Answering "Bio-ethicists and lawyers" a k a Glenn Cohen

I am happy Roe v. Wae was overturned and that states can now legislate openly against abortion. Since this is thanks to two or three Supreme Court Judges nominated by Donald Trump, naturally a kind of backlash would be to re-promote a video from before his election (the video is from September 2016, his election from November). It has been done. By linking and telling my comments, I repromote it some more, unfortunately, but I think marginally compared to what it will already be getting:

Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think
18th Sept. 2016 | Big Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ezS5vQ1j_E

2:00 If so and so is living and a human being, it's a person.
Fine.

2:20 Peter Singer is what used to be called a heretic.

berkah

Most of the pro-choice arguments can be used to justify infanticide as well (unwanted babies shouldn't exist, foster homes are overrun, etc.). There isn't much difference between a late term fetus and an infant other than where it happens to be located. So we are becoming painfully close to justifying infanticide. Autonomy of the mother is an argument toward justifying the removal of a fetus, not killing it.

The fact we also mercilessly kill other animals with consciousness and feelings is not a sufficient reason to also do so to human babies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@berkah I don't think the "other animals" can be considered to have rational consciousness, but thank you for the point!

3:25 Hydrogen and Oxygen have the potentiality to become water together. Neither has as long as separate from the other.

The parallel is spermatozoon and ovum, not a fetus.

Spermatozoa and ova are not persons. The fertilised egg is.

That doesn't mean pills meant to inhibit ova are (within this question) licit, since they also inhibit the fertilised egg from nesting and thereby kill it, kill something which looks different from, but is, a human person.

4:01 Brain dead people are persons and should not be killed for extracting organs.

5:05 No, the woman carrying the fetus does not have the right to stop that gestation, even if it will result in the death of a person.

The one possible exception is, if it were the sole means of saving her own life.

5:54 Jarvis' analogy is a counterfactual.

In her "analogy" the person would be dialysis machine for the other, not during nine months, but during the remaining life of the violinist.

Whatever incommodity you have with the physical arrangement, in gestation it will cease at birth, but with her "analogy" the physical discomfort would cease only by death of the violinist.

Also, the "analogy" one would be hooked up to a stranger already grown up and already having his ways.

Gestation also tends to hook a woman up in a life long way with a thitherto stranger, but one who can in fact be stranger no longer, for he's of the woman, and for the woman has the occasion to raise him.

Jack Willson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"In her "analogy" the person would be dialysis machine for the other, not during nine months, but during the remaining life of the violinist."

Hmm... that's interesting to think about. Then now, lets say that giving a birth to a child will result not in death, but a permanent/lifelong injury for the mother that will never recover, will the parallel then be equal? And if so, would abortion be justified or not? And why?

You have stated on the top comment that abortion is only justified when either life is at stake either the mother or the baby must be chosen. But what if one will get a lifelong injury?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jack Willson Some would consider that an occasion, I wouldn't. I am even iffy for breaking off the pregnancy or otherwise saving the mother's life in ways that would result in indirect killing of the child, since the mother is an adult who can prepare for a Christians death, the child is as yest unbaptised.

Angelo Kelly's mother Barbara Ann did the right choice (in her case it wasn't breaking off the pregnancy, but taking chemotherapy that would have saved her life, after gestation, the chemotherapy came too late).

I am not sure it has always been just a choice in Christian countries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jack Willson "You have stated on the top comment that abortion is only justified when either life is at stake either the mother or the baby must be chosen."

Depends on what you consider "abortion." Only extraction of live fetus (with already dead one there is no issue) and then not doing anything to kill it. Only that would be justified.

Definitely a friendlier atmosphere to the unborn than at Planned Parenthood.

It can be mentioned after these my comments, that when I converted, Roman Catholic bioethics was not imposed on me as a surprise or sth I was pushed to take along the way, it was one of the major attractions, expecially compared to mainstream Lutherans, what I was leaving, who did not even back then want to stand up against abortion. I could have gone Free Synod or I could have gone Roman Catholic, I could not have stayed indefinitely after finding out that kind of compromises in the Swedish Church./HGL

And Bill Nye Sucks at History of the Earth and Universe - He Doesn't Read the Bible (or Believe It)

Bill Nye Sucks at History of Ideas ... · And Bill Nye Sucks at History of the Earth and Universe - He Doesn't Read the Bible (or Believe It)

I mean, he sucks at it by being into millions of years and billions of years:

Bill Nye: The Earth is Really, Really Not 6,000 Years Old | Big Think
2nd Dec. 2014 | Big Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKElvfhNuhQ

Unless of course he has changed his mind, but I don't think so. Here is my initial comment from 2 years ago and a debate that followed.

