... in Defense (Mainly) of Ken Ham against (mainly) Rachel Oates

Creation for Kids: Ken Ham Doesn't Know What A Lightyear Is
Rachel Oates
Ajoutée le 5 sept. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Wifz04gcg

What I answer is not always quoted, please infer some. Or, even better, listen to the video.

I

Is God's Omnipotence an Explanation?

God is almighty is an answer to the first one.

No. It is not the equivalent.

The pharmaceutical company is not almighty and cannot make fish liver cure blindness.

The pharmaceutical company is also not all knowing and does not know in advance what will cure in time for instance cataract.

How matter was created? By God almighty deciding it was to be.

Where matter came from? From nowhere (or not even nowhere). That is what creation FROM NOTHING means.

Why God has this power in His word?

Because He is God Almighty.

That is what Almighty means.

Do you know what explanation means? It means explaining as far as you can explain. You cannot go on ad infinitum explaining one thing by another thing which also needs explanation which explanation also needs one and so on. Here is what one can term an ultimate explanation.

Why God is the only one who has that power?

Because everyone and everything else than God is created BY God.

Being an object and a result of omnipotence is not the same thing as being a subject and wielder of omnipotence.

The process is creation IMMEDIATELY obeying God's word, not via some intermediate process.

If an intermediate process were needed, we would not be speaking about God Almighty. God decides a thing and the immediate result is that it happens.

11:32 It is actually lazy thinking on your part to not get that God's omnipotence and on other occasions authority is used as what can be called an ULTIMATE explanation.

Consider you describe trees. You might mention that leaves come in green and later when getting dryer, in red, yellow and brown. But how do you describe what green is? You point to a green object.

If someone were to say "why is that object green?" and he is not asking why the letters G R EE N are used, but why that object is the concept, you have to say that pointing to a visible thing is an ultimate explanation of certain words of visible things.

And when Niels Boor says "space does not get any smaller than a quantum dimension" etc. he is also at least pretending to give an ultimate explanation to why space is what it is.

You may disagree with Omnipotence as right ultimate explanation. I may disagree with quantum dimension as right ultimate explanation for space. But I don't miss what Niels Boor is doing.

You seem to have been trained to miss what Christians are doing.

II

Pre-Flood Biology and were Adam's and Eve's children committing incest?

Second one. Eve saw Adam die and died of heartgrief, that is the original behind Aragorn and Arwen's death in Tolkien.

One child in every sixteen years would have been "crappy" if they had been as "obsessed" as people are now with the shorter lifespans.

In fact, due to a shorter span of the woman's fertility, one in every sixteen years is a recipy for NOT having a big family, for having two or three children.

Also, we do not need to think Jewish tradition is necessarily correct, but perhaps it is.

After all, when they lived that long, they were also less drawn to this sex thing than now.

Eve could start right away.

Arguably, if Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day after September 1 (as Byzantine tradition says), and March 25 was not the date of their creation, then March 25 was arguably the day when they were driven out, and Eve conceived Cain very right away after that.

No menopause, arguably, for pre-Flood people, though I don't claim to know that.

Perhaps they stopped when they were starting to get grandchildren to avoid confusion of age peers not being generation peers? No, not really, since they had Seth when they were 130 or 230 years.

If you really want the bioloogy of pre-Flood women, how about not losing an ovulum every month when not pregnant or getting pregnant?

Or how about more ovula remaining useful? I mean a woman at 50 probably has quite a few left, but no longer useful, I don't know.

And Adam and Eve were married BY God on day six.

Since God was there on familiar terms with them, they did not need a priest to get married.

Why God no longer says "hey you two"? Because:

• after Original Sin this is a situation prone to deceptions (devil has spoken to people thinking God spoke to them)
• we don't need it since now we have other people and priests.

Btw, on a desert island with no prospect of seeing a priest, a man and a woman may get married without a priest.

No, Adam and Eve were always faithful to each other.

Mating with direct offspring was ALWAYS incest.

Point is, with sister was NOT always that, since even in Abraham's time (see what chapter the quote is from) a man might marry his half sister without this being incest.

No, you are getting the Bible quotes wrong since you thought the quote about Abraham was about Adam, which it was not.

Incest was always a sin, but marrying a full sister was not incest in the generation after Adam and Eve.

And while the "needs of society" part is kind of right, this doesn't make morality a social construct, since God Himself provided new borders when needs radically changed.

Rachel Oates

"Épinglé par Rachel Oates"

Quick Update: Apparently people are saying the quote Ken Ham included about marrying your sister to support his Adam / Cain answer is actually about Abraham. Not sure why he'd include a quote that wasn't actually related to what he was talking about but seems he did - sorry I didn't double check it and just assumed Ken could be trusted.. I've learnt my lesson ;)

joelmgarton

"Not sure why he'd include a quote that wasn't actually related to what he was talking about" Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. It's because he is a lying piece of shit Christian who will say anything to support his position. You assumed Ken could be trusted? Are you taking the fucking piss? Christian 101: "Everything a Christian says to support their claims is bullshit"

On a personal note. You say, "When I was kid I used to read books about space and science and rocks and other geeky things, um, because I didn't have a life." Rachel do you realise that you were learning to understand life and truly appreciate it's beauty while other kids were having a "life" and remaining mentally stagnate. It took me a long time to understand that I didn't actually miss out on "life" but learned to embrace it.

Manu Mathew Kurien

It's not surprising that a guy named Ken "Ham" spouts "Baloney".

jokerswild00

(modifié)

8:45 "Again, Ken is stating facts but not showing us any proof."

The whole universe being created about 6000 years old is a claim, not a fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Not sure why he'd include a quote that wasn't actually related to what he was talking about but seems he did - sorry I didn't double check it and just assumed Ken could be trusted"

His point was like this:

• since it was still ok to marry your half sister in the time of Abraham (2000 - 3000 years after Adam, depending on what Bible text you use, Ken Ham goes by the shorter one)
• and since the sons of Adam and Eve had no one to marry except sisters until nieces were born
• therefore marrying sister and nieces was not incest for them.

" sorry I didn't double check it and just assumed Ken could be trusted"

His reference was to Genesis 22. Last mention of Adam is in Genesis 5. Genesis has 50 chapters and the Christian children (don't know about goats' kids, though?) would know and not get confused.

Christian children do come out geeky too in the preteens.

Jeffrey Coogan

(modifié)

+Rachel Oates (Kenham) The Aboriginal God of stupidity and insanity.

Gert Brink Nielsen

+Rachel Oates I think he CAN be trusted... to spew utter nonsense at every opportunity that is ;) but outside of this, probably not very much hehe.

