Answering 3 videos by Emma Thorne (Creationism and Virgin Birth)

Night at the Creation Museum is Brilliantly Terrible
Emma Thorne | 12 Febr. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iabDhoU6v8

4:13 Hairband - no.

Can it be he is often wearing a hat squeezing that precise line? And it remains squeezed after it's off?

6:48 I think the points of the timelines are:

a) giving a division of time into equal pieces since THE beginning according to each system
b) make the point that where certain things fit (near beginning, near very end, for humans, specifically) differs very radically.

9:51 "because no Christian has ever been racist"

Did Christianity start with racism? Did evolution?

No. Yes.

I might add, from Darwin on, Racist Christians were more and more prone to motivate racism with his theories.

[in the following, the comments by Michael Williams have been deleted.]

Michael Williams

Evolutionary theory is not racist, at all. White evangelicals though are almost all racist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Williams "Evolutionary theory is not racist, at all."

Any more ... it is however even now definitely ablist and productive of fake diagnoses by which people are fakely stamped as disabled, for instance mentally.

Even so, the promotion of it started out very heavily in connexion with racism.

"White evangelicals though are almost all racist."

How many of them do you know?

If Jonathan Sarfati, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind all denounce racism, are you hinting at hypocrisy on their part or on smaller players being more representative?

Either way, examples would be better than allegations. If Sarfati's distance taking from racism was hypocritical, give an example of how he really is racist, despite claiming the contrary.

And if you hinted at second tier white evangelicals being more racist, how about naming 10, at least known from blogs or vlogs, so I can check, and tell me how they are racist?

Michael Williams

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You are asking me to provide examples about racist white evangelicals that are readily available by the tens of thousands with a simple Google search. Meanwhile you continue to make absurd LIES about evolution being racist with no evidence. I suspect that you, like most Christians, have such screwed up morality that you cannot tell the difference between lies and facts. I wish you peace. Bye. 😘

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Williams "readily available by the tens of thousands with a simple Google search"

Why didn't you provide ten good hits?

How can you check that the tens of thousands are not in a vast majority of cases baseless allegations about white evangelicals being racist?

"I suspect that you, like most Christians, have such screwed up morality that you cannot tell the difference between lies and facts."

While this was not specifically about my race, it was clearly a fairly harsh prejudice based on my belonging to a group ... and I don't mean a certain profession, since professions actually do form or disform people.

[the following deleted, as well as the comments by Michael Williams.]

@Michael Williams Google:
"evangelical white protestants racist"

Hit one - American Christianity’s White-Supremacy Problem, History, theology, and culture all contribute to the racist attitudes embedded in the white church. By Michael Luo, September 2, 2020
So, Michael Luo is not a white protestant evangalical who is being racist, he is a something else, saying they are racist.
Hit two - Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.
July 28, 2020, 2:15 AM CEST By Robert P. Jones, author of "White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity"

Curiously, same observation. Curiously also from 2020.

And, this one is not saying anything specifically about evangelicals, rather "For most of American history, the light-skinned Jesus conjured up by white congregations demanded the preservation of inequality as part of the divine order."

This statement is clearly:

• NOT specifically about evangelicals (especially as they are now)
• but IS about the US. Through history.

He also has an idiosyncratic test on what is racist:
"White Christians are consistently more likely than whites who are religiously unaffiliated to deny the existence of structural racism."

OK, denying structural racism is a racist thing? No. Not in and of itself.

I'm not looking at hit three or four, I challenged you to provide ten good examples, not a google with ten thousand bad ones.

Mannimut

Idk and no

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut Check Galton and Australian Aborigines and Canadian First Nations.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl what does this have to do with this?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut 1) Galton was first cousin of Darwin, was promoting eugenics, eagerly prompting his first cousin's theory in support, not contradicted by him, and his support of eugenics was racist, i e he, like Margaret Sanger, believed in black people getting fewer children;
2) Australian Aborigines were exposed to more genocide attempts, and these were tied to it, after Darwin's book was published;
3) Canadian anti-Indian policies were often inspired by Darwin, the Darwin friendly liberal Protestants had charity hospitals where sterilisations were carried out forcefully, which the Catholics hadn't, and when an Indian girl at a residential school got TB, the Catholic bishop Coudert tried to gt her a doctor, the Darwin touting authorities didn't allow it.

So, all three mentions are examples of racism in very brutal forms tied to Darwinism.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you asked If it started with that. And the answer is no

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If we want to Talk about some justifications: what about the crusades? Witch burnings? And so on

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut Oh, I see.