5:00 "But I can't tell - I'm not sure if the guys, the people at Answers in Genesis really
5:04 "believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.
5:06 "I'll say they certainly seem to."

Yes, except Habermehl who is more into 7500 years - and myself I go with Roman Martyrology and Heaven and Earth being 7200 years.

5:15 "But they all use mobile phones, they all use Facebook and Twitter and so on."

I actually don't use mobile phones and have no Twitter ... but OK.

5:21 "They take advantage of all of our technology developed through the process of science."

Yes, where is this going (I have a little hunch, just seeing how long he'll draw it out ...)?

5:37 "They are all happy to eat food grown on farms that is in general extraordinarily healthy in general compared to other parts of the world."

Well, some other parts are taking in MORE products of modern science which the West has banned. You know, DDT and so ...

5:42 "It's not laden with bacteria and other harmful pathogens that might be associated with food stock."

I'm sorry, but where is your evidence most places have bad food?

In India, in Bombay, milk is certainly sold from open cannisters with ladles to the customers, but it was milked same morning before dawn and it is thrown into the gutter at 12:00, so I don't think they get pathogens in milk in India (unless very poor and asking last moment "don't throw that milk out"), and also milk is typically used in cooking or to make pastries in India.

In the West you pasteurise milk, in India you pastries-ise it. Both ways, heat destroys pathogens which might have been attached to milke before application of heat and this happens before it is consumed.

6:00 "But apparently they don't seem to appreciate the science that led to it all."

Hello ... was I somehow not expecting this turn ...?

Now, if a certain time agriculture was being improved by a religious cult (which arguably has happened, as with Catholicism historically certainly) are you sure each religious cult so improving agriculture must be right on the cosmos?

I mean, Catholicism led to the heavy plough with a ploughbill turning the soil ... so, Catholicism, with Geocentrism and Universe Created in 5199 BC must be the truth ... on your view?

6:05 "And what I find so troubling with Answers in Genesis is that they have a very diligent
6:09 "or complete indoctrination program for young people."

As in : you don't? As in : you are concerned with your monopoly being challenged?

In the book 101 faits insolites de la science, 19 % is materialism, naturalism, heliocentrism and evolution belief. Or even 22 % if you count softer statements. And it's for children.

6:24 "[indoctrinate] in the extraordinary and obviously wrong idea that the earth is somehow 6,000 years old."

Neither extraordinary, nor so obviously, unless we start looking at carbon build up in detail, which favour more like Earth being more like 7200 or 7500 years old.

It's your idea which would have seemed extraordinary to people who gave you agriculture, pottery, glass making, the wheel, fishing, boats, houses, clothes and quite a few more things.

6:30 - 6:34 "and there was a flood 4000 years ago and somehow land plants survived and salt water and seawater mixed bit there's still freshwater fish and so on."

Flood, on their view like 4400 years ago, on mine 5000 years ago, on Habermehl's 5300 years ago.

AND while the video is nearing the end, you have skipped the long prologue and are coming to arguments, hoorrah!

• 1) land plants can have survived by floating mats (some of which also didn't survive and made it to coal beds instead - like coal beds being seen from vertical cuts Z shaped or Y shaped being more difficult to explain with your world view);
• 2) who says sea water need to have been salty back then?
• 3) fish that are biologically either salt or fresh water can recondition over seven years, if changes are made slowly - and we believe addition of saltiness was a sufficiently slow process for this to happen, alternatively, fish survived in fresh water after Flood (and in parts of sea still fresh during Flood), then came fish with both salt and fresh tastes, like salmons, and then some salt water fish, purely so, evolved from fish of that persuasion).
• 4) "and so on" is not very specific.

6:40 "All these bits of evidence in nature that point out how obviously wrong it is, they
6:46 "press on and work very hard to indoctrinate young people."

And you ignore their answers on these and other points and press on very hard to indoctrinate your set of young people, don't you?

Crazykoke Broz

Watch the video again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Why? Bill Nye is not all that impressive.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl He can be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Like where?

