A Dialogue Not Quite on Topic of Video (But Theodicy in Both)

Here is a video with atheistic apologetics:

Christianity's Biggest Problem
8th March 2021 | CosmicSkeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KDnnp0sDkI

Here is a dialogue, starting with my on topic answer, but gliding away from it:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Answered as to Autumn Lauber's hamster's cancer.

It got cancer:
* because Adam sinned
* so Autumn Lauber and her viewers could see there is a problem with sin, it's not hunky dory ... they are the innocent collateral victims most people won't rationalise away, unlike for instance civilians when militaries bomb other things than troops and weapons and a bit more like those. They are the innocent collateral victims that make us see sin hurts.

How many suffer is not relevant for the suffering as such.

It may in many cases be relevant for the guilt of the one inflicting it, but it's not relevant for what the suffering is.

You gave a one sided view of animals' lives, and most of their days are fairly happy, and they do not when seeing predators think "yesterday too, not again!" as we would.

chris sonofpear1

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born - and not knowing the wider stakes? Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world? I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was. And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven. Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan, and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile... Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chris sonofpear1 I'll try to enumerate all.

1a ) Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born ...

Because he was the first man. Mankind, unlike angels, are social beings beginning with one family beginning with one man, and his choices count.

1b) - and not knowing the wider stakes?

He did, since God had told him they would die same day as eating of the forbidden tree (same 1000 years, not same 24 hours, or they began to die that same not 24 hours but even same hour).

2) Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world?

Because he was the first man, see 1a above.

3) I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was.

He knew Who God was Whom he was disobeying and God would have given a sufficient indication of what death was for His warning not to be incomprehensible.

4) And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven.

Yes, but as man, not angels, were meant to rule the earthly creation, that would have had no impact on any animal, had Adam not sinned.

5) Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan,

Adam was a man, beginning to learn things from God. Satan was an angel, having learnt lots and lots and lots in one single instant - one reason why his sin was unforgiveable, unlike Adam's.

6) and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile...

Because the powers were part of his nature. Also, God doesn't allow him to use all of them, by far.

7) Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?

If you take medieval adequately, I'd say yes, except in times of pogrom like excitements. There was a flourishing community of Marranos, then they got targetted by pogroms by people calling "fake conversion" and then the Inquisition started to protect bona fide Marranos from lynch mobs. Two people of the Turrecremata/Torquemada family, uncle and nephew, got involved, since they were Marranos. Uncle Turrecremata stopped a pogrom. Torquemada started the Inquisition I named since the expulsion of Jews made suspicions of fake conversions even more burning than ever before.

chris sonofpear1

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And does Jesus' choices, count, too? And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation, and his pissing off to a cloud after not even spending one YEAR as 'King' of anything? And with no idea of good, or evil, how is obedience conceived or framed as? And with no idea of death, how is a death a deterrent, to Eve or Adam.

And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature, and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth. And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet. Why not give them their own?

And just worshipping another God is often deemed unforgivable, by many, or detestable - whereas taking no responsibility for competing with other versions of Yourself as a God, and abandoning the Jewish people, and others, is just peachy, I guess.

And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use. Specifics - not inferred from the Book. Posing as a being of light on a whole species CRIPPLED form before birth is pretty serious enough. What does 'spiritual death' mean, again? Dead to which, or how many spirits. Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?

Don't forget the Principalities too, angels, or spirits, that some might interpret, from the older testament, that Jehovah had rivalries with, yet steered or influenced whole nations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chris sonofpear1 "And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation"

He very much did chose the Catholic Church. He founded it on 12 disciples and first of them Simon Peter.

@chris sonofpear1 "Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?"

Obviously, yes.

@chris sonofpear1 "abandoning the Jewish people,"

There are Jewish, Samarian and Galilaean Catholics called Palestinians

@chris sonofpear1 "And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature,"

Meaning, obviously, once they have chosen, they have no chance to repent.

"and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth."

Neither have we.

"And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet."

Globe. Earth is not a planet.

A man also exercises free will while active, which is when alive, before his test is ended.

Angels also do so after their test ended, and that means, we don't just have Satan against us, but also St. Michael for us.

"And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use."

Demons are poltergeists on occasion, and when Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes just prayed 3 Hail Mary's, the poltergeist had to leave before the ordained exorcist arrived (on two separate occasions).

"Specifics - not inferred from the Book."

Why not inferred from the Book? Do you have reasons to doubt what happened in the life of Job, when Satan had to ask for permission before each test and had to leave when God stopped his harrassment after 40 years?

Principalities were given nations as guardian angels. Unfallen ones.

There are also fallen ones, but "principalities" doesn't per se mean that just bec. St. Paul once uses the word referring to those.

Answering Cosmic Sceptic on Bible Accuracy

Video commented on

Is The Bible 100% Accurate? This Pastor Thinks So
CosmicSkeptic | 14.VIII.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmhesMOb2IY

I

0:50 You have a problem, you take the billions of years as literal truth.

I'm not sure on whether one could use it as symbolic truth, but it definitely qualifies as literal untruth.

II

1:01 "As we know, the Sun was created before the Earth"

Know from where? Your favourite Pagan origins myth doesn't have "created."

III

1:14 "above which is a vast ocean"

Sorry, but you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Guess what two molecules are the most frequent ones in interplanetary space in the "solar system" and in interstellar space?

H₂ and H₂O. Both of them would qualify as water in Biblical terms (there was no specific term for hydrogen, and hydrogen gas is "instant water" - just add oxygen and a spark and you get water). And that far up would fairly and squarely qualify as in the upper part of the firmament (I am no expert in Hebrew, but I wonder if there is no adverbial phrase translated "above" which can also mean "in the upper part of").

IV

1:31 To be a light source a thing can either "emit" or "reflect" light on your distinction.

1:38 First of all, we do not know stars are the same as the sun.

Second, what you mean by stars is only one of the meanings of star in older literature, so you have to deal with planets as well, and sun and moon traditionally count as planets (they make circuits around the zodiac).

Since stars are both types of celestial body, fix star and planet, the Bible is not actually coordinating them with either sun or moon.

V

4:21 Have you heard of adoption?

Matthew and Luke give physical and adoptive fathers of Joseph.

VI

5:34 Contradictions involving Genesis 1 or 2:

A
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Solution: Light of first three days was independent of sun, so was separation of night and day.

B
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Solution: Trees in general were definitely created before man, but either Genesis 2:4-9 speeks of the specific trees in Eden as created after Adam or part of the past tenses are really past perfect.

C
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Solution: See B.

D
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Solution: See B.

E
GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, yet--
GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

Solution: Interpretation of Genesis 2:15-17 is wrong interpretation, man was meant to have knowledge of good and evil from conversing with God.

F
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Solution: Matter of dissolution, they were created same day (same time) but also not same hour (sometime later).

[I probably meant resolution, right, photographers?]

G
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

Solution: After man's disobedience, reproduction, of itself very good, has an evil side in man, transmitting Adam's sin to descendants.

H
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)

Solution: God was pleased with His creation before the fall of Adam, and Genesis 6 tells of a pre-Flood world in which disobedient man had basically made the world a kind of Mordor.

I
GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

Solution: Genesis 2:4 was written by Moses. For the rest, there are at least two solutions.

i) 4:26 implies Elohim or other words used before the Flood are valid names as well as Adonai. So does Genesis 12:8 and 26:25. So does 22:14-16 and if so Moriah is in fact a translation from an earlier name, by Moses.

ij) OR : Exodus 6 implies Abraham, Isaac and Jacod did not know the name Adonai by direct revelation. They could have known it by philosophical inference or by tradition. Also, it nowhere says God had not previously revealed the name to Adam and Eve or to Seth's son Enosh.

K
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

Solution: King David in Psalm 89:4 and St Peter in II Peter 3:8 say:

For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,

But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And 930 years after one's creation is within 1000 years of eating the forbidden fruit.

