you think it to be a binary choice; one or the other? Kepler didn't. No, they are not overlapping magisteria. And silly are those connected to the "Is Genesis History" productions who use pseudo-science to claim they are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "in response to my statement that the current astronomical picture of the solar system stands on firmer ground than your personal belief that angels are responsible for the movement of planets."

What you call "my personal belief" is actually the standard model of Riccioli during the 1650's - with exception of my aether going East to West like St. Thomas' concentric globe shells in which the planets were supposedly encased. And hence, like St. Thomas, I don't have angels moving each heavenly body East to West along the day, with some delays, as per Riccioli, but I have them move slower the opposite direction, like 30 times slower for the angel of the Moon and 366 times slower for that of the Sun. None of my beliefs are in this respect personal, except for replacing St. Thomas concentric shells with one single aether.

"I will again affirm that the scientific discoveries about our solar system, which have accumulated over at least the last 500 years, give even the non-trained, but naturally inquisitive, among us a better understanding of how the solar system works than is currently offered by any of the "Is Genesis History" productions."

Oh, you wish. My Geocentrism is not representative of them, for one, and for another, I think I have a better overview over proofs than you have ....

"When you say that there is no direct proof of the Newtonian theory,"

I think you misrepresent the actual words "Newtonian vectors cannot be directly observed" ...

"you discount out-of-hand Newtonian laws of gravity."

A law of gravity is not a directly observed body or movement of a body.

"At the same time you say there is no proof of the existence of angels,"

Oh, there is. You misrepresent my words again. There is!

Both astronomic and historic. I said there is no direct observation of them - the historic proof being exceptional, and the astronomic proof being without actually seeing them.

"but hold out belief that such failing does not mean that we should not trust your opinion that angels move planets. Sounds to me like a double standard."

I am not asking anyone to trust, as normal meaning of trust, my belief, as my belief, because it happens to be mine. I note I had not actually mentioned them in the comment at 3:31. If I mentioned them previously here, I gave my actual full wording of what I believe at 7:02. The context here was not asking Faulker to trust my opinion, but to show that while I was more naturalistic than he on light speed, I was far from a complete naturalist ... and I also mentioned, where you are answering without first making an actual quote, that angelic movers have the epistemological advantage of allowing our observations to stand as they are, instead of reinterpreting them as the inverse of what is going on.

"If I can show by dropping two similar steel balls into soft clay; one from twice the height of the other, and measure that the ball traveling the longer distance before impacting the soft clay creates an impact cavity that is 4 times the volume of the other ball, then one can rightfully infer from that observation that Newton is likely to be right that acceleration is the square of the time traveled and not just a doubling."

It was actually mentioned by Buridan.

"(As was demonstrated in the time of Desaguyliers in France). Can you point to any experiments from which we can logically infer or deduce that angels move planets or that the earth is the center of our solar system?"

You haven't shown one from which we can logically infer that Newtonian factors like gravity are alone at moving planets. Earth being centre is obvious, as per senses, unless you positively disprove it, which you can't.

"More generally, the text book of Christianity is so under-nurished in scientifically-provable facts, that for the faithful to believe it will stand the test when compared to scientific discovery in the secular world, is truly a miracle of faith that thinking adults would suggest such a comparison will favor the bible."

I have actually made a test in favour of Biblical chronology. For C14 to give 40 000 BP for the year of the Flood, the fastest production of C14 in the atmosphere is only c. 10 - 11 times as fast as now. Meaning, we need not worry the radioactivity would have put the cosmic radiation up from the normal 0.34 milliSievert per year to actually lethal levels. Unlike what some had pretended.

"And why the need to put biblical faith on the same foundation as scientific discovery? Do you think it to be a binary choice; one or the other? Kepler didn't."

Kepler was a Lutheran heretic.

"No, they are not overlapping magisteria."

They are - except insofar as science actually has very little to say on chronology, and the conflict in dating is mainly a question of scientists going beyond the limit of their magisterium. But yes, the Bible is concerned very much with material fact and therefore with things overlapping with science, history, or both.

"And silly are those connected to the "Is Genesis History" productions who use pseudo-science to claim they are."

As you gave an Anglo-Saxon inversion in the sentence, I am reminded that silly in AS was saelig - same word as German seelig = blessed.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "[angels moving planets] is actually the standard model of Riccioli during the 1650's". Well, thanks to scientists and scientific method, we have more reasonable and testable hypotheses for why the eight planets (including Earth) have elliptical orbits about our local star, the Sun. (And please don't reply that it can't be proved.... it has been proven in many times and in many ways..... the most obvious is the bi-annual retrograde of the path of Mars relative to an observer on Earth..... or does the angel in charge of Mars get turned around once every other year, like clockwork, and have to be set on the right path by a higher power?)

So, if it was Buridan that "mentioned" the effect of two balls dropping into clay from two heights (one twice the other), do you then acknowledge that Newtonian gravity and the acceleration of bodies in gravity are proven, observable facts, not in any fashion dependent upon biblical interpretation?

As an aside, you say Kepler was a Lutheran heretic. Are you using a redundancy of terms or do you believe that he was a heretic within the Lutheran branch of Christianity? If not, then are YECs heretics, or at least all that were born into non-Catholic households, as I suspect most of the "scientists" selling their degrees to the "Is Genesis History" production team are?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "Well, thanks to scientists and scientific method, we have more reasonable and testable hypotheses for why the eight planets (including Earth) have elliptical orbits about our local star, the Sun."

Can't be ... tested. Hence not testable. Note what word, out of pure courtesy, I avoided.

"(And please don't reply that it can't be proved.... it has been proved in many times and in many ways..... the most obvious is the bi-annual retrograde of the path of Mars relative to an observer on Earth"

Was taken into account by both Tycho and Riccioli. You didn't know your stuff.