+ @Crazykoke Broz I just saw in the margin a 24:01 long video with Bill Nye claiming "Creationism is Bad for Us" and that is really not likely to impress me the least.

Crazykoke Broz

That is not the point.

Plus, the majority of the rocks and mountains are well over 6000 years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz More like c. 5000 years old = from the Flood.

Your allegation is evidence you are too impressed by Bill Nye.

You've heard of "cause the Bible tells me so"?

By now it is more like "cause Nye, William, tells me so," with some of you.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 6000, 5000, big difference.

There is no geological evidence of a flood across the planet either from that time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Yes there is, except it is systematically attributed to different other times.

Neanderthals and Denisovans die off? Attributed to 40 000 BP if we go by latest actual body parts of any, yes I know about Gorham cave, but that's Mousterian style artifacts. This is therefore my key to carbon date of the Flood, 38 000 BC reduces to 2957 BC.

Other traces of the Deluge are "all over the geological column" and systematically not carbon dated (exception Younger Dryas, since that is actually post-Flood, pre-Babel).

Permian critters in Karoo, South Africa are as much a trace of the Deluge as Cretaceous critters in Alberta, Canada. Or as a Miocene or whatever (Eocene) whale in Linz in Austria.

In Grand Canyon and drillholes you have usually more than one levels (pretended to be more than one "period") of marine biota.

I have given the world wide traces from (mostly) a single year, now your turn if you like to pretend they aren't from a single year.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That sounds far fetched. I don't see this as direct evidence. The rocks say so otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz The interpretation of the rocks by the evolutionist establishment says otherwise.

Your turn to defend that one.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s not just the evolutionists, in fact the study of these rocks isn’t entirely dependent on evolution but is in fact based on the environment long ago (air pressure, humidity, ect).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Some of the "environment long ago" is being debunked.

Heard of "dunes made in a desert" or "footsteps made in the dry"?

Turns out the angle of waves is more aquatic than desertic and the dry sand could not keep footsteps intact, but would smudge them. Both of these facts are pertinent to Flood explanation of the remains.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 1: There isn’t enough water on the Earth to flood the entire thing. Melting all of the ice caps would still have land remaining. But if rain water were to evaporate and rain for 40 days, the sea level would first drop with all of the 40 days of water floating in the air, and then it would rain, recycling that water.

2: I don’t know what you mean by dry sand as all of Earth wasn’t entirely a desert after some point 350 Million years ago, which would lead to things like dirt and mud in forests being more common. While desert still existed, they were not the only thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz 1: "There isn’t enough water on the Earth to flood the entire thing."

There was before Himalayas rose and before the Mariana Trench sunk - when seas were shallower and "the very high mountains" possibly what we would call hill country;

"Melting all of the ice caps would still have land remaining. But if rain water were to evaporate and rain for 40 days, the sea level would first drop with all of the 40 days of water floating in the air, and then it would rain, recycling that water."

See previous.

2: "I don’t know what you mean by dry sand as all of Earth wasn’t entirely a desert after some point 350 Million years ago, which would lead to things like dirt and mud in forests being more common. While desert still existed, they were not the only thing."

I am speaking of what is now fossil sand stone. Of what is now no coal and wa then no forest. When it functioned as habitat, it was either desert dunes or under water dunes. The angles we see (I think the locality would be Grand Canyon) are such that under water dunes make more sense. So do foot prints in wet sand over foot prints in dry sand.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl This is still quite far fetched. I still tell you that the world is way older than 5000 years old. There is no evidence of a flood, and mountains just don’t rise out of nowhere after a flood. It is proven that the Himalayas and other mountain ranges are millions of years old. Your “claims” that it isn’t are not relevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Let's break this down a bit.

"This is still quite far fetched."

I begin to suspect your diagnostic criterium for "far-fetched" is it is far off from your rut of the modernist mill of ideas.

"I still tell you that the world is way older than 5000 years old."

I don't know what you mean by you are "telling me" anything. I never volunteered to be your disciple.

But if 7200 - 7500 years plus two to three decades is "way older" I happen to agree. On the millions or billions of years, I obviously don't agree.

"There is no evidence of a flood,"

You forget the one we were discussing. The evidence of Permian and Eocene and all that.

"and mountains just don’t rise out of nowhere after a flood."

What about rising from colliding tectonic plates?

"It is proven that the Himalayas and other mountain ranges are millions of years old."

