Legalise Homeschooling? Good for AfD

@DWHistoryandCulture
Why is homeschooling illegal in Germany?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i5NCMiwJyec

Judges pretend that school is the place where children learn tolerance.

This also means it is the place where they learn or are exposed to intolerance, and sometimes of a degree they are not prepared to carry.

I Didn't Find St. Hilary Condemned Me

A Saint's Warning About False Prophets And Hypocrites
Return To Tradition | 30 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST9e1GYhXzE

5:45 I'm noting a thing or two if someone would like to apply this to me, and judge me as one therein warned of.

Obeying the law of Christ.

But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt
[1 Corinthians 7:9]

I have done what I could to obey this and I'm being stopped.

Two. You mentioned false claims of knowing the future and presumably may have meant "date setting" ...

Hilary himself is known to have presumed the Antichrist was in preparation at the Court of Constantinople. In other words, he ventured a guess, no doubt an instructed guess, but nevertheless a guess, about when the world was ending. He was wrong, and nevertheless, he is St. Hilary.

In Lateran V, the ban on date setting, while referring to Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32, doesn't come in doctrinal context, but in disciplinary, namely in rules for preachers. No one says bloggers, vloggers or other essayists are bound by these.

So, if you try to get people not to widely read me, because you think me a "false claimant of knowledge" (which in this sermon wasn't even mentioned by St. Hilary), or because you think me a hypocrite, you are part of those who make it hard for me to actually start obeying God's law, including the cite from 1 Corinthians. This resumes both.

6:53 Today, it's very easy to get stamped as "pretending to be the only one who sees" ...

I yesterday claimed to see, not to the exclusion of everyone else, but of Uniformitarians, that Genesis 1 to 11 except the verses in chapters 1 and 2 prior to Adam's creation, have a very simple epistemology.

Heber saw Babel begin, after Noah died 350 after the Flood (using the martyrology reading for Christmas Day) and saw Babel end when his son Peleg was born 401 after the Flood. So, while he probably stayed away, and may have missed technical detail about whatever the "tower the top of which may reach into heaven" was meant to become ... I think Wernher von Braun did it ... he knew the general gist and arguably had a prophecy from which we have verses 5 to 7.

He died well after Sarug was born. Sarug died when Abraham was 50. Abraham probably started to write things down, given that a caravan leader had the capacity to dedicate a few camels to clay tablets or whatever and given that chapters from 12 on become more prolix, less easy to transmit by oral tradition.

Tell me exactly where this is in conflict with any dogma or traditional position of the faith, will you?

George Leo Haydock said pretty similar things on the epistemology of Genesis 3.

But possibly, you'll ignore this over X clergyman or Y expert or Z right winger telling you I'm a narcissist, and perhaps feeling yourself that an "attention seeker" or "clout chaser" should be ostracised. No need to put actual doctrine into whatever you think I'm doing wrong, since you have broadened the definition of what St. Hilary spoke of absurdly.

Catholicism Doesn't Have These Problems

Why A Rabbi Had to Solve an Impossible Space Problem
Judaism Unpacked | 27 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uEs5rAkoeY

6:03 You have just solved a problem between Catholics and Orthodox.

Catholics. The Last Supper was a Seder, so Jesus used unleavened bread. See Synoptics.
Orthodox. No. The Seder was the evening after the Crucifixion, see John.

Solution? Jesus wasn't in Jerusalem when the temple decided to start Nisan that year and can have spotted the New Moon one day earlier than the Temple did. Once in Jerusalem, the Temple cut down communications up to those hostile ones after the Last Supper. All four Gospels are right and the Last Supper was a Seder.*

7:44 It's not Earth that rotates once every 24 hours minus some minutes, but OK.

Nevertheless, like the calendar by Hillel II, these problems were never in place from ...

It is a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls beginning on the ninth day of the month: from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths
[Leviticus 23:32]

... to Jesus replacing the old priesthood and the old law on Last Supper and Calvary.

Judaism having to deal with them is a sign that the kashrut of the Old Covenant are over.