"..... or does the angel in charge of Mars get turned around once per every other year, like clockwork, and have to be set on the right path by a higher power?)"

More like, he enjoys dancing.

"So, if it was Buridan that "mentioned" the effect of two balls dropping into clay from two heights (one twice the other), do you then acknowledge that Newtonian gravity and the acceleration of bodies in gravity is a proven fact,"

Acceleration of bodies certainly is a proven and directly observed fact.* Newtonian gravitation is one theory about it. AND whether it is or isn't responsible for the movement of planets around stars is neither observed, nor a proven fact. There are Christians who would agree with me angels are a proven fact, but will not consider it proven that they move planets or fix stars. So, I can consider Newtonian gravitation as, at least close to a proven fact, and still not consider it proven it is responsable for movements of stellar bodies. And especially not proven as sole responsible.

"not in any fashion dependent upon biblical interpretation? As an aside, you say Kepler was a Lutheran heretic. Are you using a redundancy of terms or do you believe that he was a heretic within the Lutheran branch of Christianity?"

Redundant. I am an ex-Lutheran myself, but as I didn't hold on to it, I cannot be considered to have remained obstinate in it, which is part of the guilt of heresy.

"If not, then are YECs heretics, or at least all that were born into Lutheran households?"

The YECs who are currently Protestant, any branch (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican ...) can be at least suspected of heresy and those who die without converting can be considered to have died heretics, at least on a general level. I am willing to use a Lutheran's contribution to Creation science, as I am willing to use a Lutheran's contribution to Biblical Greek or Hebrew.

* Footnote

I am not sure what test Buridan used, perhaps accurate rhythm keeping and watching balls fall from heights previously measured. The clay test could be from the time of Desaguyliers.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Can't be ... tested. Hence not testable." in regards to the elliptical orbits of our solar system's eight planets (including Earth). Dismissing this assertion out-of-hand, without any justification does not help our conversation. I have given you two concrete testable (and tested) examples that confirm that Newtonian gravity controls the movements of the planets around the Sun; Kepler's ground-breaking analysis of their motion in the early 17th century and the bi-annual retrograde of Mars' motion relative to an observer on Earth. I can add to these the discovery of the planet Neptune based on the observation of the perturbations of the orbit of planet Uranus in the 19th century and the precession (wobble) of Earth on its axis, which in 8000 years will point not to Polaris as the North Star, but to the bright star Deneb.

You can easily confirm these observations using google searches. If you care not to then it will be hard to move the conversation forward.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism I'll start from the end.

"You can easily confirm these observations using google searches. If you care not to then it will be hard to move the conversation forward."

I am not disputing even one of the actual observations. And I also don't depend on conversing absolutely with you. (Unless you are someone I know ... if so I'd prefer your real name - and even then make clear it is not a conversation where you act as psychologist and I as consulting you).

"in regards to the elliptical orbits of our solar system's eight planets (including Earth). Dismissing this assertion out-of-hand, without any justification does not help our conversation."

The one thing that cannot be tested about ellipses is, whether Earth is another one with Sun in one of the foci, or Sun has an ellipse with Earth in one focus. The observations are exactly the same. If you don't realise that, you are simply not very good at geometry

"I have given you two concrete testable (and tested) examples that confirm that Newtonian gravity controls the movements of the planets around the Sun; Kepler's ground-breaking analysis of their motion in the early 17th century and the bi-annual retrograde of Mars' motion relative to an observer on Earth."

No, they don't confirm it.

"I can add to these the discovery of the planet Neptune based on the observation of the perturbations of the orbit of planet Uranus in the 19th century"

And a similar discovery about Pluto turned out to be a fluke, since Pluto as observed would not have the required mass for it to influence Neptune that much.

"and the precession (wobble) of Earth on its axis, which in 8000 years will point not to Polaris as the North Star, but to the bright star Deneb."

I'm not sure whether the precession has been tested or not, but another wobble is observable : Chandler's wobble. Again : angels moving stars and planets like to dance. And are very good and well coordinated dancers.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said " The observations are exactly the same." That seems to be just a restatement of your original "theory" that, in your mind, their is no observable difference between a condition where the Sun revolves around the Earth and one that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It may be hard to nail down this dichotomy if it were not for the other seven planets observed to be revolving around the Sun (not the Earth). I don't think you can have it both ways; seven planets revolving around the sun, while the sun revolves around Earth, given the masses of the Sun and the gaseous planets. But hey, I'm not an astrophysicist, I just observe what they say. (And your appeal to authority, two 17th century philosophers whose theories have been discounted in subsequent years by better arguments (Occam's razor and all that), is also stretching my credulity.)

On a minor point about your injection of the discovery of Pluto; I'm not familiar with a fluke about its discovery, but that does not negate the fact that Neptune's orbit was calculated before it was observed, adding confidence that the astronomers of the 18th century well understood Kepler's theories on the motions of the planets in the solar system. The perturbation of Ceres was also found to be the cause of previously unexplained motions of Mercury.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "I don't think you can have it both ways; seven planets revolving around the sun, while the sun revolves around Earth,"

Yes, that's what I can.

"given the masses of the Sun and the gaseous planets."

Your point would stand if you could prove no angelic movers change the outcome of brute gravity and inertia.

"But hey, I'm not an astrophysicist, I just observe what they say."

Thanks for admitting, unlike me, you didn't care to actually look up their arguments with any degree of analysis.

"(And your appeal to authority, two 17th century philosophers whose theories have been discounted in subsequent years by better arguments (Occam's razor and all that), is also stretching my credulity.)"

I suppose your would apply the famous razor on difference between Earth and planets - I apply it (or a similar one) on epistemology. We don't need to make figuring the universe out more complicated than it is, and that is an argument for Tycho and Riccioli, and not depending on their authority (Tycho was an astronomer, the master whose disciple was Kepler, Riccioli was an astronomer, and Tycho died 1601, so he was mostly 16th C.)