Also, i found your channel just a few days ago, but so far i really like your videos; one that i DID see was the one where you responded to some of the negative commments that you've had, so i want to say this: don't let the negativity get under your skin! Youu are obviously an intelligent young woman, and attractive too (not meaning to be creepy, but there was a comment in the response video that focused on this)

Respect (and love) from Denmark :)
Keep up the good work!

Marilyn Newman

Don't be silly, Ken has to sell this creationist BS, otherwise he'd be that creepy old man following kids & asking them if they'd like to see his wiener. And you'd have to throw shit at him to get him to leave you alone.

Terry Shulky

+Marilyn Newman Years ago (1980s perhaps) Ken Ham appeared on a BBC programme with the presenter and three or four scientists. He came up with a typical brain-dead Ken Ham statement and was ignored by the others for the rest of the programme. It was priceless!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Marilyn Newman, did you care to look him up?

"Ham is married to Marilyn Ham; the couple have five children"

From wiki, which gives footnote 8, which links to his page on AiG:

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/ken-ham/

+Terry Shulky, BBC presenter perhaps was not very interested in objectivity between Ken Ham and the others.

What "brain-dead" statement was it?

Terry Shulky

+Hans-Georg Lundahl AFAIR [as far as I recall/remember] he said something like "The Flood happened and there was an Ark". Since there is no evidence for either what do you expect?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, the three or four scientists just ASSUMED:

• a) there is no evidence for either;
• b) Ken Ham doesn't pretend there is;
• c) therefore he is not really caring what comes out of his mouth?

Or could it be:

• a) we think there is no evidence for either;
• b) we know Ken Ham won't agree;
• c) therefore least challenging option for us is to ignore him?

Terry Shulky

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Two centuries ago the founders of the science of geology, in the main Christian men, could find no evidence for a global flood in recent times (4,000 or so yeas ago) and in fact, found evidence that the Earth was vastly older than anyone had imagined. Since then, nothing has changed with regard to those views.

BTW, how do you explain isostatic rebound in reference to a global flood?

Just in case you will start to dismiss radiometric dating, here is a treatise by an Evangelican Christian geologist explaining it:- http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Two centuries ago the founders of the science of geology, in the main Christian men, could find no evidence for a global flood in recent times (4,000 or so yeas ago)"

Geology was founded three centuries ago by Steno, who was not just Christian but a Flood geologist.

As to "recent" layers, that was Hutton's estimate.

"and in fact, found evidence that the Earth was vastly older than anyone had imagined."

At least Hutton found what he thought was evidence for that.

"BTW, how do you explain isostatic rebound in reference to a global flood?"

What is the exact problem?

"Just in case you will start to dismiss radiometric dating, here is a treatise by an Evangelican Christian geologist explaining it:"

Before reading HIS explanation, after the others I have read, how about my answering.

THEN you can tell me if there was sth in Wiens I had missed.

• 1) Potassium Argon is worthless, because you cannot rule out excess argon. It was invoked by those defending the method on Mount St Helen's.
• 2) U-Pb and Th-Pb are worthless, unless you can prove that ALL Pb of a certain isotope had come from decaying U, ALL Pb of another isotope from decaying Th.
• 3) Both methods involve halflives too long to effectively check, contrary to C14.
• 4) C14 can be relatively reliable, but flawed due to a build up which has been missed.

Need I look at Wiens?

AND, why didn't the four or three scientists try to bring this up?

Update

selecting comments involved with previous ones.

Brenda Rua

Hans, what is your point? I see no thesis, but only a bunch of statements.

Kevin Short

joelmgarton

"It's because he is a lying piece of shit Christian who will say anything to support his position. You assumed Ken could be trusted? Are you taking the fucking piss? Christian 101: "Everything a Christian says to support their claims is bullshit" "

A bit harsh, it's the Y E C that react to the truth and facts as if it were kryptonite , and willfully lie and deceive to support their demonstrable false world view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a) (modified)

Brenda Rua, Look again, I have quoted part after part of what Terry adressed to me and then adressed each part.

b)

Kevin Short, how about supporting your allegations a bit, instead of throwing out accusations galore against YEC?

Kevin Short

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"how about supporting your allegations a bit, instead of throwing out accusations galore against YEC?"

So you didn't watch the video that these comments are below then?

I don't need to specify the lies as every YEC video is bursting at the seams with them, just look at any Ken Ham, Hovind(s), Banana Man, Discovery/creation institue or indeed any YEC web site or youtube video to see the deceit, willful ignorance and just out right lies these people have to spout to support their DEMONSTRABLE FALSE world view :(

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(modified)

You didn't catch my responses to it?

Here is a post of mine including them all:

Link here:
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/09/in-defense-mainly-of-ken-ham-against.html

"to support their DEMONSTRABLE FALSE world view :("

How do you demonstrate its falsity? With Rachel's argument that God's omnipotence explains nothing, since it is not itself explained, which I already debunked by saying that an ultimate explanation neither admits nor needs any further one and we are precisely using God's omnipotence as one of the ultimate explanations about God's creation?

Kevin Short

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"How do you demonstrate its falsity?"

You are already dishonestly conflating yec and theism, what a surprise :(

God is conveniently an unfalsifiable concept.

HOWEVER YEC is extremely falsifiable as everything about it is demonstrably untrue!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you consider theism unfalsifiable, how do you falsify certain YEC claims like God needing no time to create?

Also, if you had watched the video, you would know that basics of theism are clearly the target of Rachel's first rant : she claims God's omnipotence is not an explanation, while I respond it is the ultimate explanation for anything other than God existing, and an ultimate explanation cannot be further explained.

"HOWEVER YEC is extremely falsifiable as everything about it is demonstrably untrue!!"

OK, I claim that Flood happened in 2957 BC and that Pharaonic Egypt didn't exist yet, hardly much before 2000 BC. If you say this is untrue, that won't surprise me. If you say this position is NOT a YEC one, that would be extremely surprising. Ergo, on your view, what I just claimed can be demonstrated as being false.

Now, proceed to demonstrate its falsity - if you can!

Kevin Short

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you actually know what YEC is or Theism?
Theism does not= YEC.
However YEC does = Theisum.

" Theism
NOUN
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe."

" Young-earth creationism
NOUN
The belief, arising from a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation , that the universe and living organisms were divinely created relatively recently and within a comparatively short period of time."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theism
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/young-earth_creationism

"basics of theism are clearly the target of Rachel's first rant "

I think you will find that Ken Ham's dishonesty is ultimately the core target of Rachel's and everybody elses problem with Ham, Hovind etc.., not their invisible friend.

"OK, I claim that Flood happened in 2957 BC and etc..."

Do you really?
Why choose a different date to the majority of Nuts , sorry I mean YEC?

"Now, proceed to demonstrate its falsity - if you can!"

Have You heard of this thing called the "burden of proof"?

