For those new to this blog, it has different formats, one that you may not be familiar with is produced like this: a) I hear a video, and from time to time I stop it, to post a comment on what I just heard, making a time stamp for the moment when I stopped the video; b) I make a post with, first, link to the video, then, the comments one by one, in order of time stamps. This format is not an essay format, more like footnotes or endnotes section to someone else's essay. My "footnotes", so to speak, are often too polemic and too long to be what some actual footnoter does. They are not meant to be one coherent thought in relation to the whole video, they are meant to be several coherent thoughts in relation to several moments in the video. My equivalent among videasts is the guy making reaction videos. In an actual video comment, I cannot put a quoted segment into a blockquote, so I put them between two pairs of slashes (// statement //), in that case I usually make it a blockquote here. I mean quotes from for instance wikipedia or other non-Bible source. This is different from quotes from the video, which, unless long, I put in italics and quotation marks, and quotes from the Bible which I put in bold. In some cases people interact with my comments, and such interactions are also mirrored in dialogue sections, were the username of the one "speaking" is given on one line, his comment below it, next line indented. In the comments here, someone used a vulgar and evil screen name, at least apparently such (he could have meant to speak the screen name as done over the distinguishing part of the channel), I have left it as it is.
Some of the Reasons I Reject 'Evolution'
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 21 janv. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr5vTssHoRA
3:38 Actually, mechanics and electromagnetism do tend to have a few constants.
Levers tend to gain in force what they lose in length of movement, I think proportionally. Here I find an exact formuly, which is not likely to change in a century of a millennium from now:
If the distance traveled is greater, then the output force is lessened.
T1 = F1a, T2=F2b
T = Torque.
F = force applied at some distance from fulcrum.
a, b, distance from fulcrum at which the force is applied.
Electricity has actual V = IR (V = voltage across the conductor, I = current through the conductor, R = resistance).
Also not likely to change any time soon.
And biology has some actual science like the laws of Mendel.
- Sliglus Amelius
- @sliglusamelius8578
- He didn't say anything against hard physics or chemistry , you're arguing a straw man. He specifically stated which sciences have various debates and he didn't mention physics or chemistry or electromagnetism.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @sliglusamelius8578 He painted "science" (all of it) with that broad brush, which I just wanted to notice isn't applicable to actual science.
Evolution (big picture version) is not even science.
11:07 Given the dimensions of the Ark:
- the Flood had to be global, a local Flood would have been too shallow, the Ark would have floundered
- and there is definitely not room enough for one couple of each modern Linnean species.
There had to be some elasticity for for instance 17 species of hedgehog (no, NOT counting porcupines!) to come from a single couple on the Ark.
Conversely, errors like Limited Flood and the very related Deep Time, came from the side denying elasticity. That side has also produced racism in the real and abject meaning of the word, like pretending Black People don't descend from Adam or shouldn't be baptised.
16:14 I'd love to have the number of the condemned thesis in Lamentabile Sane ....
Number 2 has a restricted application of this to exegesis, though.
19:35 You are making a great point. I've made it in a piece entitled "What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not."
However, there is a certain Prussian view, to which I obviously do not subscribe, but which says, if you are not an accredited expert actually doing research for a university or teaching for it, you are in that scientific subject a "layman" ... the Prussian culture was making theology more and more convoluted (as you realise if you reflect on them uniting Calvinism with Lutheranism into a Prussian state Church), and non-clergy were not expected to express any conviction about theology.
This then rubs off to other subjects. If you are not an accredited expert, you are a "layman" ... it means you may need basic concepts explained to you in non-terminological terms. For instance.
Prussia and Sweden are pretty much the same on this idea. And if you imagine I could go to Northern Germany or to Sweden and just argue your excellent point and not be shut down, not to say in, you don't know much of Prussian or Swedish culture.
23:11 "you don't have a right to an opinion"
That's the national anthem of Prussian Academia ...
Answering a Major Challenge to Young Earth Creation | How did Adam name all the Animals?
Standing For Truth | 21.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wl3ujC7xo
6:50 Two quibbles so far.
1) Adam wasn't born, he was formed as an adult.
2) I'd say God made Adam's spirit the exact same moment He inserted it into the body.
- Piss
- @baaldiablo8459
- 5:35 When does God give Eve a spirit of her own?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @baaldiablo8459 When He created Her as an individual.
- dooglitas
- @dooglitas
- @baaldiablo8459 The text does not tell us. Obviously, God did so. The fact that it does not mention it is immaterial.
- Piss
- @ How is it obvious? Just because you think its the case? Very convincing.
- dooglitas
- @dooglitas
- @ Well, it's obvious because women have spirits. Eve had a spirit. So it must be the case. It's not that hard.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ This goes for the other guy too.
It's Catholic at least doctrine that God creates each soul when creating the individual. There are obviously non-Catholics who contest this, I don't think many Catholics would hold to for instance traducianism (someone's spirit already existing in whoever they came from beforehand).
- Richie Journey
- @richiejourney1840
- I would agree that is what the text says. God formed AND gave the nephesh…same sentence…all of them…GN 2:7
8:40 153 families mammals, 249 families birds, 85 families of reptiles, 53 of amphibians
153 100 050 03
249 300 090 12
085 300 170 17
053 300 220 20 = 540 couples
Give him three hours, from creation at noon to 3pm (like Jesus on Calvary), makes 10,800 seconds, divided by 540 = 20 seconds per couple.
I think Adam's precision was an impressionistic one.
- Pabras
- @Rob2000
- I dont get the calculation. You are counting created kinds? So where did the names of the species after the garden came from?