In Catholicism, rules for when Sundays and Feast days set in and end may seem inappropriate to you, they go from evening to next midnight, unless the following day is a greater feast, while ordinary days go from midnight to midnight unless following day is a feast, but the point is, the New Testament is not prescribing a single way in the Bible text.**

---

* This was one reason for my return to Catholicism in 2009, another was that filioque doesn't start in Toledo III but is older. Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo

** As for the rules for fasting, unlike those for Ramadan: How Many Muslims Would Be OK With This?

Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say · New blog on the kid: Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Such as your proposal that the common YEC view on the Flood is waves were a mile high?

That proposal is evidence free, like it's evidence free to pretend a Geocentric (yours truly) is a Flat Earther. No, I'm not Rob Skiba II, even if I liked him for other reasons.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl There is no way to determine the actual height of waves in a mythical Flood which never happened. A mile high is a common claim made on YEC sites based on the claimed destruction the Flood supposedly wreaked.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 A common claim made on YEC sites, as if you knew them better than I ...

Care to give an example?

On CMI one hit gives me this:

Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.

source
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
By S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 8(1) Pages 26 - 36, April 1994
https://creation.com/en/articles/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

On AiG, I find this:

In fact, the 520 m tsunami height of the 1958 landslide quoted by ark skeptics took place within a narrow Alaskan bay where there was no time for the wave to develop a standard profile. This is not a deep-sea tsunami wave height.

The article, while referring to the same Korean Naval feasability or sea-worthiness study, refers to waves of 47 metres ... and that as being unlike the deep sea tsunamis.

A tsunami is caused by a sudden displacement of water. The most frequent cause is an underwater earthquake, but less frequently, tsunamis can be generated by volcanic eruptions, landslides, or even oceanic meteor impact. The length of these waves, from one crest to the next, can be up to 200 km long, and they travel in the deep ocean at speeds around 700 km/hr. Their height in the open ocean is very small, a couple of meters at most, so they pass under ships and boats undetected.

source:
Noah’s Ark: The Problem of Violent Waves
by Tim Lovett on August 9, 2024
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noahs-ark-problem-violent-waves/

The mile high wave heights is not what you find on AiG or YEC, you are sure you weren't consulting an ANTI-YEC site?

Sam Burns

[first answered with an insult and with asking for the evidence for the Flood instead of continuing the objection. But to the exchange, as my answer is now visible]

Sam Burns

@hglundahl You're still just urinating into the wind since you still have zero evidence the mythological Flood ever happened. 😄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You forget you by now have zero evidence that the waves would have made it impossible, which makes the Flood account perfectly capable of being what it has purported to be, a historical account.

Other thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You did not give any reason for any of the three to be impossible to be formed during a one year Flood, so you gave no "three examples" worth my while.

Luminiscence? There is a question of when Mungo "man" is from. The luminiscence involving sand around him (or her) says 40 000 BP. BUT the bones themselves are more in the 20 000 range, as dated by Carbon 14. So, carbon 14 would be more reliable on my evaluation than luminiscence.

You mentioned argon argon dating. I looked it up:

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.

It so happens, K/Ar can be skewed by lava solidifying quickly because of lots of cold water, as in the Flood. Here is another thing, you attributed its use to "archaeologists" ... but that's a different chapter from palaeontology. Now, again from the Ar/Ar article:

One problem with argon–argon dating has been a slight discrepancy with other methods of dating.[3] Work by Kuiper et al. reports that a correction of 0.65% is needed.[4] Thus the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction (when the dinosaurs died out)—previously dated at 65.0 or 65.5 million years ago—is more accurately dated to 66.0–66.1 Ma.

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating

That's palaeontology and definitely within the scope of Flood geology, unlike much of Carbon 14.

Try again.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! I love the way you just yell NUH-UH! while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood. 😄 Also the way you C&Ped the usual creationist excuses for dodging the multiple independent and consilient dating methods.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Is this example "worth your while"?

1) In the Pacific Northwest is a geologic feature called the Columbia River Basalt Group. It's a huge lava flow area covering most of eastern Oregon and Washington, western Idaho and part of norther Nevada. Geologists have identified over 350 separate volcanic lava flows which K/Ar and Ar40/Ar39 show occurred from 16.7 MYA to 5.5 MYA.
2) To add to creationist problems we have the Grande Ronde River which flows some 200 miles across the same Columbia basalt fields in Oregon and Washington State. The Grande Ronde makes S-shaped meanders and has downcut basalt cliffs some 3000 ft. tall.