"is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

And we can move on to :-

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

So as you provided ZERO evidence to support your claim, I have no need of evidence to dismiss it!!

But as i am not a dishonest creationist :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WbQkRx2_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0J5WMmykEs&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEfj3LLNSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRXNJvWkkoI

But I am lazy :)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Or we could just ask :-

Indus Valley Civilisation
Djer the third pharaoh of the First Dynasty of ancient Egypt
Minoan civilization
Jōmon Japan
etc..
Or the builders of Stonehenge why they failed to notice that they were under water!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30th_century_BC

Not to mention the ZERO geological evidence of a global flood.

Even though I have shown that there is no need to falsify your unsupported assertions, the evidence against your delusion is pretty damning.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

answered three times, a,b and c.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a

"I think you will find that Ken Ham's dishonesty is ultimately the core target of Rachel's and everybody elses problem with Ham, Hovind etc.., not their invisible friend."

That is your analysis.

Her actual words state that to her God's omnipotence is NOT an explanation.

Not "not the true" one, but not one at all.

That is not JUST contradicting Ken Ham, it is directly contradicting the basics of Theism.

Whether you consider God as speaking each thing into being in the exact sequence portrayed in Genesis 1 or as speaking the singularity before Big Bang into being, her problem remains exactly the same one. So, avoiding YEC won't avoid her problem.

Her first rant (out of three major ones, God's word, Cain's wife, distant starlight paradox, also known as Ken Ham doesn't know what a light year is, one I agreed with her on, which is why I am also Geocentric) was really and truly about the definition of omnipotence.

Supposing Newton's laws of motion, you can explain Boyle's gas laws in terms of Newton's laws of motion. But you cannot explain God's Omnipotence in Newton's laws of motion, more like NLoM - if correct - being explained in terms of God's Omnipotence wanting it so, at least for normal routine.

Her question was more like "why can't you explain Newton's laws of motion in terms of Boyle's gas law?"

BBIAM for the rest.

Kevin Short

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Her actual words state that to her God's omnipotence is NOT an explanation."

Explanations have explanatory power , god did it etc.. is just a cop out with Zero explanatory power.

Just like the therory of evolution has explanatory and predictive powers eg: vaccines . Creationism has Zero !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a

• 1) An ultimate explanation is an explanation which has explanatory power. It is what confers explanatory power on less ultimate and more intermediate explanations.
  
  And God did it is that ultimate explanation as much on the theory of Theistic Evolutionists as on a YEC view.
  
  Congratulations to missing same obvious point she did, you might get along very well together.
  
  
• 2) I do not see how Evolution as such either predicts or explains vaccines. Man evolving from amoeba or even tetrapod evolving from amphibian explains vaccines how?

Kevin Short

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• "1) An ultimate explanation is an explanation which has explanatory power. It is what confers explanatory power on less ultimate and more intermediate explanations."
  
  That's just a "word salad" .
  
  
• "2) I do not see how Evolution as such either predicts or explains vaccines. Man evolving from amoeba or even tetrapod evolving from amphibian explains vaccines how?"
  
  Because it's the "predictive power" as I said.
  
  How do you think the flu vaccine is developed each year? A lottery? tombola? ouija board? the bible? Ken Ham? No it developed using evolutionary biology!!

Try looking stuff up instead of getting into arguments over semantics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a

• 1) "That's just a "word salad" ."
  
  My condoleances, you weren't even taught reading comprehension, properly.
  
  
• 2) "Because it's the "predictive power" as I said."
  
  Precisely what I questioned.
  
  "How do you think the flu vaccine is developed each year? A lottery? tombola? ouija board? the bible? Ken Ham? No it developed using evolutionary biology!!"
  
  Biology does not equal the theory that amphibians became tetrapods and the proposition is highly irrelevant to developing flu vaccine. Prefixing "evolutionary" to the word biology won't fix that.

"Try looking stuff up instead of getting into arguments over semantics."

Try looking up semantics. It is also known as actually thinking.

Kevin Short

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Try looking up semantics. It is also known as actually thinking."

I did but you didn't or are being dishonest :(

"semantics
PLURAL NOUN
1.1 The meaning of a word, phrase, or text."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semantics

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a

Arf, arf, arf

No, actually, OD gives a very good clue.

What do you think the MEANING is of the word EXPLANATION?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

b

Back now, with the rest:

"Do you really?"

Yep.

"Why choose a different date to the majority of Nuts , sorry I mean YEC?"

Because I am Roman Catholic. I go with the date in Roman Martyrology for Christmas day.

"Have You heard of this thing called the "burden of proof"?"

Yes, since you first claimed each YEC claim is DEMONSTRABLY false, it is on you.

We are not first of all investigating my claim, we are investigating yours, and I gave mine as an example which you should DEMONSTRATE as false, to prove the claim you started out with.

As to my demonstration we may come back to that in a moment.

"So as you provided ZERO evidence to support your claim, I have no need of evidence to dismiss it!!"

The question was not whether you could dismiss my specific claim as not proven. The question was whether this partticular claim falls within the sphere of YOUR claim, that ALL YEC claims (including this one) are DEMONSTRABLY false.

Which puts the burden of proof on you. Fortunately, you are doing now some effort to live up to it. We'll see if it is sufficient.

"Indus Valley Civilisation"

Now, there is a little problem for you here. How do you prove that it belongs to one or other time period?

Carbon dating? Upthread you will find a little challenge about carbon dating. If you consider ALL the YEC claims (including this one and including the carbon challenge) DEMONSTRABLY false, you are now obliged to DEMONSTRATE carbon datings as correct. If so, dates like "v. 5000 av. J.-C. – 1900 av. J.-C." (courtesy of French wiki) would be decisive.

However, what if the carbon date 5000 BC some time between 2292 BC and 2259 BC, as one of my recalibration tables suggests?

2292 BC - > 70.441 pmc, + 2900 years over real age, 5192 BC is carbon dated.
2259 BC - > 73.509 pmc, + 2550 years, 4809 BC in carbon dates.

The 2550 years extra for an original level of 73.509 pmc correspond exactly to the 73.509 pmc you get now in items from 2550 years ago.

"Djer the third pharaoh of the First Dynasty of ancient Egypt"

This essay of mine (which links to the table I was using), puts beginning of First dynasty, carbon date c. 3200 BC, at - depending on table - between 2131 BC and 2093 BC, between 1883 BC and 1794 BC (in two tables), or after 1928 BC.

http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

Same principles as previously detailed.

"Minoan civilization"

Minoan Civilization Timeline gives a beginning 3,000 BCE Stone tombs on Crete. See here:

http://www.ancient.eu/timeline/Minoan_Civilization/

That would be a real for instance after 1928 BC.

"Jōmon Japan etc.."