L
GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Solution: Again, the interpretation of Genesis 2:15-17 is a wrong interpretation. However, the interpretation of Hebrews 5:13-14 is nearly correct.

After Adam's disobedience, we no longer live alongside God's perpetual sensed presence, most of us, and therefore (and also for validating the presence as divine for those who sense it) we need to painstakingly build up a discernment of good and evil. However, the immature are not totally unable to do so, and Hebrews 5 doesn't say they are, it says they are unskilful, that is do so with a degree of clumsiness.

Do you want more?

VII

6:34 Somewhat mis-citing Romans 10:17.

"hearing of the word of God" he said, but actually:

Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

Since Christ is in fact God, this is a quibble, in a sense, but ... there is a point to it.

"word of God" would refer to all God revealed, specifically the Bible
"word of Christ" would refer to the logia of Christ

And perhaps especially to one related to "hearing". In fact there is one.

Luke 10:16 Christ tells a specified clergy of disciples: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

There is another word about Faith from hearing just a few verses earlier, which confirms this:

Verses 11 to 15 in Romans 10:

For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

VIII

6:59 Breaking the circle, "inspiration" of certain Scriptures was both OT times and NT times guaranteed by an Institution one could call "the Church" - first the Jewish Church from Aaron to Kaiaphas, then the Catholic Church from Simon Kephas on to this day and to Doomsday.

This double institution (the Jewish Church belonging to Catholic Church and not to Jewish synagogue despite its claims to continue it) has for each of the canonised books (73 of them) gathered sufficient evidence that it's written by a man speaking for God.

If you believe in science, you should be familiar with a continuous institution spanning several generations gathering evidence.

IX

7:20 "on a flat earth which is only a few thousand years old, despite the fact we have trees that are older than that"

• Flat Earth? Not in the Bible.
• A few thousand years old? 7200 years.
• Trees older than that? No. In fact the oldest living trees (or recently dead ones, which is when you can count its tree rings to determine its age) are not even in contradiction with LXX based dates for the Flood as c. 3000 BC or 5000 years ago.

X

7:33 Yes, I'm looking it up.

III Kings 7:23 here:

He made also a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round all about; the height of it was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about.

Solution for pi not being three, which we agree it isn't : diameter is taken brim to brim of a wider circle, circumference is taken at a less wide circle under the brim.

If you read on to verse 26 it says:

And the laver was a handbreadth thick: and the brim thereof was like the brim of a cup, or the leaf of a crisped lily: it contained two thousand bates.

A handbreadth would be about the difference in width of the two concentric circles.

Remember that the difference in width is like a difference in radius, not diameter.

Now what is 30 cubits divided by pi?

9.5492965855137201461330258023509 cubits.

10 - 9.5492965855137201461330258023509
= 0.45070341448627985386697419764914 cubits - this is the difference between diameters.

So this divided by two is:

0.22535170724313992693348709882457 cubits.

Now, a handbreadth is 0.1666667 cubits, a bit less, but one can suppose either another version of the measures than the modern ones, or some curving out near the top.

7:53 A circular object will often not involve just one circle, but two concentric ones. Or more concentric ones.

Your error of interpretation lies in treating the diameter and the circumference as being from the same circle.

XI

8:44 "but trust me"

Continues "I was there all these billions of years, because I'm God almighty"?

Or continues "I was there all these billions of years, because I'm a spaceman, and I only appear one day each thousand years, living one day of my life, so I could record in my last ten years of existence 3 652 425 Earth years of evolution, that's right, I saw both Lucy and the first Neanderthals and every stage between"?

Or ... wait, I can actually allow you to speak for yourself:

"there's a lot of people on the planet who can"

No, I don't need to take their statements on faith, by taking your trust in them as not misplaced on faith in you.

XII

8:59 A fossil in the wrong place would usually lead to redefining the place.

Pre-Flood Ammonites and pre-Flood Biarmosuchians are not found fossils of [in the same place] because Biarmosuchians live on land and Ammonites in the sea.

Hence Grand Canyon was sea up to Flood and Perm district (or the parts where Biarmosuchians were found and so named) and Karoo were land up to Flood.

Perm is in Russia and Karoo in South Africa, not far from Bloemfontein and Lesotho, by the way.

This means, diverse faunal biotopes have left diverse remains on diverse parts of the earth. And no, you do not dig in Karoo to find Grand Canyon type fauna below the Biarmosuchians.

Trust me, I checked on the internet where scientists were actually finding the fossils.

And no, it was not on Creationist sites, but on wikipedia and other resources where any bias would be evolutionist.

On the other hand, finding an alternative explanation is not exactly disproving evolution.

So ... chromosome numbers in mammals. A mammal cannot survive tetraploid conception. In man there are some ways to get aborted spontaneously before birth, and trisomy 1 trisomy 3 and tetraploidy are three of these ways. One tetraploid boychild did survive a few months, but was born very sickly and died accordingly. Hope he got baptised first.

This poses a problem for any placental mammal having a chromosome number higher than the supposed first placental mammal they all are supposed to develop from.

I said "a fossil in the wrong place would usually lead to redefining the place," but actually it would even more often lead to redefining the range of a certain fossil as index fossil. Find a Sauropod in late Cretaceous and Sauropods no longer belong to the Jurassic only, etc.

9:05 "then you would revolutionise biology and change the world"

Sounds as if Harriet Beecher Stowe personally, with no help from Lincoln or general Ulysses Grant or anything abolished slavery ... not how things happen.

I mentioned Adam sinned, right?

XIII

10:01 Yes, Kangaroos did travel from Middle East to Australia.

Perhaps Mungo man brought them on a ship (and Mungo man is carbon dated to c. 20 000 BP, the 40 000 BP date is in fact another method, and 20 000 BP is exactly how I think carbon dates would look for within the post-Flood life span of Noah, somewhere in the middle between year of Flood and 350 years after Flood, which is when Noah died.

Good carbon dates for the extremes of this period are:

• extinction of Neanderthals for Flood
• Younger Dryas or beginning of Göbekli Tepe (Babel) for after Noah died.

Or, during the ice age (which did happen in the period) kangaroos got over a Sahul Sunda bridge.

10:10 "massive sea" was not so massive in the post-Flood ice age, Sahul Sunda again, and no traces between, well there were very few to begin with and so, either the Ark couple came all the way to Australia or their small ones did, and one couple is not likely to leave a trace as for instance a huge population would.

XIV

10:30 "misogyny"

As a rabid feminist would define it, right?

"homophobia, fascism"

As if these were wrong?

"scientific inaccuracy"

Which you haven't shown.

XV

10:46 The Islamic Ummah is not the equivalent of either Jewish Church in OT times or Christian Roman Catholic Church since then.

It is not in continuity with either, and it did not witness actual miracles.

(One can quibble on whether it ever, when very small, claimed to have witnessed Mohammed splitting the moon, but this miracle was nothing like a condition for its existence - unlike Exodus through Red Sea for Jewish Church, unlike Risen Christ for Catholic Church).

Other thing : Quran makes claims contradicting Moses and Gospels, but at same time also claims (contrary to classic Sunni explanations) Jews and Christians have (not just had earlier, but still have) presumably unadulterated Tawrat and Injil - it therefore very massively contradicts itself.

XVI

11:35 You could say that one about some slaves living in Sudan or Mauretania and about the Quran.

The law of Moses on this one was given a few years in advance of Israelites getting slaves who, when free, had been sacrificing children to Baal and similar things.

The law of Christ, based on a fairly human practise of Jews under OT, involves sth about Epistle to Ephesians. Check out what it has to say about master and slave relations (and don't forget to take modern employers into the equation, some may be worse than Christian slave owners of 1st C AD).

11:47 "stoning of homosexuals"

Forgetting two things:

• stoning was a capital punishment in a legal framework when Jewish Church was the state religion of a free or near free Israelite state community, and NT books don't seem as if Christianity favoured reclaiming independence against Romans by lynchmob stonings;
• homosexuality was not the issue, sodomy was.
  
  A homosexual like Josh Weed would not have been stoned.

