My debate challenge against Robert Barron obviously stands, see this post:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html
Again, it is not coming on this blog, it's going by mail, then getting published here:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/
Now, Barron may have prayed I came across a Evolutionist to refute. This is what this post is about. Here is the video by the Evolutionist team (I'm only dealing with the section on Big Bang. Leaving out the last five minutes for now), here:
This is what total arrogance looks like
Rationality Rules | 31 Jan. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPTmzGqZJ0A
13:46 Here is wiki definition of explosion:
"An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume of a given amount of matter associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases."
14:32 Apart from the "biological theory of evolution" there is a world view it is usually part of.
For convenience, it is not referred to as Atheism, because there are Christians who share most of its elements, if you consider Modernists as Christians.
So, what should it be referred to? Well, positive content is different fields. Materialist Metaphysics won't do, since some of these have been used in a very different world view by Lucrece and Epicure, and also, the Christians who share most of the elements of this world view are usually not Materialists.
So, "Big Bang", "Heliocentrism", "Multiples Galaxies", "Multiple stars with optional solar systems per galaxy", "Deep Time", "Biological Evolution from Microbes to Men, Microbes to Mantas, Microbes to Magnolias", "Evolutionary Origin of Man in his specifically Human Aspects" are part of the content, and each of them is apt insofar as they are shared by the Syncretists who combine Christianity with this world view.
Two of these parts actually do contain the word Evolution, is it too much to ask of you to assume the simple courtesy that, when someone is attacking "Evolutionism" he does not refer exclusively to "Biological Evolution from Microbes to Men, Microbes to Mantas, Microbes to Magnolias", nor necessarily identify this item with Hedghog ancestors to Atelerix and Erinaceus, which we typically do believe in, but rather refers to the whole of this world view?
15:04 Stellar Evolution is actually a term at least previously used by Evolutionists (believers in this world view).
Big Bang is to it, at its most restricted, what Abiogenesis is to Biological Evolution (I obviously forgot "Abiogenesis" and "Discformed gas clouds condensing to when the centre starts to Fusion" in my enumeration of the tenets of this view).
If a Catholic Apologist were doing what you do, he would be stamped as incompetent and highly irrational. To defend Ecclesial infallibility, to take an example, is not just to tell the Protestant that he got it technically wrong what Ecclesial infallibility means, its telling him how to get it right what it means, and why it is needed for a Christian. On the latter count, I am happy to have encountered a Protestant who did 90 % of the work for me.
So, a whole minute plus just on quibbles on terminology, to show Mr. Hall has not fully mastered each Shibboleth and poke fun at that, plus remaking that same joke which was stale 20 years about in equating our use of "Evolutionism" or sometimes also "Evolution" with your "field" of enquiry known as "Biological Evolution", sorry, that's weak.
15:09 "They are not related"
Yes, they are.
1) If you believe in a God who could put hedgehogs and herbs on earth within two days of each other, without any LUCA before them, you also believe in a God who could place heaven and earth in place without any Big Bang.
2) If you believe in a steady-state eternal universe, with a steady-state eternal earth, you can't have Abiogenesis and the LUCA a finite number of Billions of Years ago, so Earth must form. Which is easier to project if you also believe the Universe formed. In other words, the believers in the world view Evolutionism believe as firmly that Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution and Evolutionary Origin of Man started with materials and places and environments created by Big Bang and Stellar Evolution, as a Christian believes Jesus founded His Church in an environment of Second Temple Judaism.
So your comment is about as irrational as saying Christianity is not related to Second Temple Judaism.
15:31 Hoyle's steady-state model has been thoroughly debunked.
If not, tell me how Hoyle pretended to account for there still being Hydrogen in the Universe.
Think of it. Each act of Fusion is turning Hydrogen into Helium. Whether we suppose that the Hydrogen in organic matter is outside this or not is really not the point. If stars have a finite size, they start out with a finite amount of Hydrogen. Sooner or later it has all turned into Helium or sufficiently much of it has, so there is no Hydrogen in stars to continue the 4 H -> 2 D -> 1 He fusion.
We know of no Helium fission leading to Hydrogen. Hence, Hoyle's steady state universe is impossible.
15:31 bis Sorry, only heard and didn't read the text!
"with matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable"
Well, the problem for Hoyle's matter is, how do you create matter? Naturalistically, that is?
He's basically just transferred God's attributes eternity and omnipotence to the material universe.
15:59 I'm noting Fred Hoyle has not been around since 2001.
How back then he was 86 years old.
Has any young person ever embraced Steady State Model of the Hoyle Type since Hoyle was in his mid-seventies?
16:14 Lemaître should have the same second vowel as in "air" not as in "pen" ...
Hall is hardly a diehard fan of Lemaître. Neither are most other anti-Evolution Catholics.
We are nearly as prone to use his name as a cuss-word, as when it comes to Teilhard de Chardin.
16:34 Are you as horribly appalled at Lawrence Krauss and Richard Carrier saying it too?
Again, your duty (in a rational debate) is not to say someone else got a term or technicality wrong, but to show what is wrong and how the real theory does not fall under the same criticism ... it's already 3 minutes nearly that I just hear you say "he got this wrong", "he lied about that", "that is a strawman" without further explanation.
18:24 If you had been remotely rational, you'd have said sth like "cyclic universes are an option and what was before BB came there from a BC" (as in Big Crush).
No. You obviously had to quibble about a slight confusion about the term elements.
Instead, what is actually wrong in his view?
Ah, here you start giving a glimpse of ambition to be coherent.
"Everything was in a hot, dense state, before which we know nothing, which does not mean there was nothing"
1) You ban all and every criticism of this theory about quizzing about how by "we know nothing"
2) You also pretend to actually know this.
Probably, because you really know Hoyle was wrong. Hydrogen is not formed as the Universe expands.
There is a problem, though. Big Bang certainly leads to a situation without life, without consciousness. It certainly leads to the major hurdles for your World View that Abiogenesis and Evolutionary Origin of Man constitute.
19:29 -- 19:35
"okay but where in this story does Jesus sacrifice himself to himself — well it's about 13.7 billion years after"
Thanks for underlining that the worldview you hold to is incompatible with Mark 10:6 ...
19:53 "Citation needed" -- why?
If you could admit to Hoyle spouting nonsense, why the indignation at the suggestion someone else on your side did so?
Wait, are you treating Scientists like we treat the Papacy, like I need to defend Honorius against actually siding with Monotheletism or John XXII definitively siding with Soul Sleep? That would explain your indignation.
Or, while Hall takes down a scenario on your side, you feel inclined to say "that's not the one specifically we hold to" ...
20:00 That one was spoof. Or digging very deep into your roots in Protestantism, like Bilious Bale.
21:25 Oh, the big crunch has been discarded ... nice.
One less model for how everything got into a very hot and very dense state to start with.
I suppose you won't pretend there was an eternal steady state of hot dense mass prior to the Big Bang? Will you?
21:41 Noting that you equate your world view with science.
Also noting that when you mention it, it is usually to state that your world view has one leg less left to stand on.
24:10 The first law of Thermodynamics, I looked it up, was arguably when Hoyle decided to believe in a steady state universe.
Or materialism.
Clausius who formulated it actually was a Protestant minister's son. Did I say you are a Protestant sect (but without the Christianity)? I think I feel like repeating it.
24:39 Laughing at a man with few teeth left ... a man left homeless and therefore dependent on places where he combines too much coffee wth definitely too much sugar.
I know a thing or two about that kind of entropy.
"it comes from preachers like this yeah right, where they drop nonsense ..."
Kennedy Hall, like myself, is no preacher.
He's a journalist, I'm an essayist.
He's a journalist with a touch of essayism. I am for my part an essayist with a touch of journalism.
NEITHER is a preacher.
This is not just about you getting terminology wrong, it's also about this kind of to and fro talks about me by incompetent people have tended to keep me in the street.
Fortunately for Hall, he got into a position with some comfort before being exposed to people like you. If it had been my case, I'd probably have as many teeth left as he.
No comments:
Post a Comment