Who proved it, how, and how conclusively? You repeat things like "it is proven" like claims from a book, without bothering to investigate how they relate to actual logic.

"Your “claims” that it isn’t are not relevant."

If they are not relevant to you, why did you answer?

The dichotomy "is relevant" or "is not relevant" is, apart from where it is relevant to logic - which it clearly is, it is part of the logic of the question - totally a question of social snobbery.

You begin to sound a bit too much like a shrink at a session trying to discourage a client ... as said, I never signed up to be your disciple, and that includes the version "client of a shrink".

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Look, there are multiple ways to calculate the age of something, and yet you just refuse to accept it.

Plus, what blog are you referring to?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz The best way is the historic method of dating.

If you have an epoch, like ab urbe condita, deduct 695, when Caesar arrived in Transalpine Gaul from 969 when Tiberius Claudius Paulinus did so. You get the distance 274 years (or go back to when Colonia Narbo Martius was founded, 637 ab urbe condita, and calculate that age).

Second best is using regnal years or generations of a genealogy with lifespans and more importantly with time in father's life when son was born. I think you realise how this relates to Genesis 5 and 11.

Most dating methods other than that cannot be tested against history (or can, and have been found wanting, both New Zealand volcanos and time to form flow stone), C14 can, but here we have a possibility of explaining the non-Biblical ages with lower C14 levels earlier on.

I think you are referring to a comment I put under a video of yours, where I notified you this discussion is going on to a blog of mine. Check the post-URL over there.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 1:Using years humans have counted in general does not make an accurate dating system, especially since it doesn't go any further back than the inventions of language and writing (everything before then would be lost)

2: The comment you made on the video wouldn't show up, would you please provide the link here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz 1. a) "1:Using years humans have counted in general does not make an accurate dating system,"

In general it does, except where they have garbled the chronology. I saw a comment on the Sumerian kinglist to the effect that parallel dynasties in different de facto independent cities have been serialised to give the impression of one city at a time ruling Sumer, all of it, which pro-longs the chronology of that king-list unduly. I have a suspicion the excess (compared to Biblical) in Egyptian King lists has exactly the same problem.

In general, this is a tu quoque. Saying human chronologies are inaccurate doesn't magically confer accuracy on K-Ar dates or on C14 prior to reaching the present level compared to C12.

1. b) " especially since it doesn't go any further back than the inventions of language and writing "

Language has never been absent from the universe. The Three Persons of the Trinity communicated somehow, and the name of the Second Person suggests it was in language, prior to the existence of the universe. Angels have had language since they were created and man created on day six had language immediately. God could talk to him and confer on him the task of naming animals.

Language could not have been invented as evolution theory suggests. Creatures communicating like beasts, with c. 500 pragmatic / emotive signals, each using a sound or a gesture to convey all of the message would not have been able to discuss inventing a very unlike communication system where 15 - 40 speech sounds in and of themselves mean nothing, are then combined into words and endings and similar morphemes that each means something and conveys part of a message, and these are then combined into sentences that convey a complete message through one morpheme being predicated about another or about a combination of them.

Remember, every time men have invented things, they have been able to either discuss between them or a man discuss with himself, using language.

1. c) "(everything before then would be lost)"

As to language, I already answered. Now writing. Not necessarily, when people were good at learning things by heart and lived long enough to transmit stories to grandsons of grandsons, like Adam to Mahalaleel, overlapping lifespans for 135 years (LXX version).

I reckon the one who put the early chapters of Genesis (except perhaps 1:1 - 2:4, added by Moses) so transmitted into writing was Abraham - from his vocation onto the moving into Egypt there was at least a Beduin tribe that was capable of keeping a small portative library with them. The text mass I carry in newspapers and books in my luggage as a homeless man by far exceeds that of Genesis only, and a tribe varying in size between 318 men and 70 sth persons, men women and children with camels to help the carrying, would have had less trouble than that.

But the idea there was a "before language" in itself depends on that of accepting Evolution, Old Age, Geological Periods and so on.

2: As you wish, but next comment, since youtube might censor it here too.