XVII

12:20 "please don't spread"

Is it a polite request, or is it a harassment against the liberty of expression?

XVIII

13:13 You forget we have, historically, a scientific and research culture at all, because of belief in the Bible.

Mathematic slant to natural sciences (way more than in Aristotle) - where does it come from?

It comes from the second half of this Bible verse, adressing God:

"Yea and without these, they might have been slain with one blast, persecuted by their own deeds, and scattered by the breath of thy power: but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight."
[Wisdom 11:21]
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=25&ch=11&l=21#x

Also, no one ever claimed that "all the answers are in the Bible".

• 1) The Bible doesn't tell what diet I am on (somewhat rich in sugar, due to some people believing me an alcoholic and trying to informally "medicate" me with a substance of known antabus effect, I presume, plus how much I got used to it and how much sugar is indispensible with coffee after too little sleep)
• 2) The Bible doesn't tell us the actual name of Antichrist, just the gematric number value of the name
• 3) The Bible doesn't tell us when Christ will return, just a few circumstances (like before Catholic Church ends, before Antichrist dies and so on, and after Enoch and Elijah will have made a very spectacular appearance in Jerusalem, see Apocalypse 11 - though the names aren't mentioned, the Church interprets the two as being these).

XIX

Just in case you prefer seeing all comments together in sequence, here is the link to that blog post:

[link here:]
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/04/answering-cosmic-sceptic-on-bible.html

As the comments stand separately, each point can be debated by comments under my comments, if anyone wants debate.

... when Cosmic Sceptic Tried to Debunk Ham

This one is rambling, it is also in response to a rambling video. I therefore number the diverse points, which may sometimes be very diverse. Here goes.

Reading Ken Ham's Ridiculous Tweets
CosmicSkeptic | Ajoutée le / added 8 oct. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P4oTr9uJVA

I 1:30

"Yours [your morals] are based on"

Let's enumerate and respond.

"absolute truths"

Yes, fortunately.

"in an ancient book"

You prefer them only coming in a recent one, and all our ancestors missing out on the absolute truths of morality?

"written by people who didn't know the Earth orbits the Sun."

Because it does?

And because, if it does, not knowing that makes you disqualified to talk about morality?

I mean, I can hear parents say "don't beat your sister, if she were bigger you would not like her beating you", but somehow they are not saying "don't beat your sister, the Earth orbits the Sun". Or are they, in the meantime?

II

And even if Ken Ham likes secularism lite, your promotion of secularism tout court reminds me of some secularists in history.

Cicero. Julius Caesar. Augustus. Tiberius. Claudius ... can I hear someone say Nero?

Constantine and Theodosius between them ended secularism, because it had failed to promote the peace promised between diversities of belief.

New secularists: Attila the Hun. Theoderic the Great. Partly Visigoths in Spain, not persecuting Catholics for heresy, but for breach against secularism.

Even newer ones: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler ... Atatürk who was so very kind to the Greeks, wans't he?

A little earlier, in France, a series like Jules Ferry with Émile Combes, leading up to Clémenceau - all three of them inspiring Hitler, also a secularist.

A little further west again, Azaña and further west than that, Calles. Check out why Catholics rose against Calles and failed and got slaughtered (Cristeros) and why they rose against Azaña and succeeded (Franco).

And yes, North of Calles you get people who promote a kind of secularism at American Revolution, but some decades later Albert Pike is so fine with making Ku Klux Klan defend it against the Catholic threat.

Sounds like, secularism is not an excellent way of promoting peace between religions. It has failed so often.

III 2:40

If Christianity were erased, it would prove Christianity wrong.

Matthew 28:16-20.

IV 2:53

When God hardened the heart of the Pharao, He didn't make it cruel, it already was so by the Pharao's own choice.

What God did was to remove obstacles from Pharao remaining obstinate, withdraw graces He could have given.

See here my debate with fellow Creationist, but NOT fellow Catholic, Jonathan Sarfati:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/01/with-jonathan-sarfati-phd-on-fall-and.html

Sorry, seem to have lost the part where I debated him on Pharao .... somewhere.

No, what I did was refer him to an earlier debate with Monty Collier, Calvinist :

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Contra Monty Collier - De libero arbitrio:
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/contra-monty-collier-de-libero-arbitrio.html

V 3:40

Yes, I agree, we have some common ground on disagreeing with "most reasonable Christians".

3:45 I can prove it even more to you.

Some "Catholics" will stand up and say the Fathers took Ark metaphorically.

Yes, but what they leave out is that they took it BOTH literally AND metaphorically. Literally about the then event (I just checked that Creswell Crag didn't contradict my carbon date limit of 40 000 BP as archaeological date for Flood), and metaphorically about the Catholic Church now.

This is from City of God, book XV:

Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?

But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and liker to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?

They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.

As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words "every creeping thing of the earth" only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said "male and female," no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, "They shall come unto you," Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, "They shall be male and female." For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has "male and female."

Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals,— whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities—the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.

Link for above:
The City of God (Book XV)
St Augustine, scroll down to chapter 27
http://newadvent.com/fathers/120115.htm

VI 3:56

Accepting only the New Testament as truth is not an option for a Christian.

We know Albigensians were heretics because they rejected the Old Testament.

VII 4:08

You suppose the fossils are independently of where they are found datable to 100's of millions or years?

At least not by carbon dating!

Creation vs. Evolution : Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/09/pat-robertson-called-dinos-65-million.html

VIII 4:50

Billions of galaxies vs Flat Earth?

Frankly not the only alternatives, have you heard of Classical Geocentrism? Like Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe (I'd say Tycho beats Ptolemy in accuracy, but Ptolemy was a decent approximation) ... they believed - correctly - that the Earth is round.

"Each galaxy" having billions of inhabitable planets?

The exoplanets supposed to be in our own, so far detected, are I think 777. I don't think a single one of them is uncontroversially inhabitable.

So, that makes your initial estimate very moot.

Then, supposing there are extraterrestrials "on their own planets". That is not all that "believing in aliens" means, it means believing they have visited us.

According to YOUR astronomy, getting from alpha Centauri to here would take 4 years with light speed, 8 years with half light speed, 16 years with quarter of light speed, and with highest attained rocket speed (relative to sun in my reference*), it would take:

17 077 326

Yes, 17 million years.[**] AND alpha Centauri does not even involve a detected inhabitable planet.

So, how large are chances of aliens visiting us, if they are biological entities from exoplanets***? Slimmer than chances of God being that of the Bible, unless you are very prejudiced against that one, I'd say!

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle_speed_records#Relative_to_the_Sun

[** I suspect there is some kind of anomaly, and if the speed limit implied is correct, I wonder if Voyager 1 really is already 18 light hours away ...]

*** Demons arranging sham visits is another matter, I don't think all contactees or even most of them are hallucinating from mental disease.

IX

5:09 It's not that there is some kind of conspiracy, we have to reject God, and reject sin and salvation.

Well, there is.

French Grand Orient involves rejecting God and some of its members are obviously in positions to influence both science faculties and education faculties without being very open to all concerned they are Grand Orient.

If you go to Grande Loge and a few others, more conservative, they may accept a concept like "God" or rather "Great Architect of the Universe", but reject orthodox belief in the Biblical one, and that precisely on the points of sin and salvation. They are also in high ranking positions and also not very open about it always.

And most freemasonries of English speaking world are a bit like Grande Loge.

Also, there is a fairly heavy collusion between Grand Orient and left wing in France, and if left outside Latin countries is less indebted to Grand Orient, recall where Karl Marx stood on the matter.

Yes, there is very much a conspiracy against Catholic beliefs, or, depending on how you define conspiracy, perhaps "culture" would be a better word.

It is not as unlikely as an alien from another galaxy visiting us to imagine people of Marxist or Grand Orient or both at a time convictions are coopting each other to higher and more important positions in research and education. It is in fact extremely likely, even, if you care to look around!