"On a minor point about your injection of the discovery of Pluto; I'm not familiar with a fluke about its discovery, but that does not negate the fact that Neptune's orbit was calculated before it was observed, adding confidence that the astronomers of the 18th century well understood Kepler's theories on the motions of the planets in the solar system. The perturbation of Ceres was also found to be the cause of previously unexplained motions of Mercury."

I don't think Ceres is a Moon of Mercury. It is in the asteroid belt, I checked.

Neptune : Pluto = 1:1 to mechanistic theory predicting accurately.

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , while I now see that Tycho's spheres within spheres allowed for some of the known planets to revolve around the Sun and all to revolve around the Earth, his student Kepler proposed a simpler, more geometric scheme where all the known planets revolved around the Sun. I also see that Tycho died 8 years before the first telescope was pointed into the night's sky, so he never had a chance to see the light. I also see that most debate among astronomers about which system is true ended in the early 18th century with James Bradley's discovery of star aberration, where a star's apparent position is offset from its true position by the motion of Earth. (As an aside, I never said that Ceres was a moon of Mercury, did I? nor did I use the word philosophers in the modern context; not until the 1830s was the term scientist coined for those trained in the philosophies of science.)

What flimsy point about a "mechanistic theory" ratio between Pluto and Neptune are you making? How does it negate the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of Uranus? Are you suggesting the calculations were wrong and the discovery was unrelated to them?

I am going to circle back to my original point; a solar system as is generally accepted by the scientific community, that is well understood, and from which space flights to distant planets and asteroids have taken place. These discoveries would not be possible if the Tychonian system was the ruling philosophy. Given that, I will again state that leaving the motions of planets, including Earth to "angels" is without a single provable or observational fact. (Epistemologically-speaking, it is no more than opinion). If you are convinced of the robustness of such claim, write letters to SpaceX and NASA, correcting their understanding of orbital mechanics. I would love to read their replies.

Take care of your faith but leave gravity and Newtonian motions to the scientists, please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "while I now see that Tycho's spheres within spheres allowed for some of the known planets to revolve around the Sun"

All of the known planets, Earth not being one, obviously except Sun which cannot revolve in an orbit around itself and Moon.

"and all to revolve around the Earth, his student Kepler proposed a simpler, more geometric scheme where all the known planets revolved around the Sun."

Correct. Plus Earth.

"I also see that Tycho died 8 years before the first telescope was pointed into the night's sky, so he never had a chance to see the light."

In fact, none of the discoveries with a telescope were decisive for the change in opinion.

"I also see that most debate among astronomers about which system is true ended in the early 18th century with James Bradley's discovery of star aberration, where a star's apparent position is offset from its true position by the motion of Earth."

And if that is so, that is a weakness in the mental make-up of that corps. What if the so-called aberration was a dance of the moving angels?

"(As an aside, I never said that Ceres was a moon of Mercury, did I?"

No, but you did imply it had some effect on Mercury.

"nor did I use the word philosophers in the modern context; not until the 1830s was the term scientist coined for those trained in the philosophies of science.)"

F i n e, in that case be consistent and call their modern counterparts in astronomy philosophers as well.

"What flimsy point about a "mechanistic theory" ratio between Pluto and Neptune are you making? How does it negate the discovery of Neptune based on the perturbations of Uranus?"

Both Neptune and Pluto were discovered following calculations about perturbations of an already known planet. Both used gravitation to understand the perturbation compared to predicted orbit.

"Are suggesting the calculations were wrong and the discovery was unrelated to them?"

For Pluto : definite yes, we know have reason to believe Pluto is too small and has too little mass to have the effect it was presumed to be having when it was discovered.

"I am going to circle back to my original point; a solar system as is generally accepted by the scientific community, that is well understood, from which space flights to distant planets and asteroids have taken place that would not be possible if the Tychonian system was the ruling philosophy."

First, the point about only Heliocentrism being a possible basis for spaceflight was so far not made by you, and was definitely not your original point, unless you changed the comment after I answered it. Changing what has already been said by someone is actually counterproductive when it is written on internet and can be checked. Now, second, would it be possible with Tychonianism being true?

It would with the aether. The one really fine point in that type of argument is, if earth doesn't rotate, why does the rocket or spaceship circle around earth, and with God moving an aether around earth each stellar day (c. 4 minutes shorter than a day), the answer is, because it remains in constant trajectory through a rotating aether. Same explanation as with the Eötvös effect of geostationary orbits, or as with the Foucault's pendulum and other Coriolis effects.

"Given that, I will again state that leaving the motions of planets, including Earth to "angels" is without a single provable or observational fact."

Except the observable fact that we stay where we are and the universe circles around us. Note, while prima facie doesn't give any prohibition of other fact overruling it, as long as there are no other facts overruling it, prima facie holds.

"If you are convinced of the robustness of such claim, write letters to SpaceX and NASA, correcting their understanding of orbital mechanics. I would love to read their replies."

You get me a scientist willing to engage in a debate per mails, both of us having a right to republish the debate on blogs, and him sending his initial comments to hgl@dr.com which is my public correspondence mail, and you get me your mail so I can send the post to you, I will. I will not give it a try and then have you laugh when I say they don't answer.

"Take care of your faith but leave gravity and Newtonian motions to the scientists, please."

It so happens, I am leaving gravity and Newtonian motion insofar as they are at all checkable (like, when studying objects falling to or twards the ground) to scientists. What is going on with planets and fix stars is however not checkable in a scientific sense, and the most scientific approach is : since we have prima facie evidence (that's how it looks) for Tychonian-Ricciolian geometry up to the fix stars, and for fix stars going faster than the Sun around earth, and since we have no certain proof to the contrary, and since the best approach to such a thing again and again comes down to appealing to an a priori negative about angels, we hold the Tychonian-Ricciolian geometry and from then also angelic movers of heavenly bodies, which also suffice to explain without Heliocentrism the phenomena attributed to aberration, parallax and wobble.