You see, you could have gone to "spam comments" and validated my comment, and it would have shown up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

censored by youtube

@Crazykoke Broz essay on overlapping generations:
Creation vs. Evolution : Longevity Charts as per LXX
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html
the relevant blog post with our discussion:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : And Bill Nye Sucks at History of the Earth and Universe - He Doesn't Read the Bible (or Believe It)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/11/and-bill-nye-sucks-at-history-of-earth.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As I said, youtube censored my sharing my link here, and would have censored all of the comment if I had put previous in same comment.

Under your own video, you should, unlike here, be able to get the "spam comments" rendered visible.

Here is the notification I tried to give first in a mail, but the user had a mail adress not useable, then copying that in a comment on his or her youtube channel:

Me to Crazykoke Broz

11/14/2021 at 12:27 PM

Notification on our debate

You are aware that your comments, like mine, were already public.

I have made this debate a bit more accessible by mirroring it on my blog, second of these two posts:

Bill Nye Sucks at History of Ideas ... · And Bill Nye Sucks at History of the Earth and Universe - He Doesn't Read the Bible (or Believe It)

And, no, the blog is not monetized, the money I can earn from it is

• if you agree to republish on paper in paid format (and you could have a say in what editor) and you get your share of the proceedings
• or when I am writing the adress of the blog on a card board and using reading offered as my version of busking (I'm homeless, formerly a street singer, and too bad throat to continue that).

Hans Georg Lundahl

Back to thread under youtube:

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Give me the link again. the comment literally deleted itself (I searched everywhere for it).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz "the comment literally deleted itself"

Sounds like youtube censoring me when sharing a link. However, the comment should have been sent to your gmail account.

I tried to send it to the email you showed, on profile, didn't work.

If you post a comment with a functioning email, then delete it, it will still be sent to me, so I can email you the link.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz You can also try to search for a blog named "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere" and our discussion is still top on it.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well then.

Take it down! I don’t want to be in your blog without permission!

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl and just give me the link by itself on a comment so I can actually investigate it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz No.

You have taken a humiliating tone to me, and I do not want this to be undocumented. This blog is a kind of journalism on what Evolutionists (among others) let me put up with.

You have also given argument after argument that I have entered in in great detail, after which you have changed the subject, and this blog is also a kind of journalism on how I respond to arguments like yours and how people like you respond to mine. As long as people around me presume the good arguments are on your side and the bad arguments or none at all on mine, such a referral of an actual debate has journalistic value.

Your comments here are a minuscule part of your comments all over youtube, so, I invoke fair use. The blog post where your comments are a major part of it are a minuscule part of similar posts where others than you contributed. In other words, I have taken far less than 10 % of your opus and it constitutes far less than 10 % of mine. Unless you consider the blog post as such is the unit, or this debate as such. In that case I have gone further than 10 % obviously, both directions. I'd argue the other way, if you try to sue me.

Just in case you did not realise that you were making comments that already were public, take a look at what the combox says before you type the first letter. Leave a public comment ... so I have not published anything that was private either.

+ @Crazykoke Broz I have already tried to, youtube stops me. I did not take it down.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl IGNORE THE LAST COMMENT! IGNORE THE LAST COMMENT!

I am willing to settle this all now. The first thing I want to state is that after reaching to a conclusion by myself, it would be easier for me to accept that the argument was what it is, and that I went too far trying to defend my side of the argument. Which leads me to my next point, I am sorry for the destructive argument I created. For a while, I have had a bad habit of starting arguments on things like this and knew that this wouldn't lead anywhere good for me. Today is the day where !: I was right. And 2: Today is the day I shall no longer find an excuse to defend an argument over beliefs of peoples beliefs (especially mine) and make no need for an argument like this one.

I am hoping that we can no longer argue, forget about the argument, and continue minding out own business. I also give full permission to keep the blog post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Thank you very much for the permission.

I do not agree the argument was destructive, though.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It may have not been destructive, but arguments don’t always solve things. My behavior wasn’t entirely acceptable and that was unwise of me. Now that it is in the past, I’ll accept what is and move on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crazykoke Broz Best wishes for you.

As for me, the argument and posting them may help to solve out things for me - like, suppose for arguments sake some hysteric manages to put me before a shrink, I can point to our argument if he claims my position is a delusion with no arguments for it.

Or, in a somewhat more optimistic scenario, some guy who defends evolution more seriously than you do - Forrest Valkai, AronRa and so on - could get the idea that maybe second fiddles have done their job with me and it's their turn.