1) Crusades and witch burnings came centuries after the start of Christianity, the items I mentioned within a few decades;
2) Darwin was already racist against indigenous peoples of Patagonia before he developed his theory;
3) Crusades were not racist or did not become so except for very late (end of Reconquista + Conquista of Americas are technically Crusades and already a bit racist) and not at all to the extent of Darwinism.

This is not about Crusades or Witch burnings being justified or not, it is about them neither being (originally) racist nor being there when Christianity started.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution again didnt start with racism you know.

Like it doesnt Matter If the person who came Up with someone is the biggest racist ever doesnt matter if is science is correct.

Something the bible cant really claim.

I mean science was supressed by a certain religion quite a lot

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut There is a big difference between pretending Darwinism had no connexion to Racism, and saying it doesn't matter if it did, if only the science is correct, which it isn't.

You are basically admitting that I'm at least right about the historical facts when I say Darwinism began with Racism.

Can you name a time when a certain religion "suppressed science" quite a lot (which by the way is sth totally different from Racism)?

@Mannimut So, you have given up attacking the Bible for Racism, but now you are saying it's incorrect science, that's another debate, can you take that one starting in a separate thread, so we have the "moral thread" here and the "scientific thread" somewhere else under the video?

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl how often do i have to repeat that darwinism didnt start with racism?

And yes Darwin wasnt correct about everything, thats why science doesnt use His stuff anymore you know.

Christianity is that certain religion, anything going against their doctrin could and would be punished. Most famous example: Galileo

@Hans-Georg Lundahl i literaly never Said that the bible was started with racism but okay

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut "darwinism didnt start with racism?"

Repeat that lie if you like, doesn't make it true.

"Christianity is that certain religion, anything going against their doctrin could and would be punished."

Not really.

A book arguing it could be banned, a baptised person getting against it could be punished (having to recant or get burned), BUT only after c. 1200 years had passed as far as Church laws are concerned. However, what has that to do with suppressing science?

"Most famous example: Galileo"

It's the sole example where anyone even pretends seriously the opposed doctrine was about science. By the way, I am a Geocentric, I don't think Galileo's idea was good science.

"i literaly never Said that the bible was started with racism but okay"

You didn't, perhaps, I'll believe you until I check, hopefully even then, BUT Michael Williams tried to make points before you, even if he deleted his comments.

Also, whether Christianity started with Racism or NOT is highly relevant for the point answered in 9:51 of the video. Emma Thorne didn't say Christianity started with racism, but she did say "because no Christian has ever been racist" which I quote in my initial comment and which I answered by asking how the two philosophies compared started.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ffs Just because "i reject science cause book" doesnt make it untrue, i am done there is No hope to convince you

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut I never literally said "I reject science cause book" - I said I am Geocentric.

Yes, the Bible is important, but so is good methodology.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl then apart from the bible what do you have to Go of to Claim that parts of science are just wrong?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut Why do you treat "Science" as a Bible?

20 years ago, Neanderthals were subhuman and we had no Neanderthal ancestry. Now Neanderthals are human and 30 % of the Neanderthal genome has survived and on average non-Black-African people have sth like 3 % Neanderthal ancestry.

Science doesn't mean right, so you cannot get flustered over "parts of science are just wrong" - they always are, because science is a project in progress, not a finished unity.

Well, at least two things go together:
1) all our observations are Geocentric. Direct observation = some kind of Tychonic Geocentrism;
2) the kind of argument that is supposed to trump this, namely orbital dynamics, only logically trumps it if either there is no God and are no angels at all, or they had guaranteed they would not interfere with orbital dynamics.

Interfering with orbital dynamics does not mean breaking any natural laws involved in it.

Mannimut

@Hans-Georg Lundahl in wich sence do i treat science as a bible?

Also yeah science was wrong about a Lot of stuff, for example oh from the top of my head geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mannimut Unless it is now that science is wrong about Heliocentrism in the solar system and either acentrism or remote-centrism in the universe overall.

If science changes and is human, it means it can sometimes change in the wrong direction.

You were treating science as a Bible, because part of what we mean by the Bible (which is finished as to the books, all written before 100 AD when the last Apostle died, probably finished as to the canon, it could perhaps adopt books from schismatic and heretics Churches like Eastern Orthodox or Copts but those books too were written before 100, and also already considered as Bible canon by some Christians), and a very important part of what we mean by the Bible is, nothing in it can be just wrong.

Now, you were shocked at my saying "a part of science" (as now taught) "is just wrong" - that's treating Science as your Bible.

10:31 My explanation differs from Faulkners.

No million light years, because no parallax shows alpha Centauri as 4 light years away, hence no "main series" matches between distance and apparent size are valid indications of same size, hence no stars distance measured by apparent size and main series, hence no good distance to Cepheids, hence Cepheids is no good distance indicator either.

How "no parallax"? Take a guess.

11:22 That God created starlight in transit actually was my explanation till I heard of novas "distance measured" to well beyond the light years corresponding to Biblical time.

12:58 If you are amused at Derek, could you survive laughter attacks when reading Sophie Neveu? Or did you have the better taste to not read Dan Brown?

Night At The Ark Encounter | Dinosaurs on the Ark: Confirmed
Emma Thorne | 9 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1sTNfQc-hw

3:02 Wren is apparently better at heating people in Uganda than some busses at heating passengers in Paris ...

5:12 Do you prefer Times New Roman, Garamond, Courier?

5:33 Would you mind telling me in exactly what sense YEC is "conspiracy" nonsense?

Not "nonsense" I got you are Evolutionist, but where does "conspiracy" come in?

YEC spend hours and hours and hours on actual arguments on "the Evolutionists didn't try out this solution" and "the Evolutionists have no solution to this one" ... I missed the article in which CMI unveiled Evolution as a conspiracy, or the video where AiG did so ...

6:20 I would say the correct way to depict a non-Neanderthal pre-Flood man (they are wrong to take Neanderthals as post-Flood!) would be brown skin, but fairly Caucasian to Amerindian traits.

6:28 That cap totally explains his hair line in the other video.

7:25 Can it be that Christ crucified is replaced by text that was not on the titulus?

AND is also not the Our Father?

8:13 Did he say NINE HUNDRED YEAR?

The Ark was being built up to when Noah was 600 years old, not sure if he started before or after having his three sons around 500 years. Its 350 years after the Flood that he died at 950 - a lifespan about as long as the Middle Ages.

When someone tells me there was the Black Death in the Middle Ages, I think that's like saying it rained awfully much in Noah's day (yes, one of the years it actually did that)

8:29 Perhaps the construction workers were people who weren't interested in the Ark other than for the paycheck, and went to party (with cannibalism, vampyrism and sodomy, including forced) in a nearby city when they had got it?

8:47 "on the next level of this con..."

What? Where does the conspiracy come in?

9:18 I'd actually go with a LXX reading based chronology, putting the Flood in 2957 BC.

Catholic priests every Christmas say Jesus was born 5199 after creation, 2957 after Flood, 2015 after birth of Abraham and a few more nice guidelines for the chronology.

9:23 Two problems here. If not more.

1) In quite a few places (perhaps not Britain) 2348 BC is not Neolithic, but Bronze Age.
2) The Palaeolithic after Neanderthals that left remains of their own bodies (not Gorham on Gibraltar) would be the 350 years between Flood and death of Noah
3) and anyone dead in that period would have died a premature death
4) which means someone who died perhaps even at 90 or 150 might have looked anatomically as 22 or 33, because aging was slower.

Which brings us to the other main point apart from 1, namely that an archaeologist seeing the bones of a man might misunderstand chronological age. Due to their estimate of anatomical age. Plus such estimates have been made for the Middle Ages and recently shown wrong by a dentist looking at the calculus.

And again, anyone with a normal life span for back then survived those 350 years.

10:59 What is the rolling period of the Ark according to that film?

That looks more like the ferry from Oostende to Dover in 1978 than what I calculated as rolling period of the Ark!

??:?? How would 1300 kinds add up to 6744 animals?

I mean, most kinds would be unclean, so there should be only two of them, not seven (individuals) or fourteen (if there were seven couples). My estimation was 2032 couples or twice as many individuals, ignoring there were four couples of men, and seven or three and a half for clean animals.

But I also calculated food weight for a year as 7 kg food per day per a sheep sized animal, and most animals which aren't ruminants need less than that in relation to body weight ...

11:57 No, they actually don't have a plaque explaining that. They have a guide explaining that who's also employed in a zoo.

The explanation is a bit longer than what would fit on a plaque.

13:20 Sth - "myths" - when it comes to pagan ones, I make a difference.

Uranus came from Gaia who emerged from Chaos? No chance when Hell freezes over. Plus Hesiod should have been wary, as the Nine Muses sang a song of praise to a list of various gods ending in "Kronon ankulometen" - Kronos of the Crooked Mind. Aka as Satan, if you ask me what it means.

Hercules went down to the Netherworld or to the Edge of the World? With his muscles, who would have dared to doubt such claims?

Meaning, we only "know" that as having his word for it.

But he came back with a lion skin and there were reports of how a lion no longer plagues the area of Nemea? Sure.