This one is interesting. "de 15 000 jusqu'en 300 avant notre ère"

In my redating, 15 000 in carbon dates is in the space between Flood and Babel. This means that in beginning of Jomon era, just as in beginning of Nabta Playa (13 000 BC) Hebrew was spoken.

This involves a claim which you can falsify, potentially, but have not done so yet : early material from Jomon period Japan, like early material from Nabta Playa, will NOT involve any linguistic material which can be identified as non-Hebrew. It could be Hebrew with another script, like the 32 late palaeolithic symbols discussed by Genevieve von Petzinger, I suppose they could be analysed as Hebrew at least acronymic mnemonics. It could involve no linguistic material at all. But it will not involve linguistic material which can be tied to another language rather than to Hebrew.

"Or the builders of Stonehenge why they failed to notice that they were under water!"

Because 4000 BC and 3000 BC in carbon dates are no such thing in real time, it happened (especially the laying of the ground "8000 BC") after Babel event.

Your turn. DEMONSTRATE falsity of any either claim or supporting hypotheses I just made.

Oh, by the way, my evidence is the Biblical Flood story plus Biblical chronologic evidence. Indus valley has to be younger than 2957 BC. And in case you wonder why the Roman Liturgy is so far from Ussher's 2348 BC for Flood, it is because we are using another text.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

c

I missed one.

"Not to mention the ZERO geological evidence of a global flood. Even though I have shown that there is no need to falsify your unsupported assertions, the evidence against your delusion is pretty damning."

Fossils. Mostly Flood, esp. Marine, some few postflood.

Kevin Short

bc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Because I am Roman Catholic. "

And your representative of god on earth says evolution is real and the earth is old, so piss off you lier and waste someone elses time!!

So you didn't actually bother reading or looking at any of my links :(

Carbon dating is reliable when used correctly and is only one method of dating used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udkQwW6aLik

"Oh, by the way, my evidence is the Biblical Flood story plus Biblical chronologic evidence"

I think this is over if you think a book of unknown origin is evidence of anything other than said book exists .

"Fossils. Mostly Flood, esp. Marine, some few postflood."

There is zero evidence of a global flood , I studied geology at college and flood deposits are easy to spot by their sorting, which doesn't exist in marine deposits etc...

Same goes for fossils.

Go educate yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

bc

"And your representative of god on earth says evolution is real and the earth is old, so piss off you lier and waste someone elses time!!"

Quick to judge, heh ... I didn't say I was a Bergoglian Roman Catholic or a Novus Ordo Roman Catholic. I consider "Pope Francis" to be a fraudn because he does not have the faith of the Church (and was therefore not eligible to papacy).

Supposing I considered him "for real" (as once I did with Antipope Wojtyla, a k a "John Paul II" or by now, due to Bergoglio, as "Saint John Paul II", I'd still not say the level of his expressing that view matches much more solemn magisterial definitions like the definitions of the council of Trent which ties down Bible exegesis to Church Fathers.

Wojtyla and Bergoglio were both reading every Christmas the words "years 2957 after the Flood of Noah" and I don't accept the newspeak of 1994 in which that changed.

"So you didn't actually bother reading or looking at any of my links :("

I have a real time work keeping up with what you say for yourself.

"Carbon dating is reliable when used correctly and is only one method of dating used."

• 1) It is the one which is most relevant for dates like 3000 BC
• 2) My contention is that Uniformitarians, Evolutionists, Old Earthers, including the guy who made the video you linked to, are actually using the method less correctly than my amateur recalibration, even if they are "professionals". They are arguing from the wrong premisses and get to wrong conclusions.

"I think this is over if you think a book of unknown origin is evidence of anything other than said book exists"

The origin of the Bible is very far from unknown.

Every part of Genesis except chapter 1 was available to Moses because of human participants, and chapter 1 was revealed to him.

In other words, the details about Flood and also about how long each patriarch lived and how old he was when seeing relevant son born (though that one was garbled in some versions after Moses) was known to him as regular history, transmitted from the people concerned.

Precisely as we know about Ghettysburg because people who were there have written about it for posterity.

"There is zero evidence of a global flood , I studied geology at college and flood deposits are easy to spot by their sorting, which doesn't exist in marine deposits etc... Same goes for fossils."

OK, you tell me where the difference is ...

Update

13.IX.2017

Pat Doyle

+Rachel Oates
You make me wish I was 30 years younger and British. But, I am not, so I guess the videos will have to do :-)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pat, did you see her finger? There is a ring and she is taken.

From then on

debate divides into two on i Genesis and ij Divine Omnipotence.

i

Genesis

Kevin Short

Genesis

"Every part of Genesis except chapter 1 was available to Moses because of human participants, and chapter 1 was revealed to him."

Prove moses existed!!
You are a presuppositionalist which is a deeply dishonest stance of forcing "facts" into your presupposed conclusion :(

"1) It is the one which is most relevant for dates like 3000 BC"

No that would be dendrochronology (if available)

"2) My contention is that Uniformitarians, Evolutionists, Old Earthers, including the guy who made the video you linked to, are actually using the method less correctly than my amateur recalibration, even if they are "professionals". They are arguing from the wrong premisses and get to wrong conclusions."

Well write a paper, get your evidence together, submit it for peer review and collect your Nobel prize then!!

Oh wait, you don't have any evidence do you? you just pulled it out your arse:(

"In other words, the details about Flood and also about how long each patriarch lived and how old he was when seeing relevant son born (though that one was garbled in some versions after Moses) was known to him as regular history, transmitted from the people concerned."

Which has a tenuous at best link to reality , and pretty much zero evidence to support any of it ever happened.

So what you are saying is " the bible is proof of the bible being correct".. ummmm... just think about that for a minute.

Also ponder on the irony of your "science denying" stance being debated on the internet, using technology all developed using the scientific method and peer review !!

Look up the argument from personal incredulity/divinity , bet you won't as that would involve you learning something real.

"OK, you tell me where the difference is .."

So you don't know but are claiming it to be a flood deposit anyway?
How "christian" of you :(

"OK, you tell me where the difference is ..."

"show vertical size-graded stratification"
https://www.britannica.com/science/floodplain

[After answering this comment, I looked it up, and alluvial plains is grossly irrelevant for main conditions during the Global Flood!]

And marine deposits vary on environment but will include "wave makings" and or large amounts of calcium carbonate from plankton etc..and have the reverse sorting (in shallow water).
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/ks3/gsl/education/resources/rockcycle/page3608.html

Sorry the sources are crap but the internet is awash with creationist flood geology bollocks making it hard to find you a good link, and I am not sending you my books.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

answered above Q on Genesis, two parts, a and b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis, a

"Prove moses existed!!"