Crazykoke Broz

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You found material for your blog And I understood the irrelevance of randomly starting arguments (this wasn’t the first time I randomly jumped in without reason and I want it to be the last)

Keep up the good work with the blogs!

Instead of answering the last comment, I linked it.

Bill Nye Sucks at History of Ideas ...

Bill Nye Sucks at History of Ideas ... · And Bill Nye Sucks at History of the Earth and Universe - He Doesn't Read the Bible (or Believe It)

Hey Bill Nye, "How Do We Know the Earth Is Round?" #TuesdaysWithBill | Big Think
24th May 2016 | Big Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oz7k7Wn_vo

I

2:00 No one could afford to fake that much documentation ... bad argument.

I agree the earth is round, but this is a bad argument.

If NASA wanted to fake sth, they would have resources. I do not think they do, bit if they did, they would have resources.

And here is why I don't think they want to : on abiogenesis, they made an absurd claim, for cell membranes to have started out in a kind of soapy material and not phospholipids. I and Jonathan Sarfati both went against it, and the absurd article was taken down. Shows they have some honesty and decency ....

II

2:59 And here Bill Nye confuses Copernicus with Magellan.

If Copernicus repeated arguments already used by others in his book, that doesn't make it his discovery. However, Magellan did discover places showing Earth is a complete globe, not a "chapati pan" shaped object (rounded, but with an edge).

III

3:23 Here Bill Nye first of all confuses Aristotle with all of the Ancient Greeks.

No, the atheist guys Democritus, Epicure and Lucrece (one Roman in the end) weren't good at astronomy at all.

Second, this is Aristotle's weakest argument (the one he enumerated as 3:rd). Indian / Hindoo flat earthers consider the shadow - both type of eclipses! - is cast by the planet "Raku" which comes up above the rim when Sun and Moon line up on one side or around Earth, and otherwise remains invisible below the rim.

The good arguments : 1) ships seen from the shore get visible with sails first, meaning the waters are bent; 2) sun casts shadows of different angle on same day depending on place (measured by Eratosthenes, I think after Aristotle), but these two while excluding an entirely flat earth don't per se exclude the chapati pan.

So, Aristotle's strongest argument (until it was shown false) was 4) a pseudo-Magellan. When you cross the Ganghes, you arrive at Gibraltar. At least that is what Alexander and himself concluded, probably by having bad details on exactly how Gibraltar looks. Then the pseudo-Magellan with "Gibraltar east of Ganghes" was debunked (probably the distances for this didn't match up with the curvature of earth as measured by Eratosthenes, for one, unless one supposed N-S was the long axis of an American Football shaped object, which is exotic), and we had to wait for Magalhães to give the real version : knowing one can sail from Spain to Cape Horn westward, and arrive across Pacific still going westward to Indian Ocean and then still westward to Cape of Good Hope and that's just south of Spain, yeah, the globe shape is complete, and it roughly matches Eratosthenes' measures of the curvature.

4:02 Actually, the Hindoos believe Raku is a ball. So the shadow being circular from all directions doesn't necessarily prove it's earth that's a globe.

Those who still believe that are of course, erroneously, dismissing Magellan because he's Portuguese and Catholic.

IV

5:00 Navigating with merchandise actually counts as commerce. Sure, some science is involved.

And you still haven't mentioned Magellan ....

Bill Nye Answered on "Science Works" Meme, Inter Alia

Bill Nye Answered on "Science Works" Meme, Inter Alia · Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood, sorry, the Ark - I, my comments · Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry - II the dialogues

One single comment on a video of his:

Bill Nye: The Earth is Really, Really Not 6,000 Years Old
Big Think | 2.XII.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKElvfhNuhQ

Note, he may have moved on since then, learning something new .... but the video is what he thought back then.

Here is the comment:

5:00 "But I can't tell - I'm not sure if the guys, the people at Answers in Genesis really"
5:04 "believe that the earth is 6,000 years old."
5:06 "I'll say they certainly seem to."

Yes, except Habermehl who is more into 7500 years - and myself I go with Roman Martyrology and Heaven and Earth being 7200 years.

5:15 "But they all use mobile phones, they all use Facebook and Twitter and so on."

I actually don't use mobile phones and have no Twitter ... but OK.

5:21 "They take advantage of all of our technology developed through the process of science."

Yes, where is this going (I have a little hunch, just seeing how long he'll draw it out ...)?