+ @YouToobeism Btw, ask Phil Plait, of the Bad Astronomy blog, at NASA, if he's ready for another round with me!

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , I will look up Phil Plait's blog and pass on your greetings. In the meantime, here's a Clemens quote; "One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Sounds positively angelic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism Clemens as in Langhorn?

Sounds more like modern materialistic astronomy ...

Hours

later:

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl , are you trying to goad me into white-washing your "theory" of orbital mechanics? That's a poor deFense of your position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism My point is, the modern astronomy for an input of fact from the angle of earth only will give conjecture on :

1) heliocentrism,
2) aberration being aberration
3) parallax being parallactic
4) a relation btw apparent size and distance for "main series"
5) further distances from apparent size
6) and a few more leading to "distance in billions of light years"
7) and hence the supposed distant starlight problem

just to mention a few of their conjectures!

Have you reached Phil Plait yet?

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "...and hence the supposed distant starlight problem." That does not seem to be one of the conundrums that the astronomical community is grappling with. I think that cepheid stars provide the benchmarks for determining stellar distances. Nor is "aberration being aberration" one of their conjectures.... it is your empty counter.

You list what you think are viable counter points to orbital mechanics and astronomical scale without references; concluding due to a lack of understanding of the "conjectures", the alternative of "angels move planets" is a reasonable conclusion. I don't think I have much else to say on the topic of angels.

"will only give conjecture...." may correctly, given the body of proofs and practical applications of orbital mechanics, be re-stated as "indicates proof of....". Take a look at the video of SpaceX's launch of the DART satellite last Tuesday. Between 44 and 56 minutes into the flight, the satellite is boosted out of Earth orbit. Two of the three cameras on board clearly show the satellite moving away from global Earth. Take care.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "That does not seem to be one of the conundrums that the astronomical community is grappling with. I think that cepheid stars provide the benchmarks for determining stellar distances."

Yes, but only one of them, coming after stellar distances determined by apparent size of main series, coming after main series getting it's reputation of solar sized stars from conferring apparent sizes with distances which, themselves, had first been determined by parallax. So, if parallax is not parallactic, the rest of the stellar distances, including those got by cepheids, fall down as well as the first ones.

"Nor is "aberration being aberration" one of their conjectures.... it is your empty counter."

Not the least. The aberration that is is a phenomenon of fix stars travelling in time with the Sun a distance of 20 arc seconds or 25 arc seconds (forget which) over the year. The other phenomenon called parallax is a very minor variation on this phenomenon.

However, while the phenomena get their names from the supposal they are aberration and parallax, this supposal is - unlike the observed phenomenon - a conjecture. Certainly a conjecture sufficiently common to give the phenomena their standard names in astronomy text books, but still a conjecture.

"You list what you think are viable counter points to orbital mechanics and astronomical scale without references;"

I already gave Riccioli and St. Thomas, right? But more importantly, no number of references to well reputed modern scholars is a substitute for them giving an actual argument for preferring Newton over not only purely angelic, but even mixed Newtonian and angelic mechanics. And arguing they have omitted that argument is an argument that doesn't need a reference, even if I gave one.

"concluding due to a lack of understanding"

I understand perfectly well that the exclusion of angelic movers is by now in great measure a question of materialistic philosophy and in the case of astronomers not sharing that (for instance Christians like Faulkner) a question of habit.

"of the "conjectures", the alternative of "angels move planets" is a reasonable conclusion."

It remains an explanation, and you have not argued against it.

"I don't think I have much else to say on the topic of angels."

Well, don't. Our debate is already somewhat long, if you want to finish it, fair enough ... you still haven't heard of Phil Plait? Or are you just repeating his points for him?

""will only give conjecture...." may correctly, given the body of proofs and practical applications of orbital mechanics, be re-stated as "indicates proof of...."."

I object to that remark very strongly.

"Take a look at the video of SpaceX's launch of the DART satellite last Tuesday. Between 44 and 56 minutes into the flight, the satellite is boosted out of Earth orbit."

Meaning, I suppose, its orbit around Earth?

"Two of the three cameras on board clearly show the satellite moving away from global Earth."

Yeah - I never argued DART couldn't move away from Earth and also never argued Earth was flat. What is your point?

"Take care."

On what account?

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "Yeah - I never argued DART couldn't move away from Earth and also never argued Earth was flat. What is your point?" The point being that the physicists at SpaceX, using the known mass of the Earth and its location in its orbit around the Sun, calculated using Newtonian Laws of Motion and orbital mechanics, how much thrust would be needed in which direction to launch a satellite and its second stage into low earth orbit, and then how long to wait until a second burn from the engine of the second stage would fire for just the right amount of time to put the satellite onto a new trajectory; a geocentric, elliptical orbit around the sun. This new orbit will in 10 months allow the satellite to meet a pair of asteroids millions of miles from Earth. All of this accomplished without the aid of angels or the incorporation of your 17th century conjecture (no, dream, really) that the Sun revolves around an "immoveable" Earth. If you are still confident of your conjecture, please direct your calculations to the physicists at NASA's DART program, letting them know their mistake and how to correct it before 10 months pass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "The point being that the physicists at SpaceX, using the known mass of the Earth and its location in its orbit around the Sun, calculated using Newtonian Law of Motion and orbital mechanics, how much thrust would be needed in which direction to launch a satellite and its second stage into low earth orbit, and then how long to wait until a second burn from the engine of the second stage would fire for just the right amount of time to put the satellite onto a new trajectory; a geocentric, elliptical orbit around the sun. This new orbit will in 10 months allow the satellite to meet a pair of asteroids millions of miles from Earth."