Plus he had something like grandchildren or greatgrandchildren who took over Sparta a given time after the Trojan War.

Now we're talking. Now, if you go to Genesis, if you made the thought experiment "supposing this were true, how do we know it" - how much is history like Hercules and how much is prophecy like the Theogony?

I would say the part comparable to heroic legend by far outweighs the part comparable to myths about what happened before man.

13:49 How many of the construction workers can have been thinking things like "shucks, we have to help this fool with this project, that's our only work on the market, and if we don't have money for the next rent we can end up as cannibal stew?"

They would be very careful measuring planks and all that, but they would still be thinking of evil - that could happen to them.

14:01 Based on they were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage (Matthew 24 or Luke 26 or sth)

Does this just describe thking of carnal enjoyments as here shown, or is it something more sinister? Like ... eating = cannibalism, drinking = vampyrism (it is a goth fetish), marrying = gay marriage, given in marriage = forced marriage?

When so many people dug up from non-Cro-Magnon races show traces of cannibalism, I know how I stand on the issue.

14:43 XQZ meeeeeeee ... what is "conspiracy" doing in this context?

16:33 They cut me down and I leapt up high,
I am the life that’ll never, never die;

... aka as Jesus speaking to His disciples after the resurrection. "remember when I said, I am the narrow door, you recall the story of the Ark?" - "yes" - "well, it led to life, didn't it" ....

Was Jesus the only Virgin Birth in Antiquity? | With Dr Bart Ehrman
Emma Thorne | 10 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm73u99usTA

0:23 "and a fantastic scholar"

suppressing a snicker to be polite ...

1:36 I am thankful that Bart is more honest than my Greek professor. I'd have gone by the fact that "parthenos" has "virgin" as default translation and considered some other attested uses in antiquity as stretching the range of meaning.

A "baby" usually doesn't mean a girl of 14-15, but the guys who prefer calling Charlie Chaplin a "cradle robber" over "polygamist" when being critical about his sexual mores are obviously stretching the meaning of the word "baby" and equally by inserting "cradle" showing they clearly know the original meaning. Just to explain what a "stretching of the range of meaning" means.

Than my Greek professor - i e, back then.

3:23 The "great scholar" just dropped back a bit.

Helvidius challenged that She remained Virgin, St. Jerome wrote Contra Helvidium, and the Catholic Church has the Perpetual Virginity as a dogma. So have all the non-Protestant Churches, which apart from Catholics are:

• Eastern Orthodox
• Copts
• Armenians
• Assyrian Church of the East.

It can be noted that unlike most Protestants today, Luther, Calvin and I presume also Cranmer actually believed in the Perpetual Virginity and explicitly took a distance from the "error of Helvidius" that being that She had children with Joseph later on.

There are two Catholic views on Our Lord's siblings (mentioned in the Gospels).

• they were cousins of Jesus (on Joseph's side, presumably), and as such authorised in absence of siblings to do the levirate duty;
• they were children of St. Joseph from a previous marriage, he was an old widower when marrying the Virgin Mother of God.

3:55 "19th C. sometime"

Bart is really much better on Protestant Church history than on the Catholic one before it.

In the Catholic Church, you do have to believe all of the Nicene Creed (some divergences on whether Greeks not believing the filioque can normally be saved), and it includes:

Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto
ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

To a Catholic, Apostolic, Nicene, possibly Athanasian Creed are the major dogmas, and other dogmas are reasoned as being dogma for these dogmas as premisses to the conclusion of such other dogmas. Even a thing which is in the Bible and which wouldn't be a dogma for other reasons, it would still be dogmatic in the light of:

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:
qui locutus est per prophetas.

In this context specifically involving the hagiographers.

4:22 No, that's not how Biblical inerrancy works.

A fact is not Biblically attested because all 27 books of the New or all 46 books of the Old or all 73 books of both Testaments mention it, it is absolutely sufficient that even one book does so.

4:45 Noting you said "miraculous" and not "virgin" - there is more than one difference.

In the Bible, the births of Samuel and of John the Baptist as well as Isaac, perhaps (I might recall wrong) of Samson as well, are miraculous. But not by virgins.

5:22 And the god getting a woman pregnant was in these alleged cases also not an immaterial god, and did not allow the woman to remain virgin, if she was so up to the fact.

By the way, in the case of Hercules, a married woman was it seem pregnant both by her husband, and "by Zeus" which pretty much makes me think it was a semi-cursed but otherwise normal twin pregnancy. In case you think Hercules wasn't cursed, look at his life.