5:16 "Do you actively want not to believe in unicorns"

No, I actively believe in unicorns. Not sure if Biblical word so translated refers to a rhino or to a Triceratops (one horn being bigger than the others), but I believe in both and in men being along both.

BUT your citing that exact same phrase as I have heard so many others citing seems, depending on definitions, a culture or a conspiracy.

X 5:33

If I put this on a blog, I might take the still of your eyes into our faces.

Eyes are not explainable by evolution.

X illustration

Eyes

X contd:

5:37 No, you are NOT including compelling evidence for God in either science or history classrooms, even if the evidence is of a type belonging there.

It's like saying I could gain the Nobel prize by proving either evolution wrong in general (as with mammalian evolution being impossible from common ancestor due to karyotypes) or by proving a common argument for it wrong (as with detailed verification of fossil finds and of carbon rate tables that neither geologic column, nor carbon dating, proves any longer time span than the Biblical one), if YOU were the Nobel committee.

I know Swedish scientists, I am from Sweden. I might stand a better chance with you than with the Nobel committee.

In fact, there is a political conspiracy over many countries to :

• state monopolise or quasi education of children and teens
• allow evolution but not creation in science class rooms
• teach science to all children and teens with that skewed preference.

I would be extremely naive if your "'we" - essentially those involved in this multinational conspiracy - would be credited with that much objectivity!

I am not all that naive.

XI 5:56

Funny, on the demographics you show, there is no separate entry "atheism", but the equivalent (more or less so) "no religion" ranks second. 26,349 people in March 2016, 30.8 %. True, much on juvenile delinquency, since at 15 + "no religion" is only 24.1 %, but there too it is the second.

And if Christians are 49 % overall, but 61 % above 15 years, it is perhaps because Christians are better raised (less likely to be juvenile delinquents) but are less well treated in job applications and a few things like that and therefore tend to be more "disappointed with life" - or involved with some network of ethnic type, less willing than Muslims to use boys under 15 for their dirty work.

Read more here, it is stats from UK : http://ppt.li/3vv

XI illustration

Atheism in prison

XII 7:59

The point is probably this: if God is ultimately in charge, there may be a day (especially if He's said so) when disease and sufferings end (at least for those loyal to Him).

If no God is in charge, not only is evolution responsible for disease and suffering, but disease and suffering are responsible for evolution, for us, since they are what eliminate the less fit, you know "survival of the fittest".

This means, with evolution, there is no chance of disease ending until the whole planet blows up, if even then.

... on AiG, contra CosmicSceptic

12 Arguments Evolutionists Should NEVER use! (Apparently)
CosmicSkeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0H9JzW9Sz8

1:14 That you can't observe an occurrence doesn't mean you can't directly observe evidence of that occurrence. Thank you! You have just made an argument for God. You cannot directly observe God turning the universe around Earth, but you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. You cannot directly observe God how He works when curing a leper, but some have observed God - a k a Jesus - curing a leper. So, just because a story involves a causality which is unobserved, it doesn't mean the evidence of that causality is also unobserved. A v e r y good point!

[Short debate:]

MaxwellsDemon

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You cannot directly observe God turning the universe around Earth, but you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth."

From observation, the universe does not turn around Earth. In fact, we know that the earth turns around the sun.

"You cannot directly observe God how He works when curing a leper, but some have observed God - a k a Jesus - curing a leper."

NO, some have claimed that they have observed Jesus curing a leper. That is not an observation. That is just a claim.

"So, just because a story involves a causality which is unobserved, it doesn't mean the evidence of that causality is also unobserved."

Based on this reasoning, do you believe in all types of stories?

So there is still no direct observation of the evidence of god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"From observation, the universe does not turn around Earth. In fact, we know that the earth turns around the sun."

From observation, as it is observed, the universe does turn around Earth.

Your knowledge or pretended such that Earth turns around the Sun is not directly derived from the most obviously relevent observations.

"NO, some have claimed that they have observed Jesus curing a leper. That is not an observation. That is just a claim."

It is not an observation I or you are making. It is an observation I am accepting as an observation due to claims I find trustworthy. Precisely as complete globality of Earth (curvature I could deduce from watching ships a few decades ago a fine day or more of them) from claims I find trustworthy about Geography or about Magellans voyage. Or about day and night in the seasons at Tierra del Fuego.

If I am only stuck with my own observation, so are you with yours, and therefore neither of as can prove that Earth is a complete globe.

If we can prove it due to claims by others, then we can also prove other things by claims by others.

"So there is still no direct observation of the evidence of god."

There is no direct observation of God, but there is observation of the evidence for Him.

You are worse at logic than Alex J. O'Connor, whatever your name might be.

"Based on this reasoning, do you believe in all types of stories?"

If seriously claimed to be true and I find no reason to consider the man making the claim either mistaken or lying, yes. If I disbelieve a story as a whole, often it is because everyone knows from start it is fiction.

1937 no one believed The Hobbit was actual history or biography of anywhere, anywhen or any real Bilbo Baggins having ever lived. (If the Tolkien's did, they kept it a well guarded secret).

If a story is seriously claimed to be factual, before I dismiss even part of it, I want to see at least a possibility of how the man making the claim could be wrong or why he would be lying.

MaxwellsDemon

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"From observation, as it is observed, the universe does turn around Earth."

NO, from observation, the universe does NOT turn around the Earth.

"It is an observation I am accepting as an observation due to claims I find trustworthy."

You are accepting a claim of an observation. Therefore, it is NOT an observation.

"There is no direct observation of God, but there is observation of the evidence for Him."

NO, there is no observation of the evidence for god. You haven't provided any observation of the evidence.

You are really very bad in science, reasoning and logic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If seriously claimed to be true and I find no reason to consider the man making the claim either mistaken or lying, yes."

Again, believing in a claim is not an observation of evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"NO, from observation, the universe does NOT turn around the Earth."

We can both observe Earth standing still below us.

We can both observe Sun or Moon moving against fixed objects on Earth.

We can both observe Stars turning around North Star, when comparing for instance Orion (or any other recognised constellation) against any fixed object.

I e, we can see Sun, Moon and Stars move around us. These things are observations.

"You are accepting a claim of an observation. Therefore, it is NOT an observation."

Not on my part. Neither are most other things we know or think we know.

"NO, there is no observation of the evidence for god. You haven't provided any observation of the evidence."

I have provided two, Universe moving around us and Miracles. You attack Universe moving around us, you are certainly attacking observation as such. You attack historic miracles, you are attacking history and any observations made by other people than yourself. At least on the grounds you are pretending to now.

"You are really very bad in science, reasoning and logic."

[Feel like eating pop corn]

"Again, believing in a claim is not an observation of evidence."

Believing in a claim of an observation is distinct from doing the observation onself, true. And very banal.

Have you yourself done the geographic observations necessary to proving Earth is a full globe? Or are you believing claims of others to have done so?

Believing in a claim of an observation, implies believing there is an observation someone else made. If you can't believe that, you can't know anything.

So, in order to dismiss miracles, you need to provide specific evidence why the specific claim is not trustworthy. Not just general gas about the claims being about observations you and I did not make ourselves.

MaxwellsDemon

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I have provided two, Universe moving around us and Miracles."

Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago. No miracle has been substantiated.

You are really very bad at science and logic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago."

Not by direct observation.

"No miracle has been substantiated."

Not by scientists, but by historians (not of the atheistic or Humean schools, obviously)

"You are really very bad at science and logic."

Too bad I have no opportunity to eat pop corn here. You are nearly entertaining with your ad hominems!

MaxwellsDemon

Hans-Georg Lundahl
""Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago." - Not by direct observation."

Yes, it certainly was by direct observation. Have you never heard of retrograde motion of the planets?

You are really bad at science.

""No miracle has been substantiated." - Not by scientists, but by historians"

LOL!!!!! Another word, No miracle has been substantiated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Yes, it certainly was by direct observation. Have you never heard of retrograde motion of the planets?"

I never said that retrograde motions had not been directly observed.

I said that Earth moving around the Sun has not been directly observed.

