NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Off a Tangent

The video we comment on is about a very specific topic, he is now totally outside it:

sample A

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl When observations of reality conflict with the mythology of scripture, an honest person would realize that the mythology wasn't intended to be taken literally. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand. Is Earth flat? Nope. Is it under a dome? Nope. Can snakes physically talk? Nope. Is there any evidence of a global flood? Nope. That's just a few examples where reality doesn't fit with a literal translation. That's why people who claim Earth is flat, or young, or the flood really happened are denying reality in favor of mythology that wasn't meant to be taken literally. That's dogma but worse because it borders on delusion. And let's not forget how it is extremely unchristian to imply that thousands of experts in various fields over centuries are incompetent or lying about science and human history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "an honest person would realize that the mythology wasn't intended to be taken literally."

That's not an honest person, but a dishonest person, failing to understand (in the pretended scenario, which has occurred about non-Christian religions) that the mythology was wrong.

"Is Earth flat?"

Doesn't say so.

"Is it under a dome?"

If you mean the Firmament, there are other literal interpretations than a solid dome.

"Can snakes physically talk?"

No beasts can, unless angelic beings are involved.

"Is there any evidence of a global flood?"

Plenty. Campi Flegrei eruptions, for one, that's where I get my carbon date for the Flood. Lava cooled with excess argon dating to millions of years in K-Ar, for another.

The Atlantic Ocean and the land masses pushed up around Baffin Bay look like the original rectangle of four corners was damaged Northward by some very strong force.

"That's just a few examples where reality doesn't fit with a literal translation."

Nothing, including four corners (Alaska, Cape Horn, Siberia, Tasmania) that indicates Flat Earth in a literal interpretation.

"That's dogma but worse because it borders on delusion."

Delusion is when you take yourself for sth you are not. Or someone else you are supposed to know well. When Francis Joseph visited a mental hospital, he saluted one man, presenting himself as "ich bin der Kaiser" and got the response "oh, I thought so too when I arrived" ...

What you are doing is Marxist reinterpretation of Delusion, adapted to persecuting religion.

"And let's not forget how it is extremely unchristian to imply that thousands of experts in various fields over centuries are incompetent or lying about science and human history."

Being wrong doesn't even mean being overall incompetent. Several paradigms have succeeded each other and each would say of previous (or if knowing them of succeeding) ones that it was wrong, because of a systematic blind spot.

You are very arbitrarily singling out the paradigm that right now happens to have favour ...

Now, that's extremely unchristian.

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "are incompetent or lying about science and human history."

Science, properly speaking, doesn't include "historical science".

Human history is known from record, to which the Bible at least purports to belong in a majority of its chapters, and not from science.

Two more exchanges
same sample

I received two answers, perhaps gave such before. I now give two answers. The following two exchanges are therefore in parallel:

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "That's not an honest person, but a dishonest person, failing to understand (in the pretended scenario, which has occurred about non-Christian religions) that the mythology was wrong" I just gave you several examples where myths from Christianity do not match reality, which an honest person would realize that the myth wasn't meant to be taken literally. Earth isn't flat and under a dome right?

"Doesn't say so" Wrong. The Bible does make references to Earth being flat and people have written books about the supporting scripture. This shows how honest people will reject that scripture as not being literal.

"If you mean the Firmament, there are other literal interpretations than a solid dome" See? You've already proven my point again. Living under a dome was discovered to be non literal once reality confirmed we didn't live under a dome. Same goes for flat Earth or geocentrism.

"No beasts can, unless angelic beings are involved" Snakes cannot physically talk, so most honest people understand that talking beasts wasn't supposed to be literal. Again, proving my point.

"Plenty. Campi Flegrei eruptions, for one, that's where I get my carbon date for the Flood. Lava cooled with excess argon dating to millions of years in K-Ar, for another" Sorry but you're either misguided or lying. No evidence supports a global flood, it all points to local floods at best. The various ideas on the flood also defy physics which would vaporize the planet. Again, an honest person would accept that the global flood was a myth just like the dome wasn't literal.

"The Atlantic Ocean and the land masses pushed up around Baffin Bay look like the original rectangle of four corners was damaged Northward by some very strong force" Plate tectonics is very well understood and supports an old Earth and no flood. This again would require ignoring physics and vaporizing the planet. And why? Just so you can cling to a myth? Why not the dome?

"Nothing, including four corners (Alaska, Cape Horn, Siberia, Tasmania) that indicates Flat Earth in a literal interpretation" That's just YOUR opinion. Others don't share it. Just like the vast majority of Christians don't reject evolution, the age of the Earth, or that the global flood was a myth. I don't see how you don't see the issue? You've decided to ignore evidence in favor of a literal translation of a myth just like others have ignored evidence of a spherical Earth.

"Delusion is when you take yourself for sth you are not. Or someone else you are supposed to know well. When Francis Joseph visited a mental hospital, he saluted one man, presenting himself as "ich bin der Kaiser" and got the response "oh, I thought so too when I arrived"" No, delusional would be ignoring evidence from reality because you refuse to admit you are wrong about your personal interpretation of scripture. Bible flat Earthers are delusional just like a YEC who rejects evolution and the old age of the Earth is delusional.

"What you are doing is Marxist reinterpretation of Delusion, adapted to persecuting religion" Yawn. Let's see what a simple search reveals shall we? I wonder if you are able to admit you are wrong.

Delusional definition
Being delusional means holding a fixed, false belief that is completely out of touch with reality - That seems to align with what I'm saying. Let's keep going.

Marxist
A Marxist is someone who follows the political, economic, and philosophical theories of 19th-century thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A Marxist believes that society is driven by class conflict and argues that capitalism inherently exploits workers, ultimately advocating for a classless, equal society - No, that's nothing like what I'm saying.

I'm not persecuting religion. If you're a Christian stop pretending you are a victim when you exist in one of the largest religions on the planet and dominate certain powerful nations. You're not a victim. Face the fact that by refusing to accept evidence from science like the age of the planet, evolution, and NO global flood, you are going AGAINST the vast majority of fellow Christians. YOU made that choice.

"Being wrong doesn't even mean being overall incompetent" Are you pretending to not grasp the gravity of your beliefs? We're talking millions of scientists over hundreds of years all getting it wrong. This includes thousands of Christians. All of them get it wrong. And here you sit arrogantly slandering their competence or their integrity.

"Several paradigms have succeeded each other and each would say of previous (or if knowing them of succeeding) ones that it was wrong, because of a systematic blind spot" Nope. That's just what science deniers says like flat Earthers. You really should stop doing that because you act just like a flat Earther. Christian geologists were heavily motivated to find evidence of a young Earth and a global flood. They followed the data and realized they were wrong. That's why the honest ones adjusted their faith to accomodate the evidence. They knew God wouldn't want them to lie about the universe.

"You are very arbitrarily singling out the paradigm that right now happens to have favour" Nope. I'm accepting the evidence from millions of people over several hundreds of years. You are making excuses to arrogant dismiss all that work and claim YOU know better. You're slandering scientists and theists at the same time.

"Now, that's extremely unchristian" Accepting the evidence of nature isn't unchristian. If it was, you would stick to Earth being flat, under a dome, and the center of our system.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Bible does make references to Earth being flat and people have written books about the supporting scripture."

Name one. Apart from four corners, which is already answered.

"Living under a dome was discovered to be non literal once reality confirmed we didn't live under a dome."

The word "firmament" in Latin, English, French, as well as "stereoma" in Greek, and "raqia" in Hebrew doesn't mean dome. It implies some type of solidity, not necessarily a solid in the physical sense.

"Why not the dome?"

But I do stick to the firmament! It's part of my argument for Geocentrism.

"Same goes for flat Earth or geocentrism."

Flat Earth is not in the Bible. Geocentrism is not disproven (except to atheists).

"Snakes cannot physically talk,"

I don't know exactly what Satan did to make speech like sound come out of a serpent mouth, I do know very well that snakes ordinarily have no means of producing that.

"No evidence supports a global flood,"

You are not interacting with the evidence I give.

"The various ideas on the flood also defy physics which would vaporize the planet."

Hearsay from Soroka and Nelson, that latter better known as AronRa.

"Plate tectonics is very well understood"

Except, you are projecting it backwards, so am I, but I use records to do so.

"because you refuse to admit you are wrong about your personal interpretation of scripture."

That, Sir, is Marxist psychiatry. Like what Khrushchev did.

"that is completely out of touch with reality"

Like, if I thought I were the Emperor or that my daughter was making me Emperor of a non-extant country.

"That seems to align with what I'm saying"

Only to your Marxist prejudice.

"No, that's nothing like what I'm saying."

Except that definition applies to Khrushchev and to Swedish Social Democrats. And they have abused psychiatry against those who think history is governed by God.

"If you're a Christian stop pretending you are a victim when you exist in one of the largest religions on the planet and dominate certain powerful nations."

I'm not dominating them. I'm not in a nation where I'm protected against victimisation by people of your resentful bent.

"We're talking millions of scientists over hundreds of years all getting it wrong."

Science is not the nec plus ultra of rational confidence. Scientists have had paradigms that are recognised as wrong (sometimes wrongly so, as with Geocentrism or Special Creation) by modern scientists. Therefore they can still have that. For more than a thousand years, medical science believed the pulse was air pumping through the body. Harvey, I think, discovered otherwise. And, unlike Heliocentrism, that's a real discovery. Unlike Heliocentrism, it can be tested clinically.

"Face the fact that by refusing to accept evidence from science like the age of the planet, evolution, and NO global flood, you are going AGAINST the vast majority of fellow Christians."

Of contemporary "fellow Christians," many of whom show other signs of apostasy, like denying an individual Adam, like denying original sin, like denying homosexual acts are gravely sinful, like allowing abortion.

"YOU made that choice."

You sound as if it made me a legitimate target. Like, a certain man was kicked to death by some antifa, and some other antifa spread things like "silent minute, no way, good riddance" .... no, it does not make me a legitimate target. But being a target, even if not legitimately, is a victimisation.

"All of them get it wrong."

You forget very conveniently how this modern few centuries has a backdrop of an even longer paradigm. In each issue, I side with two millennia against last 300 years, when opposed. You are just as much implying all of them got it wrong. Riccioli was a very famed astronomer, and he was a Geocentric, you say he got it wrong, and thousands of others. By the way, I don't think astronomers and biologists / palaeontologists count millions. For astronomers, this is what I get:

As of 1 August 2019, the IAU has a total of 13,701 individual members, who are professional astronomers from 102 countries worldwide; 81.7% of individual members are male, while 18.3% are female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Astronomical_Union

"I'm accepting the evidence from millions of people over several hundreds of years."

You are exaggerating their numbers. But also ... dismissing that from even longer periods of scientific study. That's arbitrary.

"Christian geologists were heavily motivated to find evidence of a young Earth and a global flood. They followed the data and realized they were wrong."

False history.

First, Lyell was already an apostate, not a Christian. Second, they didn't just follow the data. They were misled about the scope of the Flood by a mistake on the logistics of the Ark. Their mistake about logistics involve Species Fixism, a very exaggerated form of Special Creation. There are 5 genera and 17 species of hedgehog. There weren't 17 couples of hedgehogs on the Ark, just one. The 5 genera and 17 species diversified after the Flood. But this was not realised in the 19th C, therefore they argued for a local Flood, which is nautically and hydrologically impossible. And when they realised that, they gave up the Flood altogether.

"They knew God wouldn't want them to lie about the universe."

So do I. They were not mistaken about that, but about how it applies. They are too busy squeezing the raw data of evidence into their personal, though collective, interpretation of them, they throw out the evidence of the Bible (by saying "not to be taken literally") and of the actual data contradicting their views (but few of them engage sufficiently in the debate to actually come across these).

"You are making excuses to arrogant dismiss all that work and claim YOU know better."

First of all, I believe God knows better. Second, I've seen YEC experts arguing in ways that to me argue them knowing better too. I am just part of that game. Arrogance or humility are totally beside the point when weighing evidence.

"You're slandering scientists and theists at the same time."

Yadda, yadda, get off my back! Scientists aren't God, and most Theists don't have orthodox Catholic Christianity.

"If it was, you would stick to Earth being flat, under a dome, and the center of our system."

None of these are in the Bible. I certainly stick to the Earth being the centre of the visible UNIVERSE. No one ever said Earth was "centre of the Solar system" that doesn't work a single day. Because stars turn around us just a little faster than the Sun does.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "Science, properly speaking, doesn't include historical science" I didn't say historical science. I said science and human history. If you can't stick to the words I use don't bother pretending you're an honest person. History frequently incorporates hard sciences, such as carbon-14 dating, genetics, and forensic anthropology, to verify timelines and human remains. The only people who have issues with the evidence from human history are typically the ones who arrogantly assume their faith requires them to reject it.

"Human history is known from record" Oh my gosh no. Then Gilgamesh would be a demi-god and Troy wouldn't be just a city.

"to which the Bible at least purports to belong in a majority of its chapters, and not from science" The Bible has some stories from current events when it was written, but it obviously has many myths that were NOT records. This should be obvious given maybe 3,000 years pass before someone finally decided to write this stuff down? And it's how many books written by how many people over how long? That's a terrible source for human history.

Meanwhile you have things like Sumer, Gobekli Tepe, and the Clovis culture that obviously exist but do NOT align with most of the myths that most YEC consider to be literal truths. So what do most YEC do? They reject evidence from reality that doesn't fit the conclusion the assumed from mythology. Again, back to the dictionary:

Delusional is an adjective describing a state of believing or holding firmly to false, fixed ideas that are completely unsupported by objective facts or reality. It often involves a profound inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined, and these beliefs remain unshakeable even when the person is confronted with contradictory proof

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I didn't say historical science. I said science and human history."

By science, you certainly didn't mean electromagnetism or human anatomy. You meant, in this context, historical sciences.

"History frequently incorporates hard sciences,"

You mean, historians use applications of hard sciences. Like judges do. Judges are sometimes mistaken, and so are historians sometimes.

"such as carbon-14 dating,"

A Uniformitarian and I agree that sth carbon dated to 22 000 BP back in 2725 / 2738 BC had between 11 and 14 pmC. He would say, that's because the object, having lived in an atmosphere of c. 100 pmC, had been subject to radioactive decay for c. 17 000 years. I would say, those are extra years, the object was recent, and lived in an atmosphere where the carbon 14 level was rapidly rising in 13 years from 11 pmC sth to 14 pmC sth. And no, don't come with your "deep fried earth" comment again, I have already faced that one in 2015, and my carbon 14 tables are quantifications of a sufficiently slow rise of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Looking up in my tables, this was 20.86 times as fast a production of carbon 14 as now. By the way, 11.069 pmC rose to 14.329 pmC.

"genetics,"

Feel free to make a genetic case against YEC, if you want. If Neanderthals and Denisovans and Erecti soloenses were all pre-Flood races, which my carbon tables make feasible for the carbon dated parts and some (like Tautavel man) buried under lava make necessary, because the Flood was the eruption richest period in Earth, the current portion of Neanderthal, Denisovan and other DNA in some modern populations is perfectly explicable.

"and forensic anthropology,"

Again, feel free to make a case. But that one has already failed as to the vocal tract of Neanderthals.

"The only people who have issues with the evidence from human history"

You mean evidence from historical sciences.

"Then Gilgamesh would be a demi-god and Troy wouldn't be just a city."

Believing record for the historical part doesn't mean one needs to accept the metaphysical part. I think it's highly probable Gilgamesh was Nimrod and therefore something not unlike the Nephelim. Retrospectively interpreted as a demigod.

Your point about Troy is unclear.

"but it obviously has many myths that were NOT records."

Why "obviously"? Given the generation lengths, the transmission of an oral record from Adam to Abraham or perhaps even to Moses would have been pretty much as slick as the transmission from the War of Troy to the oral composition of the Iliad or that composition to its putting down on papyrus on the orders of Peisistratus' sons.

"And it's how many books written by how many people over how long?"

The oldest books are Job and the Five Books of Moses. Job arguably transmitted from event to Moses, pretty much like Joseph's history was. Genesis incorporates oral traditions or smaller writings from chapter 12 on plus oral traditions written down by Abraham.

"Meanwhile you have things like Sumer, Gobekli Tepe, and the Clovis culture that obviously exist"

I agree they exist.

"but do NOT align with most of the myths that most YEC consider to be literal truths."

I hold they very much do align with early chapters of Genesis.

"They reject evidence from reality that doesn't fit the conclusion the assumed from mythology."

I'm not rejecting that evidence. I'm rejecting your interpretation of it. But you spoke of others as well. In the plural. Here is Michael Oard on Clovis and some more:

For creationists, these reports of ‘Early Paleolithic tools’ raise questions that need further research. If the ‘tools’ are genuine human artefacts, it means that one group of people with the crudest stone tools imaginable made the long journey during the Ice Age at the same time as the sophisticated Clovis people. Alternatively, it could also mean that the same people used both very crude and sophisticated tools.

For reference, we both place the Ice Age after the Flood, but he places it after Babel, I before Babel.

Here are Lita Sanders, née Cosner and Robert Carter on Göbekli Tepe:

Another piece of evidence that we uncovered—the once-fertile plain to the south of Göbekli Tepe is the site of the biblical Haran, a mere 25 miles away. This is where Abraham lived for several years during his family’s migration from Ur of the Chaldeans to the land of Canaan. It is where Terah settled and died, and from whence Isaac and Jacob both obtained their wives. It is uncertain what the association between these two places might be, but there’s a lot of tantalizing circumstantial evidence that they are somehow connected. The people of Haran should have known of the existence of Göbekli Tepe at the very least, assuming the biblical history is true. Whatever the outcome, we are confident that the evidence will be able to be interpreted in line with biblical assumptions.

For reference, I hold GT is Nimrod's Babel.

As to Sumer, what exactly is the problem supposed to be, and against what book? Here is a short notice on Sumer in CMI again:

[Plimpton 322] is thought to be a powerful, exact ratio-based trigonometric table. The tablet, discovered in the early 1900s at Larsa, an ancient Sumerian city, is thought to be around 3,700 years old. A fresh study looking at its text now claims that P322 supersedes the Greek astronomer Hipparchus’ ‘table of chords’ (120 BC, over 1500 years later) as the world’s oldest trigonometric table.

Three pieces of evidence that you very arbitrarily claim contradicts our paradigm, without ever bothering to check if we can digest it.

"Delusional is an adjective describing a state of believing or holding firmly to false, fixed ideas that are completely unsupported by objective facts or reality."

Look. You seem to have some very fixed and false ideas about YEC's and about me. I'd say that as to the other people, that can very well count as prejudice. If however you have been observing me, that could be, about me, a delusion.

"It often involves a profound inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined,"

Like how you imagine how YEC deal with supposedly "contradictory" evidence? Like you imagine the "millions" of scientists? Like you imagine each of them coming independently to the same conclusion rather than sharing a paradigm? Like you imagine their expertise standing on its own and anything before them unworthy of the name of science? You seem profoundly unable to distinguish between that and what's real, and dead set on ignoring input from the real world on these issues.

"and these beliefs remain unshakeable even when the person is confronted with contradictory proof"

Like I've confronted people at Nanterre with contradictory proof against their prejudice that the carbon 14 rise I'm supposing would not have fried earth? And some are still pretending I'm the delusional?

sample B

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl All the evidence of human history is a problem for YEC, not just the Paleolithic. Strange how you mentioned lava during the flood as the physics required to adjust the plates would have vaporized the entire planet several times over. But this obviously ignores the evidence that there wasn't a global flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Thank you, I skip this one, you want to destroy the discussion of specifics to your over general heckling of my position.

Get off my back!

sample C

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl "I said 22 000 BP is roughly 20 000 BC. Just 50 years off" No, it isn't, and you didn't say that at all. You said:

22 000 BP = c. 20 000 BC = between:

You're using the equal sign which normally means equal to. You do have "c." but who knows what that means. Maybe "circa"?* But then why confuse it with equal? Then you have equal again followed by "between:" which also makes no sense.

"Present is uniformly 1950 in this context" BP is used to indicated 1950. That's the standard in science. You have 22,000 BP which converted to BC would be 22,000 - 1950 + 1 = 20,051 BC. But that doesn't explain the equal sign or the use of "between:"** to transition to the next set of numbers.

"pmC is the level of carbon 14 back then and accounts for the extra years" Level of carbon in what? The remaining pMC for an event 20,000 years in the past? The the atmospheric radiocarbon level back in 22,000 BP? ***

"11.069 pmC "means" 18200 years old (when it was recent) and 14.329 pmC "means" 16050 old (when it was recent)" When what was? You're not saying anything about these measurements or how they are related. In fact the transition doesn't make any sense either when you go from:

22 000 BP = c. 20 000 BC = between:
to
2738 BC

"If you add c. 17 000 years to c. 3000 BC, you get 20 000 BC or 22 000 BP" Why are you adding 17,000 years to anything? Why did you pick 3000 BC to add years to? What are the carbon measurements supposed to be and signify? But again, none of this matches what you wrote:

*2738 BC

11.069 pmC, dated as 20,933 BC*

You just jump to 2738 BC. Why? What's the point? Then you jump to a pmC measurement.° Of what? Why? A measurement of 11.069 pMC (seems like it should be pMC not pmC) corresponds to an atmospheric radiocarbon age of roughly 17,700 years BP (specifically around 17,730 years BP). Then to make it more confusing you just blurt out more random data:

*2725 BC
14.329 pmC, dated as 18,786 BC*

Why did you jump to 2725 BC? What is the 14.329 pMC supposed to read? A radiocarbon level of 14.329 pMC corresponds to the late 18th century (approximately 1780 AD), but for some reason you mention 18,786 BC. Why?

None of this makes any sense.

* footnote

In fact, when I combine = and c. it's because I don't know how to get an approximately equal to sign, and I can't be bothered to copy one each time.

** footnote

between (following two lines, showing a BC 21 000 rather than 20 000) and (another two lines, showing a BC 19 000 rather than 20 000).

This is extremely typical of his heckling.

*** footnote

I must have said already a thousand times, the pmC is the atmospheric level back when the sample is from, which low atmospheric level is the reason for the huge amount of extra years.

° footnote

No, the pmC is NOT a measurement. It's my reconstruction of the original level, just as the uniformitarian has a reconstruction that's so standard it needs no stating: 100 pmC.

I definitely couldn't stand the physical presence of the interruptions of the deliberately obtuse heckler.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "A radiocarbon level of 14.329 pMC corresponds to the late 18th century (approximately 1780 AD),"

No. 1780 AD is 240 years ago. In 240 years, 0.5^(240/5730) = 0.971385046800454

So, if it had always been 100 pmC lately, that would be a radiocarbon level of 97.138 pmC.*

Thanks for showing your complete ignorance of the subject.

* footnote

Consulting fig. 2A in High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC, I note that in raw carbon dates 1950 is "200 + BP" and 1750 is like 160 BP, so younger. The calibrations for these recent dates can be made from objects of historically identified origin, further back it will depend on tree rings. At some point before 1179 BC, I abandon tree rings for literary sources, mostly the Bible, the "reaching 100 pmC" event, however being for historic and archaeologic fall of Troy coinciding that year.

This is not the first time.