Hebrew tradition has it he did. Before concluding he's a composite figure I'd need a good reason to do so like a theological one (I take it Deucalion and Pyrrha is a composite of Noah's and Abraham's and Lot's family situations)

"You are a presuppositionalist which is a deeply dishonest stance of forcing "facts" into your presupposed conclusion :("

Stating historically known facts is not "presuppositionalism" even if you are misusing the word.

"No that would be dendrochronology (if available)"

Dendro faces some bottlenecks between then and us, meaning this partly relies on C14 as well for older series.

Also, dendro is actually scarcer and less reliable for "3000 BC" than for 1400 AD (an Amerindian village in AZ which was used as test case).

[Note, in the following, this argument was not answered.]

"Well write a paper, get your evidence together, submit it for peer review and collect your Nobel prize then!!"

Writing has already been done.

Here I am for instance proposing the better way of using C14 on Babel event (identified with Göbekli Tepe) and you are free to peer review it in comments:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html

[Note for the following, neither Kevin nor Pat adressed it in comments on blog, in this thread Kevin did not adress it, and Pat gave a dismissal without any argument.]

BBL, library closing time! [hence division]

Kevin Short

Genesis, a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Please explain how "Hebrew tradition has it he did." is an answer to "Prove moses existed!!"

Asking for proof is probably a bit unfair, how about some evidence?

"evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"stating historically known facts is not "presuppositionalism" even if you are misusing the word."

They are not historical or facts, you are presupposing it is true and looking around for evidence to feed your confirmation bias.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis, a

"Asking for proof is probably a bit unfair, how about some evidence?"

Now, do you know what evidence history usually provides? See your quote:

"evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method"

And the source was SCIENTIFIC evidence.

For some reason, there is no article on HISTORIC evidence.

This means that you consulted a work which has no relevant article and picked an article which is not relevant.

So, no, you do NOT know what evidence to expect for a historic fact.

And if you had some sense, you might perhaps realise at least vaguely it is not the same kind of evidence that science provides.

Science provides the evidence of physical repeatable observation. You cannot physically observe the past (whether you could observe the four years past from alpha Centauri is another matter, but on earth you cannot physically observe the past). You cannot repeat an unique event of the past. So, you cannot have SCIENTIFIC evidence for past events.

Now, the evidence which history DOES provide is:

• tradition
• tradition not contradicted by other tradition (details of Deucalion and Pyrrha are for instance weakened by contrary details in Atrahasis or in the Bible - I have a special reason why contrary details in Deucalion and Pyrrha do not weaken Bible, namely, they are near identic to certain details of other stories, and Deucalion is therefore a composite of Noah, Abraham and Lot)
• tradition confirmed by other tradition (Waterloo is confirmed by French, English, Prussian tradition, while relative merits of Blücher or Wellington are disputed between Prussian and English ones).

So, the prime evidence we have for ANY historic event is tradition. That kind of evidence I precisely gave.

Kevin Short

Genesis, a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So, the prime evidence we have for ANY historic event is tradition."

No it isn't!!!!

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

The prime evidence we have for ANY historic event is and independent, contemporary, third party account, preferably from a "known" source!!!

Stop being lazy and intellectually dishonest and do your research!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis, a

"ANY historic event is and independent, contemporary, third party account, preferably from a "known" source!!!"

That was what I mentioned as point two or three.

• 1) Tradition
• 2) Tradition not contradicted by other Tradition
• 3) Tradition confirmed by Tradition

And by tradition, I also mean the sources are known by tradition.

For instance, why is Lord of the Rings NOT good evidence for there having been a Third Age at the end of which Sauron was defeated?

We know by tradition that the books is a novel, not history.

If we can't trust the tradition we have from publishers like Rainer and Unwin, we can't know Tolkien wrote it and we can't know it is a novel.

"Stop being lazy and intellectually dishonest and do your research!"

How about YOU stopping to think you master history, clearly not your subject, just by looking up an article in wikipedia?

You fail for instance to grasp difference between prime evidence (the type which is most decisive) in my terms and best evidence (the quality of this prime evidence) in the terms of wikipedia.

Independent confirmation is a good addition to tradition - but it comes from another ... tradition.

The confirmation being contemporary to events is great ... but we know the source and hence contemporaneity from ... tradition.

The confirmation coming from third party is a good addition, like in addition to France, England, Prussia, we might want to know how Naples or Sweden reacted to Waterloo. If China had done so, it would have been even better, since Naples was anti-Napoleon and Sweden shifted sides for and against him. As far as I know, we have no account from China about Waterloo. But if we had had it ... we would have known from Chinese tradition it had been stated just after Napoleon was defeated.

And, as I hammered through each criterium you added : sources being known are known from precisely tradition. Not from a time machine.

Kevin Short

Genesis, a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Tradition
NOUN
The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tradition

A tradition is not evidence .

It's a tradition that "Devil's Dyke" was dug by the Devil to flood the churches in the Sussex weald.
But that doesn't make it true, in fact it's demonstrably untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Dyke,_Sussex

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis, a

OR the fact of being passed on this way. Also "from generation to generation" is too narrow.

Also, customs and beliefs is too narrow unless involving true beliefs, a k a facts.

If Devil's Dyke tradition is "demonstrably untrue", that demonstration would be from other tradition, like a written one on it existing before purported event.

Otherwise, I'll have to believe that tradition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis b, see above

"Which has a tenuous at best link to reality , and pretty much zero evidence to support any of it ever happened."

Zero scientific evidence, as with most other historic facts. OK, a generality like "wars happen" is repeatable and can be observed in the present too. So is a generality like "miracles happen".

But you can not have any scientific evidence for a specific war or a specific miracle in the past. Even if you had a well dated obvious battle field, you would not have scientific evidence of the historically known outcome. Supposing the bones at Waterloo were still in the ground (I think they were digged up to be used as fertiliser, by some capitalist of the 19th C), they could not scientifically prove that Napoleon lost the battle.

And as for "tenuous at best link to reality", you are claiming the link is tenuous, you show why it is so ... oh ... wait ... you were not going to say it was not scientific evidence, were you?

Because that would show you have not just a tenuous but a near non-existant link to historic reality and the reality of on what grounds history is known.

"So what you are saying is " the bible is proof of the bible being correct".. ummmm... just think about that for a minute."

I never said that. You seem to belong to a school of thought which has a prejudice about this being the fundamentalist view.

I do say pretty often that this or that part of the Bible being traditionally taken as true by one community is prima facie evidence it is true. And the evidenced miracles are from there sufficient to warrant divine belief. The alternative to Christianity being true is not a simple error, but something very near impossible as conspiracy theories go. Much less possible than Moon landings being faked by NASA, for instance.

"Also ponder on the irony of your "science denying" stance ..."

