... when Cosmic Sceptic Tried to Debunk Ham

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

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

I 1:30

"Yours [your morals] are based on"

Let's enumerate and respond.

"absolute truths"

Yes, fortunately.

"in an ancient book"

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

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

Because it does?

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III 2:40

If Christianity were erased, it would prove Christianity wrong.

Matthew 28:16-20.

IV 2:53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V 3:40

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

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

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

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

This is from City of God, book XV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI 3:56

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

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

VII 4:08

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

At least not by carbon dating!

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

VIII 4:50

Billions of galaxies vs Flat Earth?

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

"Each galaxy" having billions of inhabitable planets?

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

So, that makes your initial estimate very moot.

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

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

17 077 326

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

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

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

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

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

IX

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

Well, there is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X 5:33

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

Eyes are not explainable by evolution.

X illustration

Eyes

X contd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not all that naive.

XI 5:56

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

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

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

XI illustration

Atheism in prison

XII 7:59

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

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

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