OK ... the "location in orbit around the Sun" is a thing which lends itself to Tychonian equivalence.

The "known mass" may have used experience of launching different things from Earth, like into geostationary orbits.

And the directions are mainly important and would be equivalent in either Heliocentric or Tychonian.

"All of this accomplished without the aid of angels"

More than you know whether or not they cooperated, but the angels not being taken into account is noted. And irrelevant.

"or the incorporation of your 17th century conjecture (no, dream, really) that the Sun revolves around the Earth which is "immoveable"."

It so happens, what you call "conjecture" or even "dream" happens to be what normal, everyday experience tells us in an experiment ongoing since creation day IV.

"If you are still confident of your conjecture, please direct your calculations to the physicists at NASA's DART program, letting them know their mistake and how to correct it before 10 months pass."

I consider their theoretical error in all probability irrelevant to their success. If you want to contact them, I'll take a debate with them if you persuade them, but as with Phil Plait, I'll not take their refusal to respond to me as a judgement. At least not one I care about.

+ @YouToobeism PS, now that our debate is re-published on Assorted Retorts blog, I have been able to at least tell him where he can find our debate.

a

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "I have been able to at least tell him where he can find our debate." I am sure that the unspecified person you are referring to will be so pleased. However, you are mistaken if you think we are having a debate. This exchange is barely more than your monologue entitled "I think, therefore it is as I think."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism I have not conducted a monologue. I have conducted a series of answers to any and all of your attacks on my position.

If my lines are longer than yours, it is because I consistently quote all of yours in small pieces and reply to mostly each.

From context it should be clear the "unspecified person" is Phil Plait.

As to the charge "I think, therefore it is as I think" you are nearly taking that very thing from NASA, with the twist "I think and work, therefore it is as I think" - that something works doesn't in the least mean the one working needs to understand what's happening. No one among men has gone the four light years and checked that alpha Centauri isn't moving itself in the annual movement considered as aberration and parallax by those who think and therefore you think it is as they think.

b

YouToobeism

@Hans-Georg Lundahl said "I consider their [SpaceX] theoretical error in all probability irrelevant to their success." A plain-English version of your statement is; "I think they got lucky". With nothing but your late 16th century Tychonian theory to work with would the plot to asteroids millions of miles from Earth be remotely lucky? Which outcome will be seen in 10 months? I'm betting on a modern understanding of orbital mechanics, one that takes into account the Earth's orbit around the Sun, as the most likely path to success, as it most closely is consistent with observable reality. Check back in 10 months.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YouToobeism "With nothing but your late 16th century Tychonian theory to work with would the plot to asteroids millions of miles from Earth be remotely lucky?"

Observations are more to the point than basic theory. So, not lucky but observant overall, but the theory is lucky - like theories of magnetism were before Maxwell. Obviously, inventing the compass took more than just the theory element earth plus influence of Mars and then of Venus => a magnet.

"I'm betting on a modern understanding of orbital mechanics, one that takes into account the Earth's orbit around the Sun, as the most likely path to success, as it most closely is consistent with observable reality."

They don't go out of their way to make it inconsistent with observations. You have failed to show where the Tychonian position is so.

II

3:52 I wrestled with it for less than 24 hours.

On August 23 2001, I came across the problem as an objection to recent creation loaded with novas in distant stars.

On August 24, day of St. Bartholomew, I offered the solution, I regard it as a gift of God, during intervening night, of Geocentrism => Parallax isn't such => Stars aren't distant. Or all that distant.

III

6:04 Starlight created in transit? The problem of supernovas.

6:36 I believe the Andromeda Nebula is one or two light days up, and that light has travelled for one or two days.

IV

7:02 Now, I am scientific on the question of light travel.

But on the question of stellar movements or planetary orbits (Tychonian with ellipses as per Riccioli) or universe turning around the earth each day, I consider most of these as direct acts of angels on single bodies, and one of these, the last, as an act by God on the universe as a whole.

The Sun moves around us in 24 hours because:

God moves the universe around us East to West, just a little faster, a stellar day per rotation around the axis;
the angel of the Sun moves around the universe along ecliptic, West to East, c. 366 times slower than that.

V

7:55 The sustaining as such is, on astronomic levels, also a miracle.

VI

9:07 The water turned to wine at Cana, like the confusion of languages at Babel, are one time events.

Us now seeing the light from Andromeda Spiral Nebula is however a regularly occurring part of God sustaining His creation.

Hence the interest that a natural speed of light accounts for that light being emitted within the Biblical timeline.

When I say "the sustaining is also a miracle" I do not mean natural causes cause in non-natural ways, but that they are themselves caused in their, for instance places, by not physical and not natural causes, like God and like his angels.

VII

9:08 sth to 13:00 sth - excellent work Danny, no quibbles about this one.

After 15:10 up to 19:35, no quibbles except the distance to Orion just mentioned as if certain.

VIII

15:10 What you didn't mention is, it was rejected in two ways : by Heliocentrics, but also by Tychonian Heliocentrism.

Tycho's disciple Kepler changed two things : 1) he was Heliocentric, 2) he considered the orbits more or less elliptic.

Now, what the last main Geocentric did - his name was Giovanni Battista Riccioli - was to keep Kepler's ellipses, but revert to Tychonian overall geometry.

Once all epicycles (except those of minor bodies like Io or Phobos) had the Sun as epicentre of one elliptic focus, it works (except for the quirks of Mercury, discussed by Einstein).

subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein?

I
subductionzone: One more on carbon dating. Contamination is possible. A very small amount of contamination will give an "old" (for C14) date. The example given was 36,000 years. If fossils were that young we should see the same fossils or at least ones from the same era as having the same date. If it was contamination we would expect to see ages all over the place. One guess to what sort of dates we see from creationist papers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "A very small amount of contamination will give an "old" (for C14) date."

You mean, will give a "young"?