HOLD IT. I never "denied science". I deny some things which YOU call science, but I don't call science, but I call pseudoscience.

"being debated on the internet, using technology all developed using the scientific method and peer review !!"

The irony is you are the umpteen thousandth person ... no, seriously, you are the second person who says that in less than a week, in my own experience, though you are no doubt the umpteen thousandth person saying so to a Christian.

The real irony is we have answered this strawman over and over again, and some people who claim to be using "scientific method" seem to have no qualms repeating the strawman over and over again.

"Look up the argument from personal incredulity/divinity , bet you won't as that would involve you learning something real."

Your ever repeated airs of "educating" me are tiresome. I answer arguments, which is presumably polite since you made them. I also inform you of ONE item of education you had missed, because you showed in a very obvious fashion you had missed it. I did not state at every turn and comment that you needed to educate yourself, as you seem to be doing with me.

In other words, you are perhaps already aware of the fact you might look up "ad hominem" somewhere?

"So you don't know but are claiming it to be a flood deposit anyway?"

I don't know what difference you are thinking of in advance, I am not a thought reader.

I asked because I have a suspicion, and I'll state it: I suspect you are considering deposits from local floods like two meters deep here or three meters deep there, like we see these days.

Let me give you a little hint : those events are NOT fullscale parallels to the Flood of Noah, and deposits from the Flood of Noah can not be totally on all issues checked if they fit the description "Flood deposits" as you define it from that kind of background.

// "show vertical size-graded stratification"
https://www.britannica.com/science/floodplain //

That would be the kind of event making one layer of size graded deposits of which the Flood of Noah presumably had more than one.

// And marine deposits vary on environment but will include "wave makings" and or large amounts of calcium carbonate from plankton etc..and have the reverse sorting (in shallow water). //

Nice. We find those too in some parts of the Flood deposits, don't we?

While Flood was not overall shallow waters, there were events in it which were.

"Sorry the sources are crap but the internet is awash with creationist flood geology bollocks making it hard to find you a good link, and I am not sending you my books."

How about scanning relevant pages and publishing on a blog post?

How about copies sent to my adress:

Hans Georg Lundahl
ESI St Martin
27 Bd de St Martin
75003 Paris / FRANCE

Kevin Short

Genesis b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Your ever repeated airs of "educating" me are tiresome"

And your willful ignorance/ dishonesty is also extremely tiresome.

If you bothered to educate yourself (ie: look things up you don't understand instead of guessing) most of your questions would be answered. But you won't, because they contradict your presuppositional position and do not feed your confirmation bias.

"HOLD IT. I never "denied science". I deny some things which YOU call science, but I don't call science, but I call pseudoscience."

Yes you did!!
your claim of a global flood for example

It doesn't matter what you or I call "science" it matters what the scientific community at large call science and that it is demonstrable.

Your version is neither, and just making an assertion does not make it true. You require evidence for that. Of which you have none.

Claiming there was a global flood is "denying the scientific evidence" which unequivocally says there wasn't!

All science works on the EXACT SAME scientific method and is checked via peer review.

We know it works because we are having this debate on technology developed using it, so why is it suddenly not reliable when it contradicts your world view?

"How about copies sent to my adress:"

How about you buying your own and doing your own education?

It's also not very clever to post your address on the internet, please delete it .

Hans Georg Lundahl

Genesis b

"And your willful ignorance/ dishonesty is also extremely tiresome."

That is an admission you are not debating with me, but just expressing disgust. That means you can get off this thread if you like. I prefer someone with manners.

"If you bothered to educate yourself"

You are guessing about my state of education, while the one thing you do know is my educational background is not identic to yours. This does NOT equal, even if you think so, lack of education, and your thinking so shows extreme bias of a cultural chauvinistic type.

"(ie: look things up you don't understand instead of guessing)"

You are also guessing I don't understand certain things - because I don't understand them the way you do.

When I am not knowing a fact which can be known, I do look it up.

But your ideology about what method to use is NOT a fact to be looked up, it is a cultural bias.

"most of your questions would be answered."

Much of what I asked, when doing so, was directed at getting your arguments, so I could answer them.

Probably, many of my actual ANSWERS were also misinterpreted as QUESTIONS in that process.

"But you won't, because they contradict your presuppositional position and do not feed your confirmation bias."

Rudeness instead of arguing your point, again. Look, if your professor could get away with saying so to a Christian student in his university, does not mean you are free to do so in a debate, where you hold no superiority over me.

"Yes you did!! your claim of a global flood for example"

Precisely, I deny the things you consider as scientific arguments against it, but that is not denying science.

"It doesn't matter what you or I call "science" it matters what the scientific community at large call science and that it is demonstrable."

Sorry, but defining what is and what isn't science by "the scientific community at large" is not scientific.

And your argument is not a scientific argument, but it is a refusal (most of it) to argue scientifically and a plaidoyer for dismissing me before arguing.

"Your version is neither, and just making an assertion does not make it true. You require evidence for that. Of which you have none."

Except the one which you misuse for "geological column". Except the one which is historical which you have shown you don't understand. Oh, apart from that, I don't claim to have other types of evidence.

"Claiming there was a global flood is "denying the scientific evidence" which unequivocally says there wasn't!"

No, the evidence (the actual rocks and fossils and skeleta) can be interpreted and have been interpreted in ways perfectly compatible with the Flood. Your claiming unequivocally does not mean you refute one single creationist theory, it means you refuse to look at them.

"All science works on the EXACT SAME scientific method and is checked via peer review."

If you actually understood science, you would know very well different sciences require different types of evidence and therefore different scientific methods.

Red tape of where you publish what seems to be what you can narrow "exact same way" down to. I am not surprised Nature and Science don't publish creationist articles, they are biassed.

So, you were once again chauvinistically expressing a cultural bias.

"We know it works because we are having this debate on technology developed using it, so why is it suddenly not reliable when it contradicts your world view?"

Your assurance constructing a computer and constructing a C14 chronology is using exact same method does not make it so.

Also, I am constructing C14 chronologies with exact same methods that you use for calibration, just using different data for what qualifies as a legitimate calibration away from the raw carbon date. Why is my use of the exact same method suddenly unacceptable?

Cultural bias, again.

"How about you buying your own and doing your own education?"

Contrary to your cultural bias, the one who is not exactly the product of your own exact education is not uneducated and is not up to "doing his edication".

I was challenging you for good details from a book. I was not volunteering to read all of the book.

"It's also not very clever to post your address on the internet, please delete it ."

Look here, I don't need YOUR lessons about MY life.

I volunteered to argue about matters, not to call you my master or my lord or my professor or whatever.

If I want to publish an adress to which you can send thing, I am entitled to do so, and you are not entitled to saying "please delete it". I won't.