- Piss
- Christian math is... interesting...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @[Pabras] The "species" in Latin are created kinds.
Each created kind back then existed in probably one couple, therefore one genus and one species. It still is one family. I went to a site to check how many families each there were in mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians and simply copied the number.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @[Piss] That the families add up to 540, or that 3 hours make 10,800 seconds, or that 10,800 divided by 540 makes 20?
9:17 I don't think God did speak 100's of 1,000,000,000's of galaxies into existence, I don't think there is even one galaxy as modern cosmology understands the world.
God certainly could have, but I don't think He did.
You know, artistic economy, showing Adam He's the one who turns Heaven around Earth ...
9:55 Don't compare Adam's mind to an AI programme.
I just saw a broschure of Scotland generated that way, and it showed a Scottish castle. A so Scottish castle I'm not positive you could pronounce the Gaelic name. Neuschwanstein.
Yes, the castle built by Lewis II of Bavaria. It's simply THE generic castle, especially in pictorial contexts.
That's why I don't think the mark of the beast will be the human mind connecting to AI. It simply couldn't work. If you read AI through a screen, you can criticise its aberrations. If you are connected to it "uncritically", with your critical faculties shut off, you'll probably be dead within a week or so.
13:06 I don't think the Egyptians did breed poodles.
The skeleton of a Tesem is closer to a terrier than a grayhound. But even a terrier is not a poodle. The Egyptians certainly bred grayhounds.
The poodle was a product of the Middle Ages:
"Most cynologists believe the Poodle originated in Germany in the Middle Ages, from a dog similar to today's Standard Poodle. The Poodle was Germany's water dog, just as England had the English Water Spaniel, France the Barbet, Ireland the Irish Water Spaniel and the Netherlands the Wetterhoun. ... Some cynologists believe the Poodle originated in France, where it is known as the "Caniche" and that the breed descends from the Barbet. This view is shared by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI, International Canine Federation)."
"Der mittelgroße „Barbet“, ist einer der ältesten europäischen Wasserhunde und möglicherweise ein Vorläufer des Pudels. Die Mauren sollen seine Vorfahren im 6. Jahrhundert nach Spanien und Portugal gebracht haben, von wo er sich sehr schnell in ganz Europa verbreitet haben soll. Schon sehr früh wird in Portugal ein Wasserhund (Cão de Água Português) erwähnt, der alle Merkmale des Barbets hat. Diesen Wasserhund trifft man im 14. Jahrhundert in ganz Europa an und erst im 16. Jahrhundert wird er mit dem Namen „Barbet“ benannt."
"Züchterisch hat diese Rasse eine Reihe heute existierende Jagdhundrassen beeinflusst. Dazu zählt der Deutsche Drahthaarige Vorstehhund, der Pudelpointer, der Griffon Korthals und der Irish Water Spaniel."
So, a water dog entered Europe through Mauretanians in pre-Islamic times, it corresponds to the French Barbet, and later on one of its byproducts is the Poodle.
Examples of three different types of dogs shown on Egyptian monuments
Public Domain, File:PSM V39 D830 Dogs from the egyptian monument.jpg
Created: 1891, Uploaded: 21 October 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesem#/media/File:PSM_V39_D830_Dogs_from_the_egyptian_monument.jpg
The midmost of the Egyptian dogs seems related to the Dachshund or Teckel, but not to the Poodle.
Young Earth Creationist Gets SCHOOLED By Two Scientists | Forrest Valkai & Aaron Adair
The Line Edge | 14 janv. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taJnsZB4zYs
1:34 "No, from start to finish we have never watched "
What an admission. I'd actually be satisfied if one had modelled a series of steps and watched every step separately.
Has not happened. Arguably will not happen.
When you are saying, at least some seem to do, "we don't know how that detail happened just yet" ... that's definitely faith based.
Both faith in materialism, which is neither the only, nor the obvious default worldview, since materialism requires, but no other world view requires, abiogenesis.
And faith in the Scientific methods currently used in examining these things, since they would (on this view) be leading to the upcoming discoveries.
2:30 Forrest Valkai doesn't know the difference between Deduction and Induction.
Building a model is actually not Induction. It may be inspired by Induction, but it isn't Induction.
It relies heavily on Deduction.
It is used sometimes in a way contrary to the rules of Deduction, in which "confirming the consequent" is an actual fault.
Building a model needs deduction, like for instance, in order to make my models for the young earth creationist recalibration of carbon 14, I deduce from a 51+ pmC level in the atmosphere when Babel / Göbekli Tepe ends, from a 82 + pmC level when Genesis 14 goes on and En Geddi is evacuated, from the presumption of a constant speed of carbon 14 production (clumsy, but an approximation, pending further information which I don't have) the intermediate levels between 51 + and 82 + pmC and when they fit in the Biblical / Real timeline, and from 2189 BC then having the level of 70 + pmC, I deduce the extra years and add them to the real year, getting 5089 BC as the probable carbon date for 2189 BC.
Any model that's detailed uses Deduction.
Induction is only there to give us general principles. Some have from the idea that "induction can never be proven, only falsified, one black swan is all it takes ..." pulled that over to models, and said that "this model need not be and can not be proven, it can only be falsified, and so far it hasn't been" ... that's absurd, because models can be compared, and the comparison can and should use deductive logic, i e proof.
[To be continued for the Forrest Valkai & Aaron Adair video; and the model for carbon 14 rise after the Flood that I referred to being the one I published on Christmas Eve, after first Vespers of Christmas: Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.]
No comments:
Post a Comment