I actually agree. The carbon age for the flood would on my view be 40 000 BP and when Creationists tell of dinos carbon dated to 22 000 BP, I go ... is it contamination (by pre-Flood nuke wars)? ... or is it the dino died in a post-Flood landslide?

"If fossils were that young we should see the same fossils or at least ones from the same era as having the same date."

See my comment on time signature 5:33, please! We have no evidence that the diverse fossils at Karoo (classified as Permian, Triassic and Jurassic) actually come from different eras. They could just have had their habitats side by side. And similarily for other, usually less clustered to each other, finds of land vertebrate fossils of "different eras".
II
subductionzone: Let's not forget estimated minimum ages. That show that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. For example, just one formation, the Green River Formation has roughly five million yearly layers. People can count them, if they have nothing better to do.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Prove the layers are actually yearly?
III
Keith Levkoff: I wanted to add a few comments about radiometric dating...
From what I've learned about the subject it does logically make sense that we might not know the original ratio of parent and daughter isotopes present in some cases.
However, from what I can discern, with several of the various isotopes used, the parent isotopes don't occur naturally in proximity to the daughter isotopes.
So, for example, uranium has a much higher melting point than lead.
So, if you were to find a speck of metal that contained both lead and uranium, trapped in a crystal embedded in ancient lava.
You can be quite certain that they did not end up at the same place in that lava when it solidified.
(So the only sensible conclusion is that the lead you've found came from what was originally pure uranium)

I'm also a little curious about how they found carbon to date in a fossil ammonite...
(A fossil as old as that ammonite would not contain unfossilized carbon... and Carbon-14 dating wouldn't work on carbon that old even if it were present.)

It's also worth noting that, even accepting a rather wide range of error in some cases, the basic argument remains intact.
For example, if our dates were so far off that the Earth was "only" 3 billion years old, there would still be plenty of time for evolution to occur...
(And, as far as I know, we DO have samples of terrestrial samples that can be reliably dated farther back than that.)
(And we have a massive number of things that have been dated by a wide variety of methods to be FAR older than the time frame claimed in the Bible.)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "However, from what I can discern, with several of the various isotopes used, the parent isotopes don't occur naturally in proximity to the daughter isotopes."

Ah ... prove it?

"So, for example, uranium has a much higher melting point than lead.
"So, if you were to find a speck of metal that contained both lead and uranium, trapped in a crystal embedded in ancient lava.
"You can be quite certain that they did not end up at the same place in that lava when it solidified.
"(So the only sensible conclusion is that the lead you've found came from what was originally pure uranium)"

Uranium - Lead is meteorites, not crystals trapped in lava. Unless you mean zircons ... CMI considers polonium halos prove accelerated decay (as one gets with lots of radioactivity at a time, see Chernobyl) which would explain the lead in the zircons. But otherwise, U-Pb is mainlky meteorites and the main one from lava would be K-Ar - a method which can be offset by the trapping of surplus Argon (either from air or from accelerated decay).

No refutation on YEC on that line.

"I'm also a little curious about how they found carbon to date in a fossil ammonite...
"(A fossil as old as that ammonite would not contain unfossilized carbon... and Carbon-14 dating wouldn't work on carbon that old even if it were present.)"

What about the idea, the ammonite isn't that old, does contain "unfossilised carbon," or carbon from original tissues not replaced by non-carbon minerals, and the carbon age reflects a low original C14 ratio for the time of the Flood, c. 5000 years ago?

"(And, as far as I know, we DO have samples of terrestrial samples that can be reliably dated farther back than that.)"

I think you mean the meteorites U-Pb dated to 4.5 billion years ago. See above, not reliably.

"(And we have a massive number of things that have been dated by a wide variety of methods to be FAR older than the time frame claimed in the Bible.)"

How many of these things have been dated singly, each of them, with a wide variety of methods to the same age? For one thing, one may have one or other method and perhaps a choice between the results of two different ones.
Keith Levkoff: @Hans-Georg Lundahl

Most evidence, including radiometric dating, is based on a LOT of individual results, which reinforce each other. A single result can be in error for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is contamination - not in the lab but in nature (or in the lab). Another is that, because of the decay rates of different isotopes, each can only be used to date things within a certain range of ages. Because of the decay rate of Carbon-14 it can ONLY be used reliably for dating relatively new materials (maybe up to 50,000 years or so). And, WITHIN THE RANGE OF DATES over which it works, it has been proven to be extremely accurate. However, once you get past the maximum limit, there isn't enough material left to do an accurate analysis... and so the odds of contamination affecting the results become unacceptable. (That's why we use Carbon 14 dating to date 20,000 year old fossil wood and other isotopes for ammonites that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old.)

In that case, were those ammonites found in layers of rock that could reliably be dated using OTHER methods? Or were they found UNDER layers of rock that could be reliably dated. (Obviously an ammonite that was found UNDER a layer of rock that is 100 million years old must be older than that layer... unless you can account for how it found its way underneath that layer.)

Not all tests produce a perfect and accurate result every time.
Things go wrong and there are sometimes things that haven't been accounted for.
The reality is that the time period over which ammonites flourished is shown by a MASSIVE amount of evidence and test results.
And, in the case of ammonites, most of this evidence is based on things like the age of the rocks which they are found in, and UNDER.
(As such, if the results of s single test appear to disagree with all the rest, then odds are it is that individual test which is somehow in error.)

I should also point out something else...
Specifically if you're attempting to use that as "evidence" of "a new Earth"...
Do you have ANY evidence that the Earth ISN'T as old as most scientists agree it is...
Again note that most scientists agree that, based on a massive amount of evidence, the Earth is AT LEAST SEVERAL BILLION YEARS OLD.
(And, as we progress, the range is continually being narrowed, and the accuracy of that newer and more acsurate data being reaffirmed.)