If you are concerned it could be my home adress, it is not. ESI St Martin is a place where homeless can get their mail and a cup of coffee. There are hardly any people to rob there.

[See update.]

ij

Omnipotence

Pat Doyle

Omnipotence

+ Hans-Georg Lundahl
Uh... nonsense much? Your link was bafflingly stupid, but let's put that aside.* MAGIC (i.e. omnipotence) can account for ANYTHING and can explain nothing. You have no "ultimate explanation" you have an ultimate answer that you cannot back up. Anyone can CLAIM anything! I can tell you that objects fall because pixies push masses together. That explains nothing and cannot be called an "explanation" - only an answer, and a stupid one unless I have evidence that the gravity pixies exist. Yes, if there were an omnipotent god, it could do anything and be the reason for everything - so what? That is no reason to think it is real.

I agree - you either believe in magic or you don't. If you DO - anything is possible, and any magical "explanation" for observed facts works. Funny thing though - this god needed six days - not "no time". But if it were omnipotent, it should have needed no time. But instead, it needed six days and then had to rest. Doesn't sound terribly omnipotent to me.

* [In other words, as said, he refuses to argue about my actual arguments./HGL]

Kevin Short

Omnipotence

Pat Doyle

I am "tagging" you, so you can take over dealing with the brick wall of ignorance known as Hans-Georg Lundahl :)

Pat Doyle

"Doesn't sound terribly omnipotent to me"

And don't forget God is scared of people with iron chariots too :)

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Judges 1:19



Oh no! I made the whole universe but I can't defeat an Iron chariot :( ..... FAIL!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Omnipotence

@ Pat :

"MAGIC (i.e. omnipotence) can account for ANYTHING and can explain nothing."

If you prefer using magic instead of divine omnipotence, it seems CSLewis humoured you in one chapter of The Magician's Nephew - after showing that what is usually referred to as magic is NOT divine omnipotence.

I'd like to see the difference between "account for" and "explain".

"You have no "ultimate explanation" you have an ultimate answer that you cannot back up."

The ultimate explanation can indeed hardly be further explained. It can however be proven from both the universe including things like mind and from events like miracles.

The ultimate proof - i e senses, logic - can in its turn not be further proven, but on terms of God being mind before being omnipotence in relation to creation, it can be explained.

Your "back up" is a rubber term neither being precise about whether you mean "prove" nor that instead you mean "explain". Like the faux diagnosis of "circular argument" when "argument" is used interchangeably for explain and for prove. Also a classic on your side.

"Anyone can CLAIM anything!"

Yes, but some claims can make sense of the rest of the world as we know it.

"I can tell you that objects fall because pixies push masses together."

On Shinto terms, you would probably be applauded. On Christian terms, less so, since we can say God is doing that and leaving more local and less uniform events to pixies (angels, demons, possibly "other pixies" in between).

"That explains nothing and cannot be called an "explanation" - only an answer, and a stupid one unless I have evidence that the gravity pixies exist."

If you can argue it is a good answer (a k a a good explanation) for gravity, then you have just given evidence of them existing.

As I am no Shinto, I'm leaving gravity to "creative act of God" or "mechanism set in place from moment one" - by divine omnipotence.

"Yes, if there were an omnipotent god, it could do anything and be the reason for everything - so what?"

Thank you, you have just shown some better sense than the words of Rachel.

"That is no reason to think it is real."

If all alternative explanations fail to account for something, it is.

Materialism, for instance, cannot account for mind. Most versions of it cannot account for miracles either. We know we have a mind, because we know we are thinking. We have excellent historic evidence miracles have happened.

Like true predictions, what about the prophecy of St Malachy:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/09/prophecy-of-st-malachy-against-tektontv.html

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/09/prophecy-of-st-malachy-etc-part-ii.html

Sixteen [recent] popes [and antipopes] predicted in significant details at least as early [in advance] as 1590.

"If you DO - anything is possible, and any magical "explanation" for observed facts works."

No. If you accept there is ONE omnipotent God, there are some magical explanations which will not work.

For instance, you cannot say Satan created matter and trapped angels into human misierable existences by the trap of procreation, if you consider that the God Satan rebelled against is omnipotent. That is one magical explanation which will not work. You cannot be both a Christian and an Albigensian.

I suppose you really meant, if you accept miracles at all, you don't know in advance which magical explanation you'll end up with. Fair enough, if that is what you meant. But the sentiment is less "scientific investigation" than for instance horror for heresy. The funny thing about it is, or it is really sad, materialism is also a heresy.

"Funny thing though - this god needed six days - not "no time"."

For the initial creation event, at which angels and matter were both created, God needed no time.

For the sequel up to creation of man, God took time so angels could watch.

After man was created, God took a day of rest, to set a good example for us.

"Doesn't sound terribly omnipotent to me."

As if God being omnipotent meant God had to prove omnipotence to Himself at every moment ... er, what if He is not "omnipotence" as a "natural force", but an intelligent omnipotence capable of withholding some things He could do, for the sake of the good of His creatures, especially intelligent ones, like angels and men?

[@ Kevin:]

[19] And the Lord was with Juda, and he possessed the hill country: but was not able to destroy the inhabitants of the valley, because they had many chariots armed with scythes.

[19] "Was not able": Through a cowardly fear of their chariots armed with hooks and scythes, and for want of confidence in God.

In other words, the one afraid of iron chariots is the collective Juda, not the person God (or rather three-person God).

http://drbo.org/chapter/07001.htm

I already said sth about your showing lack of reading comprehension. And it was not impolite, it was in response to a very rude remark of yours.

Diversion

michel G

Rachel Oates who is this guy? Is he writing from a padded cell?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

michel G

I haven't actually presented myself to her, so she couldn't tell.

I don't think padded cells are over rich in computers, unless some would say some librarians could conspire to make a library a virtual padded cell.

I am homeless and I am writing from a library where I have a library card (I also have an adress for snail mail).

Later

same day:

Pat Doyle

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is a fact that many (perhaps most) traditions are verifiably untrue. Therefore, tradition by itself is demonstrably an unreliable source.

Kevin Short

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If I want to publish an adress to which you can send thing, I am entitled to do so, and you are not entitled to saying "please delete it". I won't."

I am trying to protect/help you, if you want to be a victim of identity fraud or stalked by an internet nutter keep it there.

"If you are concerned it could be my home adress"

That's exactly what I am worried about.

"Look here, I don't need YOUR lessons about MY life."

So you have an ego problem :(
That explains your inability to admit when you are wrong .

I suppose it's better than it being because of religious "brainwashing"?

b

Pat Doyle

No they are all true unless there is another contradictory tradition I like better :(

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It is a fact that many (perhaps most) traditions are verifiably untrue. Therefore, tradition by itself is demonstrably an unreliable source."