Retrograde motions were well known by lots of Geocentrics, they are not a kind of new discovery which somehow invalidated a thitherto fine Geocentrism. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all visible from Earth by the naked eye, they all have retrogrades (unlike the PLANETS Sun and Moon which haven't), and this was never a problem to Geocentrism.

"You are really bad at science."

[Wd like a bit of pop corn to enjoy this comedy a bit more!]

"LOL!!!!! Another word, No miracle has been substantiated."

Baseless allegation, plus you show you are committing a mistake of category.

Btw, medical miracles in Lourdes have been substantiated by medical doctors, i e by scientists.

MaxwellsDemon

You said that you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. There are no observation that the Universe turning around Earth.

As I said you are really very bad at science. Go and attend a basic science class.

"Baseless allegation, plus you show you are committing a mistake of category."

No, it shows that you are really very bad at philosophy.

"No miracle has been substantiated" is a fact.

"Btw, medical miracles in Lourdes have been substantiated by medical doctors, i e by scientists."

Did they investigate amputees growing their legs?

LOL!!! What an idiot

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You said that you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. There are no observation that the Universe turning around Earth."

I can at least observe each visible part of it going around Earth.

"As I said you are really very bad at science. Go and attend a basic science class. ... No, it shows that you are really very bad at philosophy. ... LOL!!! What an idiot"

You are on the other hand very good at ad hominem and intimidation ... except you choose the wrong guy.

"'No miracle has been substantiated' is a fact."

... -oid.

"Did they investigate amputees growing their legs?"

There is an example of a man with crooked legs being healed so he could walk. The legs were still crooked afterwards and the bones are on display (he died since then), but bent into a position which allowed him to walk without crutches.

MaxwellsDemon

"I can at least observe each visible part of it going around Earth."

No, you cannot. Which visible part of the universe are you talking about?

You are really very bad at science. LOL!!! What an idiot

"There is an example of a man with crooked legs being healed so he could walk. The legs were still crooked afterwards and the bones are on display (he died since then), but bent into a position which allowed him to walk without crutches."

You really have a very low bar for your miracles. LOL!!!

It must be amazing miracles when you find your car keys or a parking space. It must be amazing miracles for the sole survivor of a plane crash killing hundreds.

"No miracle has been substantiated' is a fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No, you cannot. Which visible part of the universe are you talking about?"

Moon, Sun, Fix Stars, and, with retrogrades, Planets.

Whichever of these is visible can be observed circling the Earth in more or less 24 hours.

"You are really very bad at science. LOL!!! What an idiot"

[Ad hominems make me year for some pop corn!]

"You really have a very low bar for your miracles. LOL!!!"

No. We are talking a miraculous orthopedy which all orthopedists among medical specialists had failed at.

We are talking a crookedness showing original fault and followed up below by straight lower legs allowing a man to walk.

"It must be amazing miracles when you find your car keys or a parking space. It must be amazing miracles for the sole survivor of a plane crash killing hundreds."

Why not add the Jesuits who were neither killed nor irradiated while praying Rosary, while a US Air Force was bombing Little Boy over Nagasaki (or was it Big Boy over Hiroshima, no, Nagasaki is more like a Catholic sancturay in Japan, due to the Nagasaki martyrs).

"No miracle has been substantiated" is a fact-oid.

MaxwellsDemon

"Moon, Sun, Fix Stars, and, with retrogrades, Planets.

Whichever of these is visible can be observed circling the Earth in more or less 24 hours."

LOL!!! You are really a science illiterate and an IDIOT. Bye.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"LOL!!! You are really a science illiterate and an IDIOT. Bye."

Wait, no more ad hominem's from you?

I'll have to reread it next time I come across an opprtunity of both accessing internet and eating popcorn!

[link to this post:]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/05/on-aig-contra-cosmicsceptic.html

[End of short debate.]

1:31 Yes, right.

If in the middle of a desert I saw exactly one tree, which is very improbable, since trees in deserts tend to be in oases, and it had leaves of a certain shape and colour and a leaf of same colour and shape were lying under the tree, you could be rather sure that the leaf fell from that particular tree.

At least if it was fresh and of a type which soon dries.

Now, in a real oasis, you would probably be making a hasty conclusion, since other trees of same type would be around. A n d, guess what, the leaf could have come from any of these too.

And we are still supposing a rate of travel which is premodern.

Suppose someone had taken a leaf like that, committed a poison murder with it, taken it away with gloves, and wanted to hide it, where hide it better than under a tree of same type far from the murder? Or what if it was not far from the murder, what if the body had just been found in same oasis?

1:35 Inductive reasoning was not the exact thing you were speaking about, it was more like causal logic and could be formalised as deductive hypothetic syllogisms:

• A - If the leaf could come from the tree by falling and from no other tree, it came from the tree by falling.
• B - But it could come from the tree by falling, since of the same kind as the tree
  • AND It could not come from any other tree, since no other tree was around.
• C - Therefore it came from the tree by falling.

1:40 "it goes without saying that nobody was around to observe the creation myth"

If you mean parts of six days prior to Creation of Adam, God and His angels were around to observe them.

If you mean from the creation of Adam on, Adam, the first human, was also around - meaning we have human eyewitness account, if genuine.

All subsequent events - fall, Cain and Abel, Flood, Babel - had human observers to main events (a human observer could not have seen God speaking with God - i e Father speaking with Son and Holy Ghost - about confusion of tongues, but a prophet present could have, it could also have been a good deduction by a Hebrew ancestor of Abraham present, and one confirmed by God to Moses).

1:49 Inductive reasoning is very great for basing scientific laws on - and laws which do not go beyond observations involved in induction.

Water boils when heated. But sometimes not - and then it is less hot.

Water boils when heated to 100° C (whatever that is in Fahrenheit).

But in some places it boils when heated to 90° C - and then cooking takes longer time. These places are high above the sea, like in the Andes or Himalayah.

These are natural scientific laws which can be established by induction, i e by confirming same scenario each time you look.

So ... induction is great for establishing science about what is true always, everywhere, necessarily. It is not so great about establishing "science" about what could have gone otherwise:

• in the past
• in the future
• somewhere else
• about sth hidden.

And guess what evolution is about? Events in the past (and even very distant past) which theoretically could have gone otherwise, with results right now which theoretically could have another explanation (like God did it).

1:52 Is falsifiable?

Here is a somewhat falsifiable prediction from evolution, which so far as I looked has been consistently falsified:

"since life has been around in various shapes differring from each other by a chronological succession, and since this at each point has statistically a certain chance to leave a trace, there is a certain chance that somewhere land vertebrates would leave traces in two layers above each other, like Triassic above Permian"

And before you tell me this prediction has been verified in Karoo, I have checked Karoo already. The Triassic fossils are in geological gobbledigook "stratigraphically above" the Permian ones, since found in "outcrops". But no where did I find even one Triassic fossil being found at one level and a Permian one under it after digging some feet deeper.

Why did I specify land vertabrates? Well, you have found trilobites under elasmosaurs in Bonaparte Basin, and could presumably find trilobites some places below fossil whales as well - but this could reflect where in the water the creatures were living when the Flood struck.

Why did I specify vertebrates? Well, when it comes to invertebrates, you do find Danian / Triassic invertebrates above Maastrichtian / Cretaceous ones in Yacoraite. But you could not tell which ones were which from the look of them, I presume (I asked an Argentinian University and got no answer), and they are presumably diagnosed as Creataceous or Triassic in accordance whether they are below or above an Iridium layer.

Someone also said my prediction is not reasonable, since even one level of fossils is so clearly improbable from any given time (but there is very much time added and accumulated, which would accumulate chances).

I did a model on this:

Creation vs. Evolution : Probabilities in reference to question of finding fossils all three major levels (PMC) a place
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/07/probabilities-in-reference-to-question.html
[PMC here not pmc as in "percent modern carbon", but "Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic".]

I am not sure the likelihood of my already having falsified evolution is minuscule, but the likelihood of evolutionists admitting I did it is of course very minuscule ;)

2:01 If you did the book experiment in front of me, we were standing close enough, you would not be sure it would drop to the ground, depends on my talent of catching it first!

2:59 I used to be very well educated in precisely evolution, at least for my age, and probably already then for many even adult believers in evolution, before I rejected it in two steps :

• I became Christian
• I saw problems of reconciliation AND other problems, like explaining language, origin of genetic code etc a bit after that (after really trying some to reconcile my older and my more recent learning).

But AiG is making the point that some people who are well educated precisely in evolution are in fact rejecting it.

3:09 "Almost unanimously" - do you have precise stats or are you judging from the small media coverage Creation Scientists (not to mention Creation Science Amateurs like myself!) get from the media you look to answers for?

3:22 It is perfectly true that a non-evolutionists knowing the evidence will for instance not allow for Lucretius' Geocentric universe with rotations around Earth happening by accident or everything staying basically the same for all eternity past or future is possible, will be a kind of Theist. Even Pantheists often do favour evolution.

Are you saying that this other thing they have in common totally discredits their conclusions about evolution?

3:33 Isaac Newton died 1727, 131 years before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species.

Well, instead of "all scientifically educated people accept evolution" you suddenly have "all scientifically educated people after Darwin (or after Darwin + n years of debate) accept evolution".

For one thing, you are not any longer using the exact same argument as AiG told you not to use, and for another, you have just used a worse one : you are saying that progress in sciences eradicates freedom of academic debate.

3:43 "We judge people's intelligence by the standards of the time"

No. We judge them by standards of intelligence. And agreeing with your time is normally not one of them, which means you cannot judge a creation scientist now as stupid - or you would have to judge James Hutton as having been stupid when inventing deep time, since the standards of his time (in the West) were Young Earth.

3:49 "Albert Einstein ... could not even name who the 42:nd president of the US was"

Well, that kind of judgement totally demotes evolution from the kind of facts (if such) you can reason out by good logic any time to the kind of facts you happen to know about if you come across them.

And you can be very sure that if your scenario is true, no Homo Sapiens came across either the démise of the dinosaurs or the rise of the primates! It's as inaccessible to coming to know about, as the six days previous to Adam's creation some time into day six were accessible to Adam's direct observation : he could only know them, by trusting the One who told him about them.

4:23 No, what AiG is saying is not that pre-existing beliefs were adapted to new evidence, it is that evidence already available to creationists (like first Geologist Steno was one) were judged in a new way due to a shift in paradigm which had happened for clearly other reasons.

4:31 For some reason, I never saw visits by Father Christmas (evne when done with a bearded mask) as evidence of Father Christmas.

If Narnia Chronicles had been history and I could talk to Susan Pevensie or her son or daughter, perhaps I could ask how sure she was and why that she met Father Christmas on the way from Beaversdam to the Stone Table.

4:36 "in science" - for one thing, in science, there is no thing as "adult" and "childish" point of view and no "growing out of" an older paradigm.

You can refute some of the older paradigms, but you cannot just grow out of them. Check Phlogiston in history of chemistry!

I think there is some less credibility to Phlogiston after Lavoisier.

But that is not "growing out of", that is deductively refuting Phlogiston.

4:40 "new evidence always supersedes old ideas"

New evidence may certainly supersede an idea which was formed before the evidence came up.

Say, water boils at 100° C everywhere ... supposed by someone who has not checked out the Andes or Himalayah.

But the new evidence did not simply contradict the old idea, it refined it:

"water boils at 100° C if in air pressure of 1 at" (add that considerably lower air pressure in Nepal and Chichen Itza (? or whatever that place is called?) can be verified in support of this refined version of precisely the old idea).

4:48 "I would love to see some evidence for your world view which doesn't rely on the Bible"

Well, take a good look at fossil find places. Fossils being mainly from Flood explains why you don't find Mammoths straight above Brontosaurs straight above Tiktaaliks - so check that out, and don't look into the Bible when checking, look into places where you can find accounts of exact locations where fossils were found!

BUT you said that straight in same breath as just having said "when the old idea and the evidence are contradictory" ... you leaped very closely between evidence of absence (of Biblical story) and absence of evidence (for same).

5:20 "evolution is not historical science"

If you mean "evolution" as in Lenski experiment, or as in dog breeds (ok there is some historic knowledge involved in the science, but there is not a science made to reconstruct a lost history), AiG agree this is not historic science, but operational. They just refuse to term that evolution.

When it comes to goats or men evolving from protists, that is indeed a very long story which has only been - if at all - truly recovered by ... historical reconstruction by means of science, a k a "historical science".

5:25 That evolution is still happening today, on scales of Lenski experiment and dog breeds, we agree, except as to term evolution.

That evolution in the more long term perspective "is still happening today" is an inference which only adds future predictions (like "will men evolve to beardlessness") to the projections into the past which are "historic science".

On the scale of actually observed evolution today, the evolution on the scale of man from amoeba is NOT happing today and cannot be observed.

5:27 "we're just one step along the evolutionary timeline"

In other words, your pseudo-science is futuristic and not just historic ... sorry for snark, but you actually missed the point why the distinction was made.

And your exact words are not an observation which can be scientifically made by induction today, it is a piece of ideology, depending on the historical part of your science.

5:43 "it's a red herring ... and THAT is the context in which the two are compared"

OK, two ideas which have been compared in one context may not be compared in any other one? And if they are, that is a red herring? Sez hoo?

6:00 In actual fact, we can not "observe the results of Newtonian gravity" or "observe the results of Einsteinian gravity" in everyday life, we can only observe the results of "whatever gravity actually ultimately is".

The parallel would be, we cannot observe the results of evolution as those of evolution or of creation as those of creation (except language and mind!) we can only observe the results of "whatever ultimately caused biology and its diversity".

6:15 "all you need to do is observe evidence in favour of its existence"

Or rather "evidence very clearly in favour of its existence", please!

But thank you for bringing up this important pro-God point!

Some people waste their time and mine with saying "you can't use God as an explanation, in science we need observable and repeatable explanations".

While the book falling (I'm not sure I'd so much like to save Jefferson another fall) is very repeatable, gravity, if Newtonian, simply is there, unobserved, so neither observed, nor repeated, neither observable, nor repeatable.

6:18 (or a bit before) "and that is what we have for evolution"

Me and AiG would beg to disagree.

6:54 Any sphere is by definition also circular (several times over).

Take a look at Ancient Texts. Some describe Earth as a surface in the process of being spread out over some presumably flat underlying surface, and therefore as presumably flat itself.

The closest the Bible comes to this is saying Earth is spread out over waters - except that if waters could be spherical, so could Earth. Context is not clear cut enough to establish a flat earth is actually meant.

Some describe Earth as proven to be round.

The Bible doesn't do that either. It is between Phenicians and Greeks saying "earth is spherical" and Kemetistic Egyptians and Mardukistic Babylonians saying fairly clearly "earth is flat".

So, either this item argues it is written by an all knowing God - or it was written by a human people shrewd enough to remain on the hedge when their neighbours disagreed and no direct evidence of Magellan type was available.

In fact, two of the terms used to describe earth in Bible together, but especially one of them only together with modern geographic knowledge, argue the earth is spherical.

If you check modern Flat Earth maps, you might notice they have three corners, unless you very generously make Australia count for two. All of them are also South Corners, centre being North Pole.

But if you check a globe, you will find that Old World, while not flat, has a somewhat rectangular surface, i e has four corners, NW, NE, SE and SW : British Isles/Greenland, Sakhalin, Australia/New Guinea, Cape of Good Hope.

Also, if you have "circle" and "four corners" in same corpus considered as infallible, you will want to harmonised, consider both as true, which is evidently less easy if they describe same flat surface.

7:12 "and orbitting the sun"

Sorry, here I disagree with AiG. Round, yes, orbitting the Sun, no. That is deduced from certain views on how motions like day and night, years and seasons are explained, but it is NOT observed and a Christian may very well not share those views.