Please EXCLUDE any reference to "The Bible"...
(Since, as a single book, it doesn't constitute evidence of anything... at least no more than the latest Harry Potter book does.)
(Unless you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Bible isn't "just a collection of stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago"?)

In science, unlike in story books, we go with what the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows...
And, in this case, we have a LOT of things, dated by a lot of different methods, to a lot of different ages...
Ranging from a few hundred years old to several BILLION years old.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Keith Levkoff "Most evidence, including radiometric dating, is based on a LOT of individual results, which reinforce each other."

But are most individual results reliable before reinforcing each other?

"Another is that, because of the decay rates of different isotopes, each can only be used to date things within a certain range of ages."

Most notably, all except C14 have a minimal error marging larger than we know recorded history to be, meaning only C14 can be tested against actual history.

"Because of the decay rate of Carbon-14 it can ONLY be used reliably for dating relatively new materials (maybe up to 50,000 years or so). And, WITHIN THE RANGE OF DATES over which it works, it has been proven to be extremely accurate. However, once you get past the maximum limit, there isn't enough material left to do an accurate analysis... and so the odds of contamination affecting the results become unacceptable. (That's why we use Carbon 14 dating to date 20,000 year old fossil wood and other isotopes for ammonites that are tens or hundreds of millions of years old.)"

Yeah, the other isotopes you use for ammonites cannot be tested.

But, a minimal test would be, the C14 in an ammonite should be depleted.

You speak of odds of contamination becoming unacceptable, but it is more like quantities left would be undetectable.

"In that case, were those ammonites found in layers of rock that could reliably be dated using OTHER methods? Or were they found UNDER layers of rock that could be reliably dated. (Obviously an ammonite that was found UNDER a layer of rock that is 100 million years old must be older than that layer... unless you can account for how it found its way underneath that layer.)"

There simply is no such thing as a reliable test giving a rock 100 millions of years.

"Not all tests produce a perfect and accurate result every time.
Things go wrong and there are sometimes things that haven't been accounted for."

R i g h t ...
Now, carbon dating things from "million of years old" rocks has repeatedly given C14 quantities that were detectable and therefore ages that would on the assumptions of C14 dating be reliable. I take an age of near ten halflives, 56 000 years, and I get the warning : "This date is getting close to the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)" - and note, the carbon dated materials are 50 000 years or younger. Systematically.

"The reality is that the time period over which ammonites flourished is shown by a MASSIVE amount of evidence and test results. And, in the case of ammonites, most of this evidence is based on things like the age of the rocks which they are found in, and UNDER.
(As such, if the results of s single test appear to disagree with all the rest, then odds are it is that individual test which is somehow in error.)"

Like, the ammonite layer from the Flood, at GC, is at least a few weeks older than the layers with no more ammonites in them? Sure. But before you get into zircons or K-Ar, the idea of millions of years is supported by no evidence, and that includes the million year results of non-carbon radiometric, since they aren't evidence. There are simply too much that can go wrong with those ones. Everytime.

"I should also point out something else...
"Specifically if you're attempting to use that as "evidence" of "a new Earth"...
"Do you have ANY evidence that the Earth ISN'T as old as most scientists agree it is..."

Yes, Genesis 2 - 11, even on a purely historic level. Adam would have known fairly well the world he came to was a young one, especially as his children met no other men to marry, anywhere. Posit Eden as somewhere between Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, and posit Nod to be somewhere like Persia or India, a fairly large area to roam without finding persons who aren't from your own family.

And the chapter length or if you prefer unitary story length (Genesis 11 is one chapter, but two stories) is so short that it can be accurately preserved even over language changes and even over 3000 years from Adam to Abraham, with the long and multiply overlapping generations, especially before the Flood. Abraham would have been sixth in a minimal overlap of generations, and this reinforced by multiple complementary overlap.

"Again note that most scientists agree that, based on a massive amount of evidence, the Earth is AT LEAST SEVERAL BILLION YEARS OLD."

Science posing as reconstructing history is mostly pseudo-history.

"Please EXCLUDE any reference to "The Bible"... / (Since, as a single book, it doesn't constitute evidence of anything... at least no more than the latest Harry Potter book does.)"

You are already wrong when you say "a single book" ... Biblia may be singular feminine in Latin, but in Greek it is plural of the neuter gender. We have no community of Harry Potter readers who take Harry Potter as actually evidenced history. We do have massive amounts of Harry Potter readers who think the Bible is in the same position, though.

"(Unless you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the Bible isn't "just a collection of stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago"?)"

History is a collection of stories written or otherwise redacted so long ago they could observe when they happened, or had access to earlier stories that were so redacted.

I presume you mean "just a collection of made-up stories, written by a bunch of guys, a long time ago" and my actual evidence is the obvious lack of ancient audience delighting in the talents for making things up as we delight in the talents of Tolkien (my taste) or Rowling (your taste).

"In science, unlike in story books, we go with what the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows..."

And the overwhelming majority of historic evidence goes against the world being millions of years old. Not just Biblical, but Pagan as well. Egyptians stretched world history to sth like 40 000 years back, but even they didn't pretend to millions of years. And yes, there is a hieroglyphic numeral for "one million" so it is not for lack of the concept. Sumerians went longer, but even they didn't touch half a million years. Apart from Egyptians and Sumerians and Hindoos, nearly all Pagan mythological histories are shorter than the Biblical one.

"And, in this case, we have a LOT of things, dated by a lot of different methods, to a lot of different ages..."

Yes, and with most of the methods being totally worthless.
IV
Deus-Stein: 6:29 "It sure seems they're putting a lot of faith in something they can't actually test through direct observation" That's rich coming from someone claiming the bible is the absoulte truth and the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It would seem the majority of the Bible is at least purported history.