5:37 "They are all happy to eat food grown on farms that is in general extraordinarily healthy in general compared to other parts of the world."

Well, some other parts are taking in MORE products of modern science which the West has banned. You know, DDT and so ...

5:42 "It's not laden with bacteria and other harmful pathogens that might be associated with food stock."

I'm sorry, but where is your evidence most places have bad food?

In India, in Bombay, milk is certainly sold from open cannisters with ladles to the customers, but it was milked same morning before dawn and it is thrown into the gutter at 12:00, so I don't think they get pathogens in milk in India (unless very poor and asking last moment "don't throw that milk out"), and also milk is typically used in cooking or to make pastries in India.

In the West you pasteurise milk, in India you pastries-ise it. Both ways, heat destroys pathogens which might have been attached to milke before application of heat and this happens before it is consumed.

6:00 "But apparently they don't seem to appreciate the science that led to it all."

Hello ... was I somehow not expecting this turn ...?

Now, if a certain time agriculture was being improved by a religious cult (which arguably has happened, as with Catholicism historically certainly) are you sure each religious cult so improving agriculture must be right on the cosmos?

I mean, Catholicism led to the heavy plough with a ploughbill turning the soil ... so, Catholicism, with Geocentrism and Universe Created in 5199 BC must be the truth ... on your view?

6:05 "And what I find so troubling with Answers in Genesis is that they have a very diligent"
6:09 "or complete indoctrination program for young people."

As in : you don't? As in : you are concerned with your monopoly being challenged?

In the book 101 faits insolites de la science, 19 % is materialism, naturalism, heliocentrism and evolution belief. Or even 22 % if you count softer statements. And it's for children.

6:24 "[indoctrinate] in the extraordinary and obviously wrong idea that the earth is somehow 6,000 years old."

Neither extraordinary, nor so obviously, unless we start looking at carbon build up in detail, which favour more like Earth being more like 7200 or 7500 years old.

It's your idea which would have seemed extraordinary to people who gave you agriculture, pottery, glass making, the wheel, fishing, boats, houses, clothes and quite a few more things.

6:30 - 6:34 "and there was a flood 4000 years ago and somehow land plants survived and salt water and seawater mixed bit there's still freshwater fish and so on."

Flood, on their view like 4400 years ago, on mine 5000 years ago, on Habermehl's 5300 years ago.

AND while the video is nearing the end, you have skipped the long prologue and are coming to arguments, hoorrah!

• 1) land plants can have survived by floating mats (some of which also didn't survive and made it to coal beds instead - like coal beds being seen from vertical cuts Z shaped or Y shaped being more difficult to explain with your world view);
• 2) who says sea water need to have been salty back then?
• 3) fish that are biologically either salt or fresh water can recondition over seven years, if changes are made slowly - and we believe addition of saltiness was a sufficiently slow process for this to happen, alternatively, fish survived in fresh water after Flood (and in parts of sea still fresh during Flood), then came fish with both salt and fresh tastes, like salmons, and then some salt water fish, purely so, evolved from fish of that persuasion).
• 4) "and so on" is not very specific.

6:40 "All these bits of evidence in nature that point out how obviously wrong it is, they"
6:46 "press on and work very hard to indoctrinate young people."

And you ignore their answers on these and other points and press on very hard to indoctrinate your set of young people, don't you?

Brief Answer to Lawrence Krauss + to Another Atheist on Quora

See this to see what I'm answering:

Lawrence Krauss: Our Godless Universe is Precious
Big Think | Ajoutée le 26 déc. 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB5cBl2np-I

@Lawrence Krauss, your "enjoying the moment we have in the sun, because it is all we have" perhaps doesn't take into account (does it now?) that some of us have very gruesome fashions of enjoying themselves.

Us being endowed with reason is actually a good argument against the world view which you mislabel "science".

As to your view of what Theism entails, I am also allergic to Calvinism.

Q

Can you believe that about 2000 years ago there was a man of imaginative mind and genius talent of writing and the entire contents of the Bible was just made up by his hand?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-believe-that-about-2000-years-ago-there-was-a-man-of-imaginative-mind-and-genius-talent-of-writing-and-the-entire-contents-of-the-Bible-was-just-made-up-by-his-hand/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

Answered just now

If about 2000 years ago a colleague of Tolkien had written all of the Bible, it would still be taken as a novel, not as documentary.

The genres were 2000 years ago known to be different.