Questions for you:
1. If the Columbia Basalt fields all formed in one year why do they date so differently over an 11 million year span? Don't just yell "bad assumptions". Explain why all the dates are different.
2. How did the Grande Ronde River form? The usual excuse "the rocks were soft" doesn't work because soft basalt is molten lava. 😮

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood."

Prior to this example, you weren't giving any evidence against within one single year.

Now, the 11 million year span has to do with K/Ar dating.

I'll cite an article by CMI, which deals with this exact formation, including the River.

I'll just answer on the 11 million years:

They do not, by themselves, give unambiguous information about the cooling rate of the lavas. However, entablatures can solidify and cool very rapidly by water-steam convection.

source:
Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA
By John Woodmorappe and amp; Michael J. Oard
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 16(1) Pages 103 - 110, April 2002
https://creation.com/en/articles/field-studies-in-the-columbia-river-basalt-northwest-usa

This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down.

For other solutions, the article I quoted is Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA.

CMI, as I mentioned.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Keep lying and dodging. You're really making a case for creationism! 😅😅😅 How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?

@hglundahl Here's an example you won't be able to C&P the usual creationist lies over.

In Northern California, Tuolumne County is a geologic feature called the Stanislaus Table Mountain. Its formation began 10.4 MYA with a volcanic eruption from the Little Walker volcanic center near Sonora pass. The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river. It's over 1000 ft. high, 1000 ft. wide at its widest point and some 80 miles long. I can't post photos but do a quick search - it's an amazing sight from the air.

I defy you to provide a reasonable explanation for how this feature could have formed in a one year Flood only 4500 years ago.

@hglundahl This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down. I couldn't let this lie slide. Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters? In either scenario your hand-waving excuse doesn't work. 😅

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?"

Referring you to the article, as given.

River formation are not my even amateurish expertise.

"Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters?"

They happened while water was rising and therefore different parts were covered and different ones weren't.

But arguably they happened under water and were cooled by different heights of water above them.

This one I actually found no CMI article on:

"The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river."

The lahar hardened very quickly as waters cooled it, which also eroded the surrounding land.

CMI had

an article on lahars and pyroclastic mud flows, though:

The Pinatubo eruption—catastrophic pyroclastic flows and lahars
By Andrew Sibley
Published 05 Nov, 2021 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 34(2) Pages 5 - 7, August 2020
https://creation.com/en/articles/pinatubo-eruption

Probably applicable to Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California) too.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! As expected if you can't C&P some ready made creationist lie you're totally lost. 😄😄😄 You clowns are too funny!

@hglundahl Now that you've established you know nothing about geology or dating methodology or ocean waves or wooden ships, what else do you want to talk about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You have just established that you are out of your depth, resort to insults and laugh when you don't know what to answer.

With you, I might not want to talk of much else.

(Nevertheless, I gave him a link to the two parts)

AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say · New blog on the kid: Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

Don’t Think the Biblical Flood Really Happened? Watch THIS!
Answers in Genesis | 21 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5FDIuHUeY

I

16:31 Vessels ride over the waves because they move, and that is an additional strain on the construction.

I very clearly picture the sidways existence of the Ark, and as to motion sickness, I calculated the rolling period. 11 seconds or so.

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

.. A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

In other words, God saw to it, they were fairly comfy on the Ark, whenever the natural rolling period prevailed!

The long rolling period would counteract motion sickness. I just quoted what I wrote in 2018, eight years ago.*

A

Science Rules

@sciencerules2825

It was wrong then, it's just as wrong now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@sciencerules2825 care to be specific?

Settle Down**

@settledown444

@hglundahl How high were the waves during the Flood? Remember the waves were supposedly powerful enough to scrub the top two miles of material off the Earth's entire surface, sort the material, then redeposit the two miles as distinct sedimentary layers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 The destructivity of a wave to a vessel is not just about how high it is, but also about how abrupt it is.

A mile above the remaking of the earth, that would have been pretty non-abrupt waves, like on the Pacific. Dunes, not breakers.

The reason is, "abrupt" means, there is much height to little width (maximally equal), and the width and height ration depend on how far down the centre of the radius is.

In shallow water, the bottom can pose severe limits on the width, not so on a world wide ocean.