7:21 "have you ever been to space"

Good point, but even that would not be enough. Suppose Armstrong did sea Earth from Moon and saw it as turning. I don't believe that is out of the question, I don't believe it is a clear fact either, but for argument's sake, suppose he did.

Would that prove Earth was rotating around itself? Or could it be that Moon rotates around Earth every 24 h 50 minutes, so Armstrong was in fact viewing Earth from different directions?

7:30 Ships disappearing bottom first over horizon proves Earth is some kind of bent, not in itself fulness of globe. Earth's shadow on Moon could theoretically be the shadow of sth else - like Hindoo flat Earth lore says, planet Rahu comes above rim of Earth just in time to produce solar and lunar eclipses, and Rahu is circular (they also believe Meru is a mountain middle/North, which is incompatible with Biblical four corners).

You have to have a complete geographical circumnavigation, which is relying on ... tradition, from observations of other people.

I am not Magellan, I was not in his ship, but I trust those who were. Etc. for other voyages.

7:43 "shooting yourself in the foot here"

Well, not for Biblical History, since most of it (including most of 11 first chapters, excluding days 1-5 and first beginning of day 6, excluding the Divine Conference above Babel) was as accessible to participants then (if any) as Magellan's ship was to one aboard it from beginning to end of voyage. And in both cases, I trust tradition.

8:18 You seem to be misunderstanding the argument.

When a common trait is present in two diverse kinds, evolution argues as if common ancestor were only possible explanation and as if common creator was out of the question.

They were not saying that any specific point of past evolutionary history was predetermined, that is not the point of their argument.

8:30 No, we are not saying we conclude Biblical History from even necessities of Theistic types.

Biblical History is, like Geographic Knowledge, an observation available to men there and then, and therefore not a conclusion from effect to necessary one and only possible cause.

When it comes to excluding materialism when it comes to theory of mind, we do have such arguments too.

It is not about "there is only one way in which mind could arise from matter" (with you offering several other options), it is about "there is no way at all in which mind could arise from matter" (including all offers you give, either not arriving at mind or not starting from mindless matter).

8:39 "you are basing this on the Bible which completely contradicts this many idea"

No, there is such a thing as observed facts superseding a manifold of theoretical options.

4 could indeed come either from 2+2 or from 5-1, but if I saw four packages of ammo in a corner, when I arrived there, the man who was there before I arrived could certainly tell me (supping he wnated to and I was curious) whether he had seen:

• a) first a jeep delivering 2 packages, then another jeep delivering other two
• OR b) first a jeep delivering 5 packages, then a company of men taking one away with them on a motor cycle.

Once that information was given, unless I had reasons to mistrust the informant, I would know exactly how the 4 packages of ammo arrived, despite fact that more then one scenario were possible.

8:39 "again, this shows your complete lack of understanding of"

This comment shows your complete disregard of respect due to people arguing for something different before you start arguing with them.

8:39-42 I don't think AiG are either ignorant of evolutionary biology or of logic law of contradiction, I think you just managed to strawman them. Was it just by accident?

9:24 "natural selection is the process by which evolution takes place"

Place a child on a battle field. Let someone shoot in his direction - OK, don't do it! - and then say "if he doesn't develop the skills of a fighter or a good shelter taker within 15 minutes, natural selection dooms him to death, therefore, I predict he will next 15 minutes develop good skills as a fighter or shelter taker".

Do you find it possible that this prediction will come true of a toddler? I don't (I also don't want Illuminoids to do any practical research on topic!).

So, natural selection is not a process by which a protist will - if natural selection is repeated often enough - ancestral of a man. Natural selection is a process by which protists will rather be eliminated without ever evolving to man.

At least that is how natural selection operates in observable cases, everything you have on natural selection doing opposite in cases between protist supposed ancestors and human supposed descendants is deducted from an evolutionary world view, well above what can be observed about natural selection.

9:26 "if you take natural selection and extend it over a long enough period of time"

You will have death, not evolution. That is the rational prediction.

9:29 "then evolution will be the logical result"

You just failed logic forever!

9:50 God knew environments would be shifting a lot, for instance more salt in seas since Flood (deduced, not Biblically attested) or spreading to lands which had been altered by Flood and so on.

Hence a certain variability. And one can even give a fairly clear cut answer to limits of it.

Organs can be varied if existing in parental population, they can be lost, but they cannot be regained from scratch.

In case of blind fish cross fertilised with other blind fish, eye was dysfunctional in different genes, but it was functional in same genes in opposite populations.

Variability does for instance not involve evolution of eye from scratch.

9:53 "retain the climate entirely"

Not an option with a mankind to punish and safeguard against itself (I suspect nuclear stupidity aligned with evil twice over) with Flood and with Ice age, against Nodian corruption and against Tower of Babel.

10:00 "survival of the fittest, that is deaths of the unsuitable"

Yes, that latter would be the real name of the game - which is why it is not productive to results like those of evolution.

10:10 God is very certainly deciding who lives and who dies.

Or who lives longer and who dies earlier, since all who die have lived, and all who live will die.

He is deciding that by His own standard.

10:17 Random biological factors could explain mainly the kind of variability which involve losses. As in mutations, usually they tend to lose sth.

The variability beyond that would be epigenetic. One could also reason, in cases when mutations or "chromosomal mutations" (not same thing!) are beneficial, God is triggering the right ones in the right moment, rather than having previously given one.

But either of these, random biological factors cannot be responsible for assembling, I will not say "part after part of the eye", but rather "gene after gene IN part after part of the eye" from starting from nothing.

In a study of blind fish, I saw that just one part of the formation of an eye, production of this or that, depended on successive activation of TEN genes having to function correctly (or eight?).

So, in the overall picture (unless you prefer Epicure to Evolution) random biological factors are not slightly more but very much less likely.

10:52 Circular proof is not "subtle circular reasoning". Evolutionists are certainly themselves from time to time using the word or phrase "design features".

So, your first point off.

No, "design features" are not what we are "trying to prove". The text you read was not even trying to prove a designer behind design features. The text you read states, correctly, that a common designer is as logical an explanation for "common design features" or "common features" as a common ancestor is.

Meaning, if you are using these as proof of evolution, you are committing circular proof:

• all living beings evolve from a latest universal common ancestor
• therefore this feature found in two but not in certain other ones argues they had an even more recent common ancestor
• therefore we have a tree of life
• which points back to a latest universal common ancestor (which is where your conclusion touches too incestuously with your premiss)

If that is not how YOU are reasoning, fine, then the argument was not against you.

11:04 OK, you are not considering common features a proof, just an inspiration.

I think I caught AronRa or someone else doing otherwise (but it was a year ago or longer).

Then you are not using the argument they warn against. Are you sure noone else is?

11:20 Not one of them ... perhaps not in Oxford (just checked your site), but perhaps sth else is going on in Texas (check out AronRa's phylogeny challenge, I think I recall someone else too).

11:58 The heaps of indedependent researchers were in our days perhaps very independent from each other - but certainly NOT from their cultural background reaching back to James Hutton.

They share a common background as researchers.

They share more of it than what is minimally needed to be a researcher (compare them to Medieval researchers on natural science, you will notice a difference, and it is thanks to Medievals that optics and corrective glasses exist, so you can't say they were not researchers).

I argue, so does of course AiG, they also share more than is needed to be a researcher taking into account what has been discovered between the Middle Ages and now. AND this common cultural background (lots of it leading back to Russian revolution and via Commies to a certain type of Kabbalah) gives certain misleads in common to this heap of researchers.

As to the question itself, check all this heap if you find one place on earth where they first dug down to a mammoth, then down to a brontosaur - not even walking away a few yards, just digging deeper - and under the bronto a dimetrodon. I checked, I checked in sources you can't suspect of creationist bias, there is no such place, or if there is, it is very well kept secret for such a sensational thing, compared to all the other places.

As I already mentioned a bit earlier.