5:39 "so you have pure myths about people who probably didn't exist"

I differ on that. Hercules and Theseus probably did exist and their lives show traces of curses by demons involved from their pregnancies.

5:46 Ah, Pythagoras ... some have denied him him existence, I shouldn't wonder. Even if Bart isn't among them.

8:40 "where are you getting December 25th from?"

.... especially if there were any Mithraic shrines before Julius Caesar in the non-Roman world ...

Wiki: "According to the archaeologist Maarten Vermaseren, 1st century BCE evidence from Commagene demonstrates the "reverence paid to Mithras" but does not refer to "the mysteries".[q] In the colossal statuary erected by King Antiochus I (69–34 BCE) at Mount Nemrut, Mithras is shown beardless, wearing a Phrygian cap[3][80] (or the similar headdress, Persian tiara), in Iranian (Parthian) clothing,[78] and was originally seated on a throne alongside other deities and the king himself.[81] On the back of the thrones there is an inscription in Greek, which includes the name Apollo Mithras Helios in the genitive case (Ἀπόλλωνος Μίθρου Ἡλίου).[82] Vermaseren also reports about a Mithras cult in 3rd century BCE. Fayum.[83] R.D. Barnett has argued that the royal seal of King Saussatar of Mitanni from c. 1450 BCE. depicts a tauroctonous Mithras.[84]"

11:16 First, none of the "miraculous births" I know of in the Greco-Roman paganism are "virgin births" because whether they started out as virgins or not, they certainly didn't remain virgins after a "god" had been there.

Second, none of the ascensions to heaven are put after a bodily resurrection or what could even remotely look like one. This involves both Krishna and Hercules. Not to mention Perseus and Andromeda. None really involve men as physically observing any "take-off" (in Krish[n]a's case I think it is a poet having a dream).

When it comes to raising dead, I carefully checked that Hercules wrestling with Thanatos over Alcestis the earliest sources are after Elijah raised a boy. After Elisha post mortem raised a corpse meant to be buried close by.

When it comes to casting out demons I'd like to know how many sources are after the times of Tobit. Not when scholars believe the book is written (whether progressives or just Protestants) but when they lived. When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth, Plus if some Babylonian actually believed Nebo was the one true God, God could have considered his orthodoxy sufficient to allow him a real successful exorcism.

The parallels in how the possessed behave before exorcisms would be due to demonic possession being a real phenomenon. My docent in Latin, at reading Aeneid VI with us, pointed out that the Sibyl's trance (at Cumae) begins in ways that realistically parallel the trances of voodoo mediums even today.

Note, the boy raised by Elijah lived among Baal worshippers, and while Hercules was a real man, the stories about him may owe some to stories about Baal in Phoenicia.

And the neighbours of the raised boy were hardly likely to credit the true God, even apart from Elijah not posing as Baal worshipper, unlike how Coello mistreats the story in "The Fifth Mountain" ....

11:48 I would say that Pagan deities and divine men would be anticipating two ways.

BOTH Jesus AND Antichrist.

You may know the Sibylline prophecy (of the IV Eclogue, since Virgil alludes to it), and one Thomas Horn says "here we have someone foreseeing Antichrist" - perhaps he's right. But Christians have also held the Sibyl was foreseeing Christ.

Ulysses butchering the suitors (which I believe really happened) anticipates Christ at Armageddon, and the 20 years of absence the 20 centuries between Ascension and second coming, as the suitors represent Antichrist. But his use of arrows and his being a liar looks a bit more like Antichrist. Even if I would say Ulysses in the Odyssey coming off more as prefiguring Christ.

If you are half blind and men look like walking trees, perhaps you won't be able to pick two different men out from each other. And both Jesus and Antichrist are men. Then the pond of Siloam (unless I am mixing the healings) is a symbol for baptism which gives the clear sight of true faith.

12:19 A very good analysis of most stories of people who were claimed as sons of Zeus. Unless Minos, Radamanthys and Sarpedon were indeed sons of the Cretan king of that name.

But this is in Hebrew context very unheard of. Hence not a good explanation for any kind of miraculous birth in a Hebrew book, even if Luke (uniquely) is only second hand Hebrew.

13:13 That's a blooper.*

Only Luke was non-Jewish, only Luke lived most of his life prior to involvement in Christianity outside Palestine.

13:35 Luke as a physician would have been very careful to avoid that kind of allegation, unless he heard it from what he considered good authority.

* See also Testify, with his answer to Tovia Singer, me adding just one comment:

Authorship of Matthew - A Response to Tovia Singer
Testify | 16 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SmL2NU5w8

4:01 It can be added that Tovia Singer also was arguing against Moses writing Exodus ... by extension.