Settle Down

@hglundahl In other words you have no explanation for how a wooden vessel would survive mile high waves that destroyed the top two miles of the planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 In other words you either forgot all I just said, or you disqualified yourself from speaking on vessels or on waves.

Settle Down

@hglundahl What is your professional experience with sailing vessels and/or waves that qualifies you as an expert?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 I didn't say I was an expert.

I do say I know what waves work like.

If the bottom is very low below, that means that the radius of the wave (yes, mathematically they are circle segments) is long which means the parts on the top are not abrupt.

That's how a large radius works.

B

Sam Burns

@samburns3329

I hope you realize the Noah's Flood / Ark story was scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago and the evidence against it has only piled higher ever since. Arguing the seaworthiness of a mythical boat is like arguing if the Starship Enterprise could defeat the Death Star.

i

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Seaworthiness has objective and mathematical parameters.

If the Ark were mythical, how come some myth maker gave just the right proportions for seaworthiness?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl The floating box Ark as described in the Bible would immediately capsize and sink in even a moderate ocean storm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You miss what actually capsises ships.

Wyoming sank in Nantucket Bay, average 9 meters deep.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Mile high waves in the supposed strongest storm ever on Earth would flip the Ark and smash it into kindling. Kind of a moot point since the Flood /Ark story is still mythological.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Have you heard of "strawman"?

The Ocean was miles deep. Underwater currents, not storms on the top did the erosion.

Kind of what you miss in your very mythical reconstruction.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Have you heard of "strawman"? I've heard of ridiculous evidence-free pulled-straight-from-your-nether-regions claims. 🙂 Like that last one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Such as your proposal that the common YEC view on the Flood is waves were a mile high?

That proposal is evidence free, like it's evidence free to pretend a Geocentric (yours truly) is a Flat Earther. No, I'm not Rob Skiba II, even if I liked him for other reasons.

ij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago"

Details?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Details? A literal Noah's Flood / Ark was scientifically disproven over two centuries ago. For example:

1. The world is full of geologic features (angular unconformities, the vertically incised meanders in Goosenecks State Park, the Columbia Basalt Group) impossible to form in a one year one time Flood.
2. We have lots of archaeological evidence of cities and cultures (Jericho is 11,000 years old, The Jiahu culture in China is 9500 years old) which lived right through the Flood without noticing.
3. Modern genetics shows no extant species underwent a severe genetic bottleneck only 4500 years ago. If the Ark story were true ALL extant species would show such a bottleneck.
4. Besides well established radiometric age determination we also have lots of non-radiometric proxies (tree rings, lake varves, ice cores) showing the Earth is way older than 6000 years, certainly older than the claimed 4500 year ago Flood.
5. The fossil record shows five major mass extinction events with a radiation of entirely new species into the open ecological niches after each event. Impossible for a single Flood to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Thank you.

1) Dispute the "impossible to form in one year" argument.
2) Carbon dating is off, Jericho and Göbekli Tepe started around 2600 BC
3) How do you date the bottlenecks?
4) tree rings and so on are circular if you go back far enough
5) The fossil record is from the Flood and the "new species in open ecological niches" are just contemporaries with "previous" misdated by layers of the Flood.

Carbon dating is also not way over 200 years old.°

Sam Burns

@hglundahl I see you completely ignored the geologic evidence besides crying NUH-UH! and the multiple civilizations which lived right through the Flood without noticing. Also 14C dating is calibrated by over a dozen independent proxies to 55,000 years before present so you got that one wrong too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You gave no specific geologic evidence apart from claiming it couldn't have been formed by the Flood.

You missed that our only clue to the chronology of the civilisations is carbon dating. The carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. Before them.

The independent proxies become circular with carbon well before that old.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl I gave three specific geologic examples. You dodged all of them. 😄 There are also over 40 different scientific dating techniques used by archaeology besides 14C dating. Things like optically stimulated luminescence, obsidian hydration, archaeomagnetics, 39Ar/40Ar just to name just a few.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You did not give any reason for any of the three to be impossible to be formed during a one year Flood, so you gave no "three examples" worth my while.

Luminiscence? There is a question of when Mungo "man" is from. The luminiscence involving sand around him (or her) says 40 000 BP. BUT the bones themselves are more in the 20 000 range, as dated by Carbon 14. So, carbon 14 would be more reliable on my evaluation than luminiscence.

You mentioned argon argon dating. I looked it up:

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.

It so happens, K/Ar can be skewed by lava solidifying quickly because of lots of cold water, as in the Flood. Here is another thing, you attributed its use to "archaeologists" ... but that's a different chapter from palaeontology. Now, again from the Ar/Ar article:

One problem with argon–argon dating has been a slight discrepancy with other methods of dating.[3] Work by Kuiper et al. reports that a correction of 0.65% is needed.[4] Thus the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction (when the dinosaurs died out)—previously dated at 65.0 or 65.5 million years ago—is more accurately dated to 66.0–66.1 Ma.

That's palaeontology and definitely within the scope of Flood geology, unlike much of Carbon 14.

Try again.

[source for quotes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating]

II

50:49 Where in the Bible do you see "Jesus took our punishment" or "was punished for us" ???***

* Rolling Period of Ark?

** Seems like someone is using channel names to bring home "paedagogic" points to me. Including one pretending I'm refusing to settle down. I have been refused by such people to settle down on terms I can accept, i e as a writer, including a Creationist one.

*** "He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?

° The technology of carbon dating is from the 1940's.

Revisiting Indo-European as Sprachbund

Question: Is there any evidence of linguistic contact between Sanskrit and Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-evidence-of-linguistic-contact-between-Sanskrit-and-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

20.VIII.2026

You are asking about areal phenomenon, no?

Sanskrit may well have started around the first areal connection in Indo-European linguistics, namely the one with Hittite (and other Anatolian) with Mitanni-”Sanskrit” to the East and Mycenaean Greek to the West. Note that in Mycenean Greek, “tis” was still “quis” as we later see it in Latin. And “pente” was “penque” which is close to Latin “quinque”.

THEN there is another areal connection, around the Terramare culture, where Mycenaean Greek actually is involved in the North of Italy, not very far from where later Latin emerged in writing.

So, supposing we take linguistic contact instead of common origin, it would look like this:

• Mycenaean Greek, Hittite / Palaic / Luwian, Mitanni-Aryan are the original Sprachbund, West and East of the Aegean
  
  
  • Mitanni-Aryan moves East and becomes Old Persian and Sanskrit
  • Mycenaean Greek partly moves West and influences Latin to the South and Germanic and Celtic languages to the North
  
  
  
• Balto-Slavic and Armenian are influenced by Persian from the East and Celto-Germanic from the West.

PS, I actually forgot, but a daughter language of Mycenaean Greek, namely koiné, was present in both Bactria and India before our earliest written texts in Sanskrit. Probably not too much of an influence in linguistics, but Greek epics may have influenced the Mahabharata as we have it.

Heschmeyer Ignorant of Helio- / Geo-Controversy

A usually very good video, some places where I tease and challenge Heschmeyer and Hurd, but on one issue over a few minutes, Heschmeyer is absurd about the history of ideas behind the change from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism. Below are not all my comments, just those which relate to this.

Does Studying Aquinas Make You Catholic? (Conversation with Ryan Hurd)
Shameless Popery | 18 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omZgL0hkYBE

52:23 How are they not wandering (across the zodiac) stars (i e luminaries)?

Even Pluto is a luminary and has wandered some since discovered, when viewed through a telescope.

If you know what the older terms mean (a well known Italian song calls the moon Stella d'Argento, you may have heard Elvis sing it), what is "refuted" about "the assumption"?

My bad memory, "astro d'argente" not "stella" ...

52:41 Tycho thinks all planets except Sun and Moon are rotating around the Sun.

52:24 The orbits are still fixed in older Geocentrism.

The "wandering" doesn't mean totally irregular movements, it means they don't stay in the same place of the Zodiac.

Sun can be in Virgo and Moon in Pisces, at one moment, and Sun can be in Pisces and Moon in Leo. In another moment, not the following or previous day, of course.

The guy you rely on totally missed what the views before Heliocentrism on the things actually were.

53:01 They very well were knowing what to make of the planets in the Geocentric systems.

Some made inaccurate predictions, but Riccioli is no more inaccurate than Kepler.

53:08 "eventually they get so many things that challenge the system"

Geocentrism challenged? No. Ptolemaic geocentrism challenged. Yes, and Ptolemaic positions other than Geocentrism were never maintained against Galileo.