12:16 Your book falling to the ground can be evidence for any theory of gravitation among those of:

• Aristotle
• Newton
• Einstein

The fossils we dig up are evidence for EITHER of two:

• very long ages
• very drastic conditions in Flood

I actually gave you a challenge which would, if succeeding fit the evolu pattern better then the Flood pattern. So far, you have not succeeded - which you should have done by chance, if it had been the case.

12:19 Fossils are indistinct evidence for EITHER Flood OR "geological long ages".

Traditions all over the world are - like the tradition on geography from Magellan's voyage - evidence of the Flood. If AiG is not providing a list of Flood legends, I think that both CMI (creationist) and TalkOrigins (evolutionist) are providing such lists.

12:25 "evidence to the contrary of a global flood at the time which"

Only if you confuse carbon dated time with real time.

Standard Creationist explanation on carbon dates (those relevant to cultures 2400 - 3200 BC, Flood dates according to several versions of Biblical chronology) seems to be completely ignored by you.

Sure, the archaeological material in Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia is dated to 2900—2350 BC, which takes care of Masoretic based Flood dates, while Jemdet Nasr period is dated 3100–2900 BC, taking care of St Jerome's LXX based date (2957 BC) and 4000–3100 BC is Uruk period, taking care of Syncellus and liturgic Byzantine dates of Flood (3258 / 3266 BC).

And yes, this archaeological material is indeed incompatible with a world wide Flood occurring in these times ... that is the times given in names, not dates!

Because, the standard creationist reply, which you seem to ignore, is that Uruk period and all the rest are solidly post-Flood, as is at least Upper Palaeolithic. Meaning that carbon was rising and earlier lower levels are causing a systematic and radically higher misdatng the further you go back.

This I have dealt with in my tables for carbon rise, here are some of the latest, but, with earlier tables more precise on especially later times, close to Troy:

Creation vs. Evolution : On Request : If we were 5777 Anno Mundi
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-request-if-we-were-5777-anno-mundi.html

Creation vs. Evolution : What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-about-ussher-and-kent-hovind.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Around Five Thousand Years Ago, There was a World Wide Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/around-five-thousand-years-ago-there.html

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html

The abbreviation pmc [here, as most usually] means "percent modern carbon". Stopping after argument 9.

[Resuming after stop:]

12:51 "peer reviewed studies which all point to the same conclusion"

• 1) You were not there making these studies. So, you are relying on someone else's claim that observations were made.
  
  Check that one out, and compare Maxwell'sDemon's inane comments about Gospel miracles not being observation!
  
  
• 2) When you say they all point to the same conclusion - are you relying for conclusion as well as for observations?
  
  
• 3) You forgot to mention which specific new functions have been produced before our eyes by mutations.
  
  
• 4) Perhaps the load of peer reviewed articles weren't even all concluding that, but most of them just presuming it and concluding other things - or perhaps some were concluding that from evolutionary suppositions about creature x descending from creature y by way of mutations.

13:15 "Note the wealth of evidence and ... examples in presenting the case"

If you want the specific evidence, how about going to pages which Argument 10 links to instead of just reading Argument 10?

13:34 "some mutations are good, some mutations are bad, most mutations" [are neither]

Well, the problem is that EVEN the good mutations are not of the type which the evolutionary scenario would require!

Take mutations observed in blind fish. These mutations are bad. On a VERY general level, you might just possibly imagine the same mutations going in reverse to achieve the good result of seeing fish.

There was just one part of the fetal development process which goes to building an eye, it was building just one part of the retina, and there were ten genes involved.

One or two or even more genes mutating to dysfunctional explain why there are blind fish.

But how would you explain all ten of them mutating into existence?

13:41 "Given enough time, you will start to see changes within a species in relation to their environment"

True! Excellent. Especially the "within a species" part!

Now, how would a Creationist Genetician (and specialist in plant genetics) like Maciej Giertych explain those changes?

• Genetic drift : random culling by sheer chance in propagation of certain genes (in populations small enough for chance to play a role);
• Natural selection : non-random culling by disadvantages certain individuals suffer due to certain genes in a new environment the genes are not adapted to;
• Mutations : I don't think he even mentioned them, but in the case of information, it is mainly about loss. You can lose wings if you are a beetle, you can lose eyes if you are a fish, but we never see any beetles or fish getting wings or eyes from scratch. The best beetles and fish can hope for is more like getting back functions due to crossbreeding with varieties not suffering same bad mutations (you can even cross breed to blind fish and get seeing fish - provided they were blind due to different mutations : cross-breeding in such a case restores original gene pertinent to eye-sight).

What you do NOT get is mutations driving any invention of new organs or organelles.

13:45 Geographical isolation was certainly accounted for by Maciej Giertych and it does NOT invent new organs.

14:19 "A noticeable lack of supporting evidence here."

Look, I actually looked up the original article on their site. On EACH of the 12 arguments they think Evolutionists should not use, they DO link to one or two other articles about that particular aspect.

Here are the relevant links from 10, 11:

Answers in Genesis : Chapter 7
Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?
by Bodie Hodge on February 18, 2010
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/

Answers in Genesis : Monkeying with the Media
A Case Study of the Scopes Trial and the Media's Impact
by Rick Barry on June 7, 2007; last featured July 12, 2009
https://answersingenesis.org/scopes-trial/monkeying-with-the-media/

Answers in Genesis : Inherit the Wind
A Lesson in Distorting History
by Dr. Jerry Bergman on March 31, 2010
https://answersingenesis.org/scopes-trial/inherit-the-wind/

So, if you really want to be smart, and not just look smart to those who don't bother to get to originals, how about making new videos adressing the articles linked to?

14:25 "the Scopes trial has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific legitimacy of evolution"

Now, here you showed you have a totally British, not at all American perspective.

You are right.

But that is not how the US American public, including US American atheists and evolutionists see things.

14:32 "You will never see a biologist use etc"

No, but I have seen some internet evolutionists such as yourself use trials that way - BOTH Scopes, which Evolution lost, AND later ones (Kitzmiller vs Dover) which Evolution won.

14:39 "basing arguments on emotion not reason is not a trademark of science, but of faith"

For all that, quite a lot of evolutionists do show that trademark of "faith".

Also, "emotion, not reason" begs the question on how much reason is involved in emotions.

14:52 Flipping the coin is sometimes a good exercise, but you did not do it.

England has in very recent years seen worsened conditions for Creationists.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Bias of Alice Roberts
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-bias-of-alice-roberts.html

I believe, Alice Roberts and her fellows had their way. Even private, even not state financed schools are forbidden Creationism in science classes.

And when it comes to her use of Johnny Scaramanga ... well, I'd say her appeals to emotion were unfortunately exclusive of some good reason which could have weighed in.

15:30 one being that every living thing had a sudden distinct origin less than a few thousand years ago

You are quite sure the diverse European 'edge'ogs are diversified more than 2000 years ago?

I'm not. I am however certain 25 species of 'edge'og all originated from a single couple on the Ark.

15:39 "realise that Genesis is not a literal account even if it was originally written with that intention"

Hogwash.

If it was originally written with the intention of being literally true, it is a literal account insofar as it is either living up to intention by being literally true, or failing it by being literally false.

You can't have "well, Moses of Esra or someone thought he was doing a good reconstruction, we know it is not, but we can still use it as edifying moral tales".

For one thing, account of Original Sin is only edifying if thought to be literally true. You can explain man's sufferings and shortcomings by a fall which did occur, but if you say it did not occur, you can no longer use it to so explain the human situation - I think even you or especially you should understand that point!

15:53 "the first thing you have to drop the theology"

If you mean apostasise, I hope that you realise that is over the top.

If you just mean to make a case without directly involving theology in its arguments against evolution, I already did.

Evolution makes a prediction about geological column, which fossil finds are falsifying.

Come on, scroll up the comment thread and refute that if you can!

Considering the last point, perhaps you would be afraid to lose patronage of Robert and some more?

Try asking St Robert Bellarmine for his patronage!