Nice syllogism.

But let us break it down a bit.

"It is a fact that many ... traditions are verifiably untrue."

Yes, on details. And usually found out as such by other tradition which is found more reliable.

"Therefore, tradition by itself is demonstrably an unreliable source."

It is the most reliable source you get for history.

It is THE source you get for history.

In fact, unless you did an experiment in science yourself, you are even relying on tradition in science.

Not 100 % reliable does not equal less reliable than alternatives and therefore dispensable.

"(perhaps most)"

Your prejudice. Not mine. Care to back it up?

Kevin Short

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Non sequitur"

You know what one is, so why do you keep using them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I am trying to protect/help you, if you want to be a victim of identity fraud or stalked by an internet nutter keep it there."

With an adress at Salvation Army, identity fraud is unlikely and I am the "internet nutter" they warn you about.

"That's exactly what I am worried about."

Salvation Army's not my home. I go there less than once a week, for coffee and mail.

"So you have an ego problem :( That explains your inability to admit when you are wrong ."

You seem to have a shrink syndrome. That explains your Bulverism : explaining why people are wrong before proving they actually are so.

"I suppose it's better than it being because of religious "brainwashing"?"

If I've been exposed to ANY religious brainwashing, it is from the kind of view that you represent.

It is only, it has not worked.

"You know what one is, so why do you keep using them?"

Name one non sequitur I am guilty of ...

Kevin Short

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"With an adress at Salvation Army, identity fraud is unlikely"

And how was I supposed to know that?
You could just have said " thank you for your concern but it's only a mail address not where I live".
But you had a rant instead :(

"Name one non sequitur I am guilty of ...

Your "tradition " bollocks for a start!!

[conflating two]

"Nice syllogism"

You don't understand syllogisms either :(

http://www.literarydevices.com/syllogism/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You could just have said " thank you for your concern but it's only a mail address not where I live". But you had a rant instead :("

Two reasons I remain homeless while being a writer:

• people who won't read someone who rants once in a while
• people who try to help and protect me against unlikely frauds

So, you might show some patience at my impatience.

"Your "tradition " bollocks for a start!!"

OK, you think it is bollocks, but how about naming one non-recent historic fact which does not rely on tradition - or even a recent one, except the ones you saw yourself or saw footages of?

"You don't understand syllogisms either :("

You look up syllogisms in "literary devices", I look the types up in manuals of logic.

Speaking of "you could just", how about you could just have presumed I know my own business better than you do?

III

9:17 I'll have to agree on that one.

My solution is, no stars are really further awat than one light day (or two light days, or three and a half light years).

This is possible if the phenomenon detected by Bessel in 1838 is NOT parallactic.

http://geocentric.wikia.com/wiki/Geocentric_Wikia

Actually, he has some ways of getting around your conclusion. Like "light goes at different rates here and there, it took millions of years out there but that is just thousands here" or " light travelled faster so a light year is the distance it takes now, light speed has slowed down" and some more like that.

I don't believe that, I really prefer taking the light year thing out by the roots and saying the famous 0.76 arc seconds of alpha Centauri are NOT parallax. Earth is not moving, alpha Centauri is.

Oh, he takes the Omphalos hypothesis.

Thoughtless. There are novas which mean events, not just shapes of stars.

I think I'll have to explain this one.

Back when reading From Nothing to Nature, at 12, I did agree with "starlight created in transit" thesis, like he does.

Suppose starlight only involved showing us static objects, it would work : while alpha Centauri was 4 might years away from us, then as now, God created star light beams to earth for the four years in advance. And so on, to the furthest stars.

If however starlight also shows us events, it won't work to make God create starlight for events in advance of them happening, like supernovas a million years old which would have taken place well before creation.

SO, the main thrust must either be to use a kind of exotic Einsteinian physics (yes, it takes these light beams millions of years out there, but since time goes slower here, it is only 6000 years here), or say light used to be very much faster (near infinite at the start) or say there are wormholes (white holes related to black holes) that channel starlight much of the way at NO time, or, as I do, simply deny the distances, which at its easiest involves ... geocentrism.

That is why his using "omphalos" hypothesis seems a bit thoughtless to me.

IV

Two more volumes? What if some other "kid" already asked what you asked and got an answer in volume two or three?

Btw, I don't think there are kids writing this either. I believe there are human children writing this, not goat kids.

V

Tran Nguyen

I [...] don't understand our American society : If an educator who teaching wrong the simple math to the kids, he or she will be fired and lost their license for teaching but idiot Ken Ham explains the science to the kids with no sense. Nobody or any enforce authorities to stop his agenda. Irony, It's the freedom of religion.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Has it occurred to you that whether what Ken Ham is teaching is right or wrong, it is certainly NOT a matter of simply maths to say it is wrong.

It is a matter of conclusions - on which people DO differ, including people with very high scientific backrground.

Also, Ken Ham is not teaching mathematics in a public school, he is promoting a position in a polemic debate. There is no public school board who can fire a man who is not hired by a public school board in the first place.

Trying to stop him is equivalent to stopping free speech. Some Communists might want to do that.

I don't, even though as a Catholic I don't believe absolute free speech is an inherent right : at present, the wrong things would be stopped, like Ken Ham's defense of Genesis (mostly good, though I agree with Rachel he was lame on light years), due to excited people like you, eager to silence what you don't want to hear, despite your having no competence in theology to do so.

Hugo Marien

If America gets an education level matching Europ or E. Asia fenomenon like Ham disapear automaticly

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, I admit France is so underdeveloped on Creation Evolution debate, that if US gets a level as low as France here, Ken Ham could be in as much trouble as I am.

Hugo Marien

We don't need Creation Evolution debate because the only creationists we have are 1st generation Muslims

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know where that is, but too bad + your culture is both acerbating unnecessarily relations between Muslims and Christians and perhaps driving some seekers into the Muslim camp, both of which are fairly bad results.

12:25

Look, I wonder why you are suddenly an expert on what is harmful to other people's children?

Rachel Oates

Damn. Sorry for caring about people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Caring is one thing, pretending to know best and also raising hysteria is sth else.

sabbur15

Lying to children about reality is harmful. I assume you "pretend to know" that child rape is harmful? Well, other people "know" that distorting reality is also bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

a)

I agree on that one. Who is doing so?

Pretending to know the other guys are not just wrong but actually twisting reality is certainly pretending to know best, arguably even raising hysteria.

b)

Rachel Oates, I just noticed yesterday you are 24.

Why are you looking at Ken Ham's answers to children rather than at his stuff for adults?

Answers in Genesis is open online with a few articles by him and by others too.

And RATE project has edited a whole very technical book about radioactive dating methods.

If you want to refute Creationism on any point, why not look at that?