As a Catholic, I sorted Bible books into historical and the other types (prophecy, doctrine). Note, while Daniel counts as prophetic, I counted it as historical, and same with all of Exodus, Leviticus, despite lots of chapters actually on moral / legal doctrine. With this rough shod approach, I got a slightly higher number of chapters for history than for the other genres put together. I also took Job and Jonah as historical, despite claims from some they were doctrinally motivated fictions, but that's not rough shod, it's traddy.

Now, if a text is purported to be history, this doesn't just mean the text itself designates itself as history (which would make LotR or Silmarillion historic, "at least purported history"), it actually means, a community of readers or listeners are (unlike those of LotR or Silmarillion) accepting it as historic.

I have never seen any good explanation why an audience which took a text for a nice fiction would shift to one taking it as literally happened history, so I have no reason to believe Genesis was originally a piece of fiction. I do however see at least one good explanation why history could from some audiences be taken as fiction, namely overreliance on scepticism.

Thursday, November 25, 2021

In Support of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, I Share This

Project Veritas' James O'Keefe described pre-dawn raid on his home in 'Hannity'
9th Nov. 2021 | Fox News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJET3pEWjFA

Monday, November 22, 2021

L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai?

Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) · L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? · subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? · How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible

Under the comment on population after the Flood, L M posted a response totally off topic to this, and which will be given a separate post, this one:

L M: @Hans-Georg Lundahl The god of the Bible isn't real. I suggest you look into his origins and the scholarship.

Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.

It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant.

Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon

The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:

When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).

The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.

Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own. His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest.

As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El. They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722).

Google "Yahweh - WorldHistory.Org."

Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.

Watch "Pagan Origins of Judaism" by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.

Watch "The Origins of Yahweh" by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Google "Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."

Google "The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."

Google "Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."

Google "Canaanite Religion - Realhistoryww.com"
(You can read about El, the husband of Asherah (Athirat) and the fictional father of Baal, Anat, Mot, Yahweh and other fictional Canaanite gods here)

Google "Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."

Google "The Phoenician God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"

Google "God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugartic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh as he became the top god in the pantheon)

Google "Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."

Google "Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."

Google "How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."

Google "The Invention of God - Maclean's"

Google "The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."

Google "Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."

Google "How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."

Google "A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."

Google "Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"

Google "Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"

Google "Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."

Google "Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."

Google "The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"

Google "Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."

Google "Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."

Google "Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."

Google "Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."

Google "Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."

Google "Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."

Google "Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."

Google "The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins" based on the majority scholarly consensus.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @L M I will omit your basically name-dropping list. If I had hours each day on internet in a library, I might go into it, but as it is, no thanks. I will however respond to your arguments before that.

"The god of the Bible isn't real."

There are more than one way to argue that, they are all wrong and before we look at what you could say, I'll mention that if you by some knock on my head or drugging came to convince me of that, it would still not prove radiometric dating or that the population increase after the Flood were some kind of impossibility, either in quantity or in genetic relative still health.

"I suggest you look into his origins and the scholarship."

Ah, the compatative religions approach ...

"Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems"

Seems to whom? From what material?

"to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El."

So, someone has studied some Canaanite religion or purported such, supposed to be older than the Israelite religion, and I'd like to know the argument for that, and concluded it is the original and the Israelite God the copy. In a purely atheistic world view, this would obviously be possible, but at least rather iffy. But if you consider there is any kind of God, why would "true Canaanean gods" have allowed a fake Israelite one to usurp the honour they want? So, your position actually begs Atheism to its rescue. Or perhaps Deism.

"Even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9)."

Excuse me, is your Canaanite theology simply based on the theory that instead of being a rhetorical variatio sermonis Dt 32:8-9 reflects "an earlier state"? Bc, this is guesswork at its most flimsy. And, again, impossible except to an Atheist, or perhaps a Deist. Oh, btw, a believer in Spinoza's divinity would not be too far from a Deist either.

"A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity)."

I know the difference, yes ... it seems you just confirmed my suspicion, you did not get this from a well defined Canaanite theology and then the relative dates of texts for either, you get this from misanalysing the Bible as many layers of different and even conflicting theologies. Bad move. It comes from the Protestant habit of misanalysing Catholicism into a NT Biblical layer and later accretions (pagan or scholastic) supposed not to be Christian. Equally bad and impossible in the light of Matthew 28:16-20.

"The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan."

Your claim is a very much later belief cast back onto the sequence of events. I believe Biblically tradited history over reconstructed "history". I generally believe traditions over reconstructions, not just the Bible.

"It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant."

It is accepted = you are not saying who accepts sth. My professor of Latin mentioned, the passive serves to avoid being precise on who would be subject of the active form.
It is generally accepted - a fake claim that everyone or most people accept it, since not being precise about among whom this is "general" - a bunch of apostates being a fairly sad excuse for argument from authority, however many universities they may sway control over, in the relevant department (I knew this was the case in Lund since I was 13).
It is generally accepted in the modern day = adding Chronological snobbery.

"Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon"

Seems you are quoting an essay with a title.

"The biblical narrative, ... (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text)."

Repeating the argument from misreading the text.

"The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods"

More than you can know.

"the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity;"

According to what argument...?

"but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god."

Clear from what, still waiting for the argument ...?

"Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed"

Amzallag, according to Adonai was transformed from nothing to a person, united to flesh inherited from his parent's genes and his mothers metabolism, and that would be thousands of years after this guess of Amzallag supposedly happened.

[Omitting comparison between Adonai and Vulcan]

And what are the proofs of this?

"The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722)."

In fact, this is untrue. There was monotheism and there was idolatry and they remained in a swing between the two.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Joseph Pearce on Paganism

Saturday, November 27, 2021

Two Videos with Some Relation to Sedevacantism and Orthopapism

A Video with Danny Faulkner, a Debate with YouToobeism

subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein?

Thursday, November 25, 2021

In Support of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, I Share This

Monday, November 22, 2021

L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai?

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers