It seems some people who read Assorted retorts blog and its precursors on the MSN Group Antimodernism think either I hallucinated the opponents (no, they are real users either of forums like yahoo boards and netscape boards or of youtube, and now I am most often on youtube, I try to link to the users I dialogue with to document that) or made them up as strawmen so my arguments could shine brighter.
That is simply not so. One part of why the dialogues from the earlier boards do not seem real is that I cut up answer after answer into its aspect and then put the strands after each other instead of beside each other. This does less justice to the spontaneous repartees, where one opponent might enumerate three reasons together against my position, and on the blog they show up only one by one, separated by series of answers.
On youtube the situation is the opposite. I have when answering, and sometimes my opponents too have when answering, a need to write two answers, either one answering the other or both answering the one one is dialoguing with, so that a lengthy answer can show up in full. When I do so, on the blog I put the two or three or sometimes more 500-sign limited answers into one answer without showing the borders between them.
But there is another thing. A man can look really stupid if you answer him and a bit later he repeats the mistake you just answered. However, in real time of the debate, there might have been, say, three weeks between, say, gregrutz taking up first supposed flat earth cosmology of Bible and then geocentric one and my answering first with flat earth not being in the verses he thinks and then that I believe geocentrism one time (three weeks ago) and doing so the next time (last 22 hours). He has had time to either forget my reply or loose it so he has to repeat the point in order to make another one on top of it today. So, when you read it five minutes after another, he seems more stupid than he really is.
This should eliminate any doubt as to whether these dialogues have really been taking place over the internet. They have. With real people on both ends, and no extraterrestrials in sight so far.
As for the positions in my answers, they are my real ones. I am not sure if it is very common to be able consistently to fake such a thing, I think not, and in case it were, I think I would not enjoy it, as I feel awkward about lying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Venceslas and
Vigil of St Michael
28-IX-2013
Appendix:
First time:
- gregrutz
- The men who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat.
Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2 Dimensional. FLAT. - Hans-Georg Lundahl (continued below)
- You can also draw a circle on a globe. Geographers draw lots of them on the globe representing the earth.
Polar circles (N & S), Equator and all their Parallels.
Paris, Greenwich, and all other Meridians.
All of these are circles and on a globe. ... - gregrutz
- ''You can also draw a circle on a globe'' So what?
''He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth''
Everyone back then thought the earth was flat including the men who wrote the bible.
When you see a globe from across the room, does it look like a sphere or a circle? ID-iot. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It looks like a sphere with lots of circles on it.
The Hebrew word seems to be translatable as globe too.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: *he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Douay Rheims version).
Different languages have different frontiers between word meanings. Hebrew has a word meaning both circle and globe. In English I suppose it would be "the round".
And:
- gregrutz
- You, like all creatards, give a model that you made up to support your bible stories. You rambeled on and showed no evidence.
Sorry that scientists keep discovering things that prove the bible wrong.
Astronomy proves the bible is wrong.
Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yes, I believe the Earth is still in the middle of the universe and is never moved.
My whole point is I give a model showing how modern astronomy could very well be wrong. My point is astronomy has NEITHER proven heliocentrism NOR distant starlight problem for a young universe.
Second time:
- gregrutz
- Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it is wrong.
Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2 Dimensional. FLAT. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The word can also be translated globe. NON-FLAT.
I think it was you who brought this up some weeks ago, have you already forgotten my refutation?
And:
- gregrutz (third answer to "real reasoning")
- When did bible packers start using logic? LOL
Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place". - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If you recall a few weeks ago, I answered this is not wrong.
In case of flat earth it is wrong, but not attested by the Bible.
In case of stable earth and sun moving around it daily, it is attested by the Bible (most clearly in Joshua), but not proven wrong so far.
We went through that three weeks ago, why should I have changed my mind on either since then?
Posted on
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
... on Chromosome Numbers Problem for Evolutionism, and on Solving Distant Starlight Problem for Creationism by Geocentrism
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-chromosome-numbers-problem-for.html
Meaning, obviously, our debate has taken more than the five or ten or fifteen minutes it takes to read it./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment