... to Dawkins' "finest"

Video comented on:

ForaTv : Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The only alternative to it being a family tree is that the Intelligent Designer intended it as a catalogue - of resemblances.

But He does enjoy making "diviners of secrets" to nought. So he does allow evolutionist pseudoscientists to deceive themselves (by bad logic) on this one.

As also with "distant starlight" argument after not yet proving Heliocentrism so far.

Dawkins is also unnecessarily insulting Curt Wise, Geologist.

"If all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old earth" - unreal mood - "I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a YEC".

He admits to putting Bible over evidence. But he does not admit there is any evidence that conflicts with the Bible and he claims he would admit it if there was such.

Dawkins has not refuted, only ridiculed.

It seems he is the one who is holding his ears saying "la la la".

beringseaI

Not great on analysis, are you? Don't try for a law degree (as if)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you have one, that might explain why lawyers suck these days.

... on Diverse Sections of Ancient Aliens Debunked

Video commented on:

VerseByVerseBT : Ancient Aliens Debunked - (full movie) HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ

jaybone23

I don't know about extraterrestrials, but I do think there was a worldwide maritime civilization in existence pre-Sumerian, pre-Egyptian, etc. Most evidence of this civilization didn't survive the ages, but the similarities found in different civilizations all over the world suggest that there was probably some contact between them all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thor Heyerdahl has shown they can very well be connected in post-Sumerian times.

jaybone23

Yes, Thor Heyerdahl proved that it was possible for early civilizations to explore long distances via the oceans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And therefore also for traits to spread across oceans.

jaybone23

Indeed. Quite so. While we can set aside the notion of extraterrestrial intervention, we can't yet say with appropriate certainty over what time frame human civilization developed. The recent discoveries of homo erectus skulls at Dmanisi, in southern Georgia (the country) have raised many questions about human evolution, and therefore also civilization. We are always discovering and learning new things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would not bet my soul on the age of the skull at Dmanasi, nor whether it is to be classified erectus, habilis, ergaster or georgicus (all of above have as far as I know been suggested).

If we do want to know the origin of human civilisation, it is accessible and has been so since the times of Moses. I am speaking of certain early chapters of Genesis.

Part commented on:

Baalbek AA Debunked- (fixed audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya4taJTbY2A

Hans-Georg Lundahl (comment on main video rather than part video)

Michael Heiser is wrong about methodology.

If Gilgamesh epic had mentioned astronauts anywhere, and in the general region way west of Uruk, towards Baalbek, that would have been something to check up on.

I am more confident about the lexicon. Still, in another context, Behemoth may well have been a Brontosaur despite some Hebrew scholars explaining it as an Elephant and others as a Hippo.

Part commented on:

Chris White : Easter Island - AA Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0QcDpmcpmo

Hans-Georg Lundahl (comment on main video)

Moai on Easter Island ... you can go to Thor Heyerdahl's work Aku Aku.

Nothing left for Ancient Alien Astronauts to explain.*

The fact that moai were so much larger than men may be accurately explained by experience of giants. But none such needed to make and lift the moai.

*OK, either Nephelim or Ancient Alien Astronauts would explain the fad that Easter Islanders had for sculpting gigantic clumsy faces larger than men.

I am in that case for the Nephelim view.

Part commented on:

UFO's in Art - AA Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUUzQINoark

Hans-Georg Lundahl (in a footnote to an essay)

The section UFOs in Ancient art starts off as saying that supposed "space ships" in a Crucifixion scene are actually Sun and Moon shown with human traits throughout Crucifixion scenes of Byzantine Tradition. This totally agrees - not with Ancient Alien Austronauts indeed - but with what I believe: that Sun and Moon are either bodies of or more likely jewels held by angels. And of course that of the Sun did not only watch the Crucifixion, but also chose to go dark when watching it. Something God accorded him (unlike the usual rule for him of shining on both good and bad).

Part commented on:

Ancient Nuclear Warfare - AA Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ed_hWZnl8

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Section about hair and nails chewed off by rats at night comes after one about an iron bolt being ground to powder and threwn into the sea.

sacred-texts . com/hin/m16/m16001 . htm

What if the "iron" in that bolt was uranium?

"Ye wicked and cruel ones, intoxicated with pride, through that iron bolt ye will become the exterminators of your race with the exception of Rama and Janarddana."

What a threat, but what is done about it?

"When the next day came, Samva ... brought forth an iron bolt through which all ... the race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas became consumed into ashes. Indeed, for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas, Samva brought forth ... a fierce iron bolt that looked like a gigantic messenger of death. The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king ... caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder. Men were employed ... to cast that powder into the sea."

It is after that that rats come up in manifold numbers and are presumed to gnaw hair and nails out of people.

This can be a very naive interpretation of rats fleeing from a nuclear contaminated sea already with radiation on themselves and this radiation bringing about fall out of hair and nails.

If real date for Mahabharata is just pre-flood this fits very well with "all flesh was corrupt".

Part commented on:

Anunnaki - AA Debunked (fixed audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbBvYxx1ODc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anunnaki = offspring of Anu and Ki (of heaven-god and earth-goddess)?

Or

Coming from Anu and Ki ?

If you notice the imagery in the word "descendant" there may be a real ambiguity. Sitchin could have a point.

But supposing the Sumerian term has no such double meaning as "descend" (from a place or in a family tree) - I do clearly not have any credentials in Sumerian - the meaning "offspring of sky and earth" if not very supportive to Sitchin is supportive to the view they are some kind of reflex of the Biblical Nephelim (on the angel view, not the Setite view).

Part commented on:

Nephilim - AA Debunked (fixed audio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44WCpGvz6ck

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The idea of Nephelim being made through artificial insemination may come from St Augustine via St THomas Aquinas AND a rejection of St Augustine's view.

St Augustine as you know proposed the Setite view (sons of God=Setite tribe believers, daughters of man=Cainite tribe unbelievers or scoffers or secularists ...) and I think also denied angels could procreate on the basis that God had not created them for procreation (based on "[angels] do not marry").

St Thomas accepts this view, both on angels and on Genesis 6, but he also seems to accept some kind of rumours that children had been produced by angelic or diabolic acts. Romulus, Hercules, Merlin come to my mind.

His explanation to such things is that demon first acts as "succuba" to get semen from a man and then as "incubus" to insert that semen into a woman.

Basically what has later been done when it comes to inseminations from sperm banks. (Video showed in vitro, which is another thing).

And von Däniken rejects the Setite view but accepts the insemination view ... but that does not excuse his dishonesty about the text of course!

If we descend from Battenosh, if that was the name of Noah's mother, then von Däniken has deeply insulted all mankind (post-Flood).

... on Columbus in a video mainly about Atlantis

Video commented on:

joemozzone : Atlantis- The Lost Continent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Sg0labHKg

comments concern mainly what went before time signatures and thus only a smaller portion of the video:

I - 0:14:33 or rather before

Inquisition was arguably not bathing Spain in an atmosphere of terror.

Cf St Ignatius of Loyola who on three occasions was accused of being an Alumbrado and all three times was innocented. Third time he agreed to study theology before telling the difference of mortal and venial sin in the lives of people confiding to him. So told, he went to Paris to study, where St Thomas Aquinas had studied before him.

Terror? No, except to Cryptojews.

II - 0:15:49 or rather before

"Beyond this was the netherworld, peopled by people not descended from Adam and Eve, which in the eyes of many made them children of the devil ..."

What exact Christian Medieval Reference do you have for that? Not Dante*. He placed the Netherworld within the Globe.

Not Snorri Sturlason either**. He was resuming what Nordic Pagans had believed, not what he believed himself as a Christian. And a learned man.

Not St Thomas Aquinas. Who?

*Divina Commedia

**Gylfaginning

III - 0:16:36

Columbus' opponents argued that noone would be able to get across a belt of very strong winds cutting us off from other hemisphere.

And Inquisition was not snooping into "ridiculous" ideas but into such that contradicted formulated Christian dogma or standard practise.

Alumbrados for instance believed Inner Light trumped Bible and Church. Calvinists in Holland next century that God decided whatever each man decides including sins that damn him.

Not so Columbus.

IV - a little after that, about Columbus in Spain:

Mocked and abused even by children ... source please?!

V - Beginning:

Socrates seems not to have been Plato's tutor even in philosophy when he was a little boy, Plato was nearly thrity when Socrates was condemned to death, and he had had another tutor in philosophy before Socrates.

... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC priest (?) and his defenders, part I

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:

tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQuvwQ4y-k

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If a Hindoo wants to teach his children the earth is on the back of a turtle or a Jew that it is flat, they have a right to do so if homeschooling or if paying their own schools.

However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory.

These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis.

So far

I have go three responses (four ...)

I

ExtantFrodo2

Are you brain dead or just home schooled?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Home schooled in part.

Public school tried to make me brain dead, but failed. So far.

II

MoiAussi

"However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory."

If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you mean a toy version of London Bridge, I think that can wait until I have an appartment to keep it in and children who will play with it.

Thank you very kindly!

III

sven svensson

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Dt.23:2

So there we have it -- God does NOT allow creationists to enter churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Creationists are no bastards,

2) the fact you can allude to them as such shows what the unbalance in education is causing in terms of barbarism,

3) that rule of Deuteronomy was for Old Testament anyway. A method to keep the lineage of Our Lord unsullied. Or as clean as possible (cf Athalia and three missing generations in Gospel of St Matthew).

As to Q mark in title ...

... I do not know if he (in the video) is Anglican (non-priest) or Catholic (presumably priest even if modernist).

IV

Akita538

An invisible, massless turtle would be much easier to accommodate than geocentrism or denial of the actual, demonstrable age of the earth.

I'm also pretty sure that Judaism doesn't cling to the solid firmament, small stars and flat earth cosmology of Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not know what you call Judaism. I do know that some Jews are in flat earth society and as long as their children are minors, they have a right to see that that is what their children are taught in schools they pay for (and making them pay by taxes for schools they do not choose is a clear evil).

Now, you presumed that Geocentrism or YEC go against what is demonstrable or are inaccomodable? Why so? What is your refutation?

Btw, I am Catholic ...

Akita538 (first answer to "I do not know what you call Judaism")

I don't decide what is Judaism - try Wikipedia.

Lying to children as a human rights issue? I'm not impressed!

The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating and observation of geological processes. The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars. Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wikipedia may very well be accurate in what it states, insofar as inaccuracies are often deleted. It is however not complete.

A man who believes the earth is flat is not lying to his children when telling them it is flat. He is just wrong and as long as they believe him they are wrong. That includes a few Jews (far from majority) and also some Hindoos who think there is a visible and heavy turtle under it, once you look from the right angle.

Educating the young is up to parents. Right or wrong.

Except when children are baptised and the baptismal faith of children is at stake.

"The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating (a) and observation of geological processes (b)."

a) That is based on assumptions about initial state and probably too long half lives calculated according to b.

b) That is based on uniformitarian (anti-gobal-Flood) assumptions.

In both cases it is assumptions.

"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. ... (Answers continued below after debate on this)

Akita538

The 'proper movement' would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth. Since it is possible to imagine magic entities 'shifting the scenery' to back up *any* proposition, you are effectively asking for a blank cheque with that argument!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can have created the world any way He wanted to.

God can have made the world look any way He wanted to.

What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West.

It would not be exactly calculated to deceive observers on earth, except if they had a clear reason to believe the stars did not move on their own.

But since Geocentrism is the default and common sense interpretation of our daily observations, and it involves stars moving daily around us, we would have no such reason.

It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss.

Akita538

"What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West"

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you got somewhat wrong what parallax changes were about.

Also somewhat wrong how modern astronomy pretends to demonstrate rotation of earth.

Akita538

It doesn't just rotate, it orbits the sun!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another question.

But the point is, not only does it not look like orbitting the sun, it does not even look like rotating.

And if it does not rotate it certainly is not orbitting anything, but everything is each day orbitting it. Whatever the other relations are between the other bodies.

Akita538

"God can have created the world any way He wanted to"

Try telling a 'creationist' that!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They already know, that includes the Protestants.

God could have created the world over billions of years if He had wanted to.

But could He have wanted to? And if He had done so, could He have wanted to reveal what He did to Moses the way He did?

That rather than any arbitrary limits on the Omnipotence is the Creationist argument against Old Earth scenarios. [As far as theology is concerned]

(Continuing answers after debate on "parallax" made by angels).

"Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics."

One can reject Newtonian assumptions about this without rejecting the physics observed on earth.

F o a this is mostly taken out and carefully considered only in two body problems (sun - earth, earth - moon, sometimes earth - moon set into relation with sun as well).

But its "parallels" on earth involve a string or solid rim and are thus 3 body problems.

And second, the relative masses are not known per se, but deduced from this theory.

And third, it involved the kind of problems with planet Mercury that could not be resolved until Einstein introduced yet another theory.

Akita538

Any decision to assume that there is different physics in different places demands justification. Since ONE physics explains all relevant observations, there is no reason to propose a different one just for the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is you do not have the same physics in the supposed two body problems in the universe and their supposed parallels on earth.

Their supposed parallels uniformly involve a "parallel" to gravitation which is no force but a body.

[in parallel to above]

But the point is you do NOT have one physics on earth and for what you assume as celestial mechanics.

Stone on string is not a two body problem with your hand and the stone, but a third body, the string is sham "parallel" to gravitation.

Biker in hub is not a two body problem with biker and centre of hub, it is also a third body, the hub, which is sham "parallel" to the gravity.

For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.

Akita538

Are you really basing an argument on not understanding physics? : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, you are.

You are basing your argument on not understanding physics any better than your teacher in school presented it.

And that is just a bit too bad.

Because a stone on a string is not a smaller body "attached" to a greater one through its gravitation. It is rather attached for real, on a string.

Answering mine

For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.

ExtantFrodo2

SpaceVidsNet : [ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A pretty close parallel to the experiment of magnets on ice. Even better, actually concerned with gravitation. [actually not as I saw when seeing full title, but electromagnetic attraction]

And better than so. It orbitted more than I expected.

However, it did not orbit billions of orbits, like some certains pretend Earth has been orbitting Sun. I am not sure it took ten or fifteen orbits, and down the drop went to the pen (or whatever the object was).

Akita538 (second answer to "I do not know what you call Judaism")

But what when you want an ambulance and a doctor, and somebody to give a shit whether you are wrongly arrested, or expect people to respect your property?

Try 'buying' all those when you need them. They wouldn't be there if somebody didn't pay for *real* education, and the law didn't create concepts such as 'property' or 'habeus corpus'. Maybe you should stop using a language you didn't create?

Governments and corporations love 'individuals' - they are so easy to control!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ambulances and doctors are made with medical education which does not at all depend on either the General Theorem of Evolution or Heliocentrism and all that.

Medicine (or the somatic part) is what some YEC have the presence of mind to call a "here-and-now-science".

Ambulances and doctors are made with a medical education which is at university level and therefore not available to children or youngsters under the parental custody.

"Governments and corporations love 'individuals' - they are so easy to control!"

Except when they aren't.

Homeschooling is not easy to control. Governments are tearing lives to pieces in the attempt to do so. Like German case with the Wunderlich family.

Akita538

Actually vehicle technology and medicine *do* rely on science.

YECs make an idol of a literalist interpretation of parts of the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The literalist interpretation which you call an idol is actually the traditional of holy church.

Technology and medicine (the somatic part) do rely on science, more precisely on what can be observed here and now and everywhere and anytime.

Not on what can only be gotten about the past or the distant or the hidden.

Akita538 (i)

'Creationism' as such is a comparatively recent invention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

Creationist refutations of evolutionism is a recent invention.

Creationist beliefs are by contrast totally traditional.

You do Trent, you do Church Fathers, all were YEC, all were Geocentric. That was why Galileo was condemned.

Akita538 (ii)

"even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world.. ..and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian"

St Augustine ~480AD

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wonderful. I know that quote.

But my point is what you propose as knowledge (that "even" non-Christians have) is in this case not so.

Ever checked what St Augustine did when Biblical account of Jacob and Esau contradicted what he saw as astrological knowledge?

And remember that apart from Christians everybody back then would have agreed with the Manichaeans that astrology was science.

I am afraid of a man with only one St Augustine quote.

Inserting

from his answers later to someone else, but same subject:

Akita538

If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works? The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible - it was created by men, long after the bible was written.

Men did not create hundreds of millions of year's worth of rock and fossils, or DNA, or light travelling from billions of light years away. All of these are facts which (unlike biblical interpretations!) would exist even if no man had ever existed.

notstayinsdowns

Why wouldn't God speak literally?

Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the million's or years. While the fossils and rocks show flood evidence. God can create light to already be on it's way since He is the source of light and DNA acts just like God created, it is limited to kinds.

Akita538

You could just as easily condemn Newton in the same way!

"Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the force of gravity to explain planets staying in their orbits without God guiding them."

You speak for ignorance and superstition. Is that what you think Christianity is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to last of Akita)

Newton is indeed behind a Deist line of thought.

His famous admirer in France was the Deist Voltaire.

He was also - Newton - an Occultist.

He also when working out the two body problems behind his theory of solar system failed to refute an alternative theory, that of angelic movers.

This has not been refuted since either.

And of God as mover behind daily movement of sky.

Not refuted since then either.

Akita538

Worthless theories don't need refuting. They are ten a penny. I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your 'theory' about the stars work.

Given infinite resources, anything could be true. Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your 'memories' two weeks ago are fake?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your 'theory' about the stars work."

Angels are no more undetectable than electrons.

Each is detected only by the work it does and usually not directly to sight.

They are also part of the Catechism (in case you care).

They were also the standard theory about the physics before Newton (he should have cared).

I am not invoking fakeness of any memory or any direct observation.

Strawmannus maximus = fail.

Try again.

Akita538

Oh the irony - in falsely accusing me of using a strawman argument, you are employing one yourself.

I did not suggest that you had invoked any memory or observation.

My point was about the cheapness and insignificance of all your claims. There are an unlimited number of worthless claims that couldn't be disproved if infinite resources were employed to make them appear true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Point is that God has infinite resources.

We do not live in a Universe of limited resources.

And invoking the resources of God is very different from invoking the fakeness of observation or memory. Hence my charge about strawman.

You asked - namely - "Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your 'memories' two weeks ago are fake?"

Did you forget that?

"cheapness and insignificance" are an excuse for not arguing.

And once again, I am not suggesting infinite resources to make something appear true, but there are infinite resources behind what in fact is true. The infinite resources of God.

Akita538

You are invoking infinite resources to support claims which are too weak to stand up on their own.

There is an endless supply of "cheapness and insignificance". The distinctive and consistent quality of such dross is that it leads nowhere - it is terminally unproductive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very much not.

Geocentrism stands up on observation.

It can only be explained with the infinite resources of God.

Take away those infinite resources, you get Heliocentrism. It may not be able to stand its explanation correctly without the inifinite resources of God.

And it cannot be proven (so far as I have seen for ten years of debating) without assuming Atheism or assuming that "God does not want to show off".

As for "unproductivity", I agree I will not build machines based on angels. So?

Akita538 I (see II below)

Geocentrism stands up on observation if infinite resources are employed to create that appearance.

True. And so does ANYTHING ELSE! An infinite number of turtles? No problem. Everything being recreated every Thursday? Well, you can't prove it isn't, so it must be true!?!!?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, no, no.

That is not infinite resources of a creator. Those are infinite resources of deception.

Geocentrism is not created as appearance by inifinite resources, but as physical reality by infinite resources.

As appearance it is our basic observation.

As intuitive as "everything created last thursday" is counterintuitive.

Akita538 (i)

Infinite resources are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)

Infinite resources of creation are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of creation.

Such as every Christian believes God has.

Infinite resources of deception are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of deception.

Such as no Christian believes Satan has, such as no Christian believes God would apply.

Akita538 (ij)

Everything being recreated every Thursday perfectly matches what is observed but, since it is one of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions, few bother to make it.

Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism!) is just *one* more of that infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij)

Geocentrism is not a perfectly pointless assumption, it is a resumé of direct observation.

And I am not saying it is either made to look like Heliocentrism or even looks like Heliocentrism remotely. Heliocentrism is simply not what reality looks like.

Akita538 (continuing ij)

But observation does *not* support geocentrism: you admitted that yourself when you claimed that angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect which is evidence for heliocentrism.

You have certainly shifted your ground if you are now pretending that observation doesn't support heliocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said parallax actually supports Heliocentrism in good logic.

I did say parallax is one argument used for Heliocentrism.

I also said "parallax" is a misnomer, but not because of what it looks like, only because of what a certain interpretation wants to interpret it as.

Angels and God certainly took that into account though.

Why should they not have fun at modern "science" and its adherents, when there is so little between its observations and its conclusions as far as connexion goes?

Akita538

No, no, no. What you said was that angels moved the stars in just such a way as to *exactly* match the parallax changes predicted by heliocentrism.

Given the non-trivial number of stars involved, that would be strong evidence of deliberate and calculated deception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You speak as if God's Veracity involved a duty to a set of people set out on interpreting such and such a phenomenon wrongly and atheistically to prevent that set from getting any way with their false premise at all.

As for the rest, I copied out relevant parts of earlier dialogue from the blog post.

• You:"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."
  
  
• Me:"Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. "
  
  
• You:"The 'proper movement' would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth."
  
  
• Me:"It would not be exactly calculated to deceive observers on earth, except if they had a clear reason to believe the stars did not move on their own.
  
  But since Geocentrism is the default and common sense interpretation of our daily observations, and it involves stars moving daily around us, we would have no such reason.
  
  It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss."
  
  
• Maybe clearer: by the false premise they introduce.

Akita538

I'm saying calculating hypocrisy involving angels is still calculating hypocrisy. : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Calculating a course of action justified in itself (like angels dancing in time with the Sun while holding their stars) does not become hypocrisy because one can also calculate the fact that x, y and z are going to get it wrong and use it as proof of an error.

For instance, God and the angels knew perfectly well how Astrologers would take Venus in the Virgo part of the Zodiak seen from Earth, yet the fact that Astroogy is wrong does not make God and the angels hypocrites just because Venus is sometimes in Virgo.

Why should they owe more to "modern science" than to superstition? What if modern science (on this level, not those relevant for building cars or computers) is a superstition?

Answered twice (for original separate parts)

• Akita538 A
• Akita538 B

Akita538 A

Why would you of all people think that astrology is wrong? You appear to have exactly the mindset for superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit with an added touch of sophistry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You appear to have the kind of mindset that is required for "reasoning" by association rather than by reasons - and for establishing guilt by association.

Father Brown (if you know the sacerdotal colleague of Sherlock Holmes) was asked why he did not believe the story of a curse.

"My business is to believe some things and so not to believe others".

I am sure St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine and St Jerome whom I am basically agreeing with appreciate your assessment properly.

Akita538 B

Utter hypocrisy. They would not happen to falsify the appearance accurately by chance. The only conceivable motive would be deceit.

Since no belief about the material world is part of Christianity, then the motivation would have to have some other source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is it is not my version but your version of the facts which gives us a falsified appearance of the facts. Parallactic movement means "illusion of movement in other object due to unnoticed movement in observer".

Doing it *accurately* is a matter on why it agrees with the annual movement of the sun (in a minority of stars!). And that is a matter of "dancing in time" with the sun if I am right.

Heliocentrism is no part of Christianity. Geocentrism may be so. At least in Holy Writ & CF.

Akita538

You are not right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

About which of the items and how so?

Unless you prefer to conclude your part of the debate.

Akita538

You said 'that is a matter of "dancing in time" with the sun if I am right'. Well, it isn't so you aren't right.

There is no evidence of the deception that you describe, so we have no reason to assume that it occurs. Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism by God's deceit) is just *one* of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Our main reason is that our eyes and inner ears give us a prima facie evidence for geocentrism.

Our next reason is that geocentrism philosophically entails Theism (for daily movement of all heaven) and if I may coin a word angelism for at least the planets.

Our third reason is that if planets move as observed around an earth that is still they form a floral pattern so as to indicate aesthetic motives being involved.

Hence: so called "parallax" is not mainly fake "such" but art. Of angels.

Akita also answered my earlier words:

You speak as if God's Veracity involved a duty to a set of people set out on interpreting such and such a phenomenon wrongly and atheistically to prevent that set from getting any way with their false premise at all.

Akita538

By 'wrongly' you mean 'honestly'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I mean wrongly.

People were bent on finding parallax because already - mistakenly - believing Heliocentrism. Then the phenomenon was found.

And was interpreted as parallax.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita "But observation does *not* support geocentrism")

Parallax is evidence of angels. Don't you know? Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons. Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth. HAZZAH! (Watch the idiot actually use this BS)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons."

I do think angels are in tune, I do think they are good dancers.

"Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth."

To the Sun, actually. Earth is not moving so nothing can conform to any movement of it.

And no, on a larger scale it is Sun which conforms nearly to stars rotating around Earth each day.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita "But observation does *not* support geocentrism" again)

"angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect"

"Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover."

Insanity runs deep in this one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Watch it, one of your quotes is from myself, one is from Akita's resumé of me.

I did not say the angels faked the parallax effect. I said they did what is mistaken for a parallax effect.

Not same thing.

ExtantFrodo2

Sorry that you think so. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry about your logic.

They would be same thing if primary purpose of those movements would be us mistaking them for parallactic ones.

Neither I as a Geocentric nor you as an obvious atheist would agree to that.

ExtantFrodo2

So the only thing you object to is the "faking" part of it. How fucking sad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The only thing I object to is the faking part.

Sad or not for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to previous of Akita)

"The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible - it was created by men, long after the bible was written."

Wrong.

"Men did not create hundreds of millions of year's worth of rock and fossils,"

Did not create rocks or fossils, but the millions of years interpretation.

"or light travelling from billions of light years away."

Did not create the light but the billions of light years away interpretation.

Akita538

The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean "Bible alone" is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

That is something other than "the literalist interpretation" of the Bible, which is found in it.

Jesus clearly endorsed Young Earth Creationism. Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Akita538 II (see I above)

By 'unproductive', I meant that it will not lead to any new knowledge, just a series of new evasions and 'fixes' to prop up a worthless assumption.

If we abandon your assumption that God is deceitful, then the evidence clearly denies the possibility of geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Angels are not an ad hoc just for this.

2) I am nowhere assuming that God is deceitful.

I am assuming He allows those who wish to make overinterpretations in atheistic modes to deceive themselves.

3) Geocentrism on the contrary assumes God is truthful and gave us a view of the Universe corresponding to what it really is like.

V (on my original)

trueleroix

"However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory."

Joking, right?

"These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis."

Seriously, why did you type this? Are you trying to get a rise out of someone?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Instead of asking "joking", what is your refutation?

trueleroix

You're not fooling me twice. Why don't you tell me some of the basic refutations of what you typed. You can start educating people instead of pretending to be a dumb ass (which is being a dumb ass in it's own way), and I won't have to type them for the millionth time. How bout it? Join the productive folks that actually like to share information?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides.

The refutation against Geocentrism is ... do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?

I am productive and sharing information, you are not.

trueleroix

"The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides."

OK, that one works.

"The refutation against Geocentrism is ... do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?"

OK, I think you mean Mr. Spock from Star Trek. Dr. Spock writes about babies. Common error, not a big deal. Yes, those are two characters from fiction, but I don't see what they have to do with refuting geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant the Spock from Star Trek.

The thing is these fictional characters are the closest thing Heliocentrism has in parallel to Columbus' and da Gamas very practical demonstration of a Globe.

And as for Eratosthenes demonstrations of globe, well, they are less direct, but what we have like that against Geocentrism is clearly more dubious than Eratosthenes once I look at it.

Did you ever look at it?

Akita538 (before trueleroix could, see below)

I notice that your own church has no problem with real astronomy or evolution.

Perhaps you are not really a catholic but part of a fantasy sect? : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Perhaps you are not really informed about the acts of the magisteria, but manipulated by things like interviews and allocutions of considerably less value than the judgement of 1633? :)

I also notice you put above not in answer to my words about Church Fathers or about the St Augustine quote, but in a totally different debate on whether I can be and have been proven wrong on a purely scientific level.

I resent that and take that as deliberate obfuscation of the debate.

Akita538

The views about astronomy of the church *you* claim to belong to are highly relevant to *your* claims about astronomy. Got it now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You should still have put the answer in the subthread where it was relevant. I dislike cluttering a debate by mixing subthreads.

St Augustine did not claim Heliocentrism was part of what even infidels know or that Christians denying it make themselves ridiculous.

He was a Geocentric like all other Church Fathers.

And if you wish to go further to St Thomas Aquinas, look up Prima Pars, Q 70 I think it was Article 3.

I am agreeing with that. And it has not been condemned by the Church.

trueleroix

Against geocentrism? We don't have cases against true facts. We don't debate true facts. You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you. Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn't know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you."

You are not proving Heliocentrism true.

"Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn't know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?"

Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a "basic fact".

Magorax

Wrong. Fusion in stars is an observation. Ever head of Spectroscopy?

Furthermore, it is an observation entirely consistent with and borne out by quantum mechanics, which is by several orders of magnitude, the most precise model we have for how matter behaves.

Stellar nucleosynthesis is by any measure you care to name a "basic fact".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would say presence of elements one of which can fuse into other (say H and He) is born out very well by spectroscopy.

Even that is a conclusion. And fusion is in itself a conclusion of that conclusion.

Now, the point was, do you have similar arguments against Geocentrism as you have for fusion in stars?

MoiAussi

You're an idiot. I don't think I can add anything much more constructive than that. It's a conclusion, borne out by the observation of your posts on this thread. Thus, by reversing your own twisted logic, that translates as being what sane people would regard as a fact.

Yep! you're an idiot. Quod errat demonstandum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are bad at latin.

Quod non erat demonstrandum, sed quod demonstrasti.

As for the rest, I was asking you [actually someone else] to apply the distinction between "basic observation" (observation was my wording, not fact, since a fact not observed can be basic in the other realm of explanation) and "conclusion".

Will you admit that fusion is a conclusion?

And will you defend the conclusions against Geocentrism?

MoiAussi

Fusion is a fact. It can be performed. Don't start with the Descartesian mumbo-jumbo about the uncertainty of existence. That is totally outside the realm of empirical science; and renders any of your arguments pointless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am very much not into Cartesian mumbo-jumbo about uncertainty of existence. You are bad at Logic as well as about Latin.

I know fusion as observed in CERN is a fact, if it has been performed (for how long, though?).

I know it involves H + H > D, D + D > He.

I know spectroscopy shows H and He are present in Sun.

Still, fusion in Sun is not observation, but conclusion (from these facts, through parallel being probable).

Now, prove Heliocentrism if you can. That was the main issue.

trueleroix

"You are not proving Heliocentrism true."

Of course I am not. I already know about it. You need to do this for yourself.

"Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a "basic fact"."

Well, it is a basic fact, and I'm not going to "make a case" for something you can easily look up. Do this and we can talk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How can a man believing Heliocentrism false "need" to prove it true?

Your stance does not make sense.

As for fusion happening in stars being a fact, someone just made a case for it. I am not rejecting it.

I was asking him and am asking you to make such a case against Geocentrism if you can.

Or one like the one I did myself against flat Earth.

You agreed you had no Columbus or da Gama, since Han Solo is fiction.

Where is your counterpart to Eratosthenes? Do you have a good one?

trueleroix

Look it up. Prove yourself wrong. Get back to me. I don't have time for this. You have the internet. Don't be lazy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not being lazy.

I did the research (in the book and internet resources, not in the observations or calculations). You trust others did it for you.

That is what I am challenging.

"Prove yourself wrong."

I actually tried to find out if space probes proved me wrong.

So far I have not seen they must do so.

[Catholic Answers Forum : Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism]

trueleroix also answered this one of mine

"The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel.

trueleroix

OK, that was quite a bit of typing before you went for the certain reveal of your status. I really want to know why you do it though? You know that there are real people saying things almost as stupid as this character you are portraying. Why must you supplement them with your imitations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My name here is Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my blogs is also Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my last passport which I no longer have is Hans-Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl.

Do a google for Hans-Georg Lundahl with keywords like "angelic movers", "heliocentrism", "geocentrism", "trigonometry" if you like. If you know French, add French translations to the searches for key words.

When you have done that, come back.

trueleroix

Why would I look this up? You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap. I don't want to know all this personal stuff about you. I suggest you refute what you have written so far. It will be a good exercise for you. I am not a mental health professional. Good luck.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap."

OK, with that attitude, when can the debate begin?

"I am not a mental health professional."

I am not asking for one.

"I don't want to know all this personal stuff about you."

I am not writing (mostly) about me. I am for instance writing about why Geocentrism is true. Note that even if I were wrong that would not be about me, but about my arguments.

You are not near refuting them.

trueleroix

Me, refute geocentrism? No, you refute geocentrism. I don't need to do this exercise.

VI

Akita538

"What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West"

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

trueleroix

Dude, the guy said that angels do the parallax imitation movements. I'm dead serious. You can scroll down and see.

Akita538

I know. I know - that just is what they are like - they make life easy for themselves by making up whatever shit happens to fit their current purpose.

Honest people, on the other hand, are expected be perfect and infallible and do all the work!

trueleroix

He was challenging me to refute his claims. I'm like dude, you have the internet? You want me to type whole chapters of astronomy and geology texts in these 500 character boxes? Lazy bastards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to Akita538)

The point is: if you had real understanding about Heliocentrism being true, it would not be work for you to refute me.

That is why I do not take you for a very honest person.

If I asked you to refute flat earth, you would have no more trouble than I had. If I asked you to prove 2+2=4, you would have no trouble.

But I ask you to prove what you believe and you go like "what a load of work" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to trueleroix)

No, not whole chapters.

Just the salient arguments in them - insofar as you believe them.

Slow build up of high sediment layers still not credible ...

Video commented on:

Potholer54debunks : Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

ajbdeane

Basically, when you look at the evidence that is coming to light recently - the dinosaurs just aren't millions of years old. They are thousands of years old. There really is evidence for soft tissue is the bones and blood vessels. Osteoclasts are even mentioned in that Smithsonian article! You can not deny it any longer. There are two options - either go against the observational data about how stable cells are (i.e. not that stable!) or redate the fossils. Hence, this supports the global flood.

Richard Dawkins

"By Helen Fields

Smithsonian magazine MAGZINE , May 2006, Subscribe"

(no peer review markers)

talkorigins . org/faqs/dinosaur/blood . html*

(peer review markers)

ajbdeane

Thank you for your reply Richard Dawkins. The interesting thing about the talkorigins article, is that it is a decade old - 2004 - therefore doesn't include the more recent research.

And I'm sure you are aware that the BBC documentary followed the story and it was clear that they had found red blood cells and even showed where the DNA was in the cells.

You can see the photos on the website - you can see that they are red blood cells! This is interesting, evolutionists denying what is observable!

Angelmou

Nope, no one denies the analysis of dinosaur proteins in bones anymore.They are base for further genetic decoding. And to no ones surprise it supports bird evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

T Rex or other?

What bird are they closest to?

Not meaning I support bird evolution as such of course ...

Angelmou

T-Rex of course. The ornithischia branch died out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And ... what bird are they closest to?

Angelmou

I think you don't understand how evolution works, is this possible?

Every new branch of the tree of life grows bigger and allows new underbranches to spread and to develop own characteristics. So after the first forms of Bilateria appears the new branch made the superphylum Ecdysozoa, the superphylum Lophotrochozoa and Deuterostomia possible - the new superphylum branches Deuterostomia made the chordata and the vertebrate possible to spread. Humans for example are STILL Deuterostomia and we are still chordata,vertebrate,mammals.So our body is first build by the code to form a Deuterostomia(the first mouth is becoming the anus) you can see this within the Gastrulation of Embryogenesis and so on.

When you ask for"which bird"you don't know what you are talking about. Birds are part of the clade "saurischia".They are still dinosaurs,like they are still vertebrate.So we show if that is true by analyzing T-Rex blood.So we see T-Rex is saurischia like birds but not mammal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, T Rex is more like birds than mammals.

I was not in doubt of that.

I was asking which kind of bird comes closest to T Rex according to that analysis.

Instead of answering, you gave a lecture about evolution.

Answering my actual question would be welcome as well.

Angelmou

If you look at the en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org / wiki /Category:Cretaceous_birds (Without spaces)

You can see that the genetic bottleneck kills almost all old branches of birds/small dinosaurs during the big dinosaur extinction event.So instead of forms of Hesperornis we had till 1852 the Great Auk or still living Albatrosses in that niche and instead of Iberomesornis we have the House Sparrow etc.

So I think you may ask for a modern bird that did transform farthermost from original theropod forms?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was not asking about that aspect of evolutionary theory.

I was asking very directly: what bird was it closest to, according the the chemical and genetic tests?

And you have still not answered question.

Angelmou (general comment)

The video is not uptodate. We know today that DNA can exist for millions of years and analyses of proteinstructures were able to show us that they were similar to birds. That is one modern reason why birds are actually dinosaurs. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you very much.

It proves DNA exists for millions of years only if you assume that is how old the proteinstructures are.

But thank you for noting the video is not up to date.

I assume what has been found so intact supports pretty rapid burial and that part of the video is still up to date?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (own general comment)

9:10

"created in just a few hundred years easily burying trees..."

Buried quickly is a very good point.

If too high levels of mud start covering base of a tree, its roots will not survive for another hundred years.

And if roots do not survive for another hundred years, what sticks up above the mud layers will not survive either. And when a tree is dead, it will not keep intact (except what is already buried) for another hundred years while more mud layers form.

I think those rocks will very arguably be admitted to have formed much quicker than "just a few hundred years".

And I think if this much quicker does not automatically identify with a global flood, it is compatible with it.

Especially since repeated all over the globe.

*Dawkins' link itself linked to: Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone

by Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall†, Keith Carron‡, D. Scott Bohle‡, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold‡, Darlene Barnard†, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶

Abstract

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

Question:

If what was found was not actual hæmoglobin but a breakdown product, and that Carl Wieland thus got it wrong, what about testing if the serum takes care of breakdown products? Surely one can speed up the breaking down of hæmoglobin!

*Dawkins' link actually contained:

I quote:

There are many problems with their position, but ultimately it reduces to nothing other than they just don't think that organic molecules can last a long while. The "Creation Science" approach is to deny the independent results of geology, chemistry and astronomy because these molecules exist.

Now, that is a "dinosaur" if you like alive and well. A very big Strawmannus Maximus. The Creation Science approach is not to say "we admit geology, chemistry and astronomy independently of each other as well as of evolutionism prove the earth is billions of years old, but here we have one find which indicates the opposite, lets concentrate on that and ignore the rest."

It is rather to say "they purport to prove earth billions of years old by geology but look at all the rapid burials, they purport to prove the earth billions of years old by chemists analysing radioactivity and its breakdown products, but look at their assumptions about initial states we cannot check, they purport to prove universe is billions of years old by distant starlight ..." - here I insert that I reject the distance measures as a Geocentric, and their acrobatics about astronomy I leave to them - "but here is one thing that really does prove the dino was buried very much more recently than they supposed ...".

Dawkins (I suppose the profile is his or that of one collaborator with his site) called his link peer reviewed, but they were not peer reviewing for logic or for fairness to Creationists!

Geocentrism still not disproven ...

Video commented on:

potholer54 : The Immoveable Earth (more Golden Crocoduck nominees)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpeYDmDpma8

7:03

You compared gravity to magnets.

Now, anyone tried shooting a little magnet past a big one to see if it gets caught in an orbit?

7:33

I would think Geocentrism requires a continuous miracle.

Sure. That is why it proves there is a God. Unless Heliocentrism can be shown to be true and to not require such a miracle.

So, how about shooting a little magnet past a big one (say on ice) and see if you can start an orbit from intertia of little one plus attraction of big one.

God ahead, a few months hence hockey rinks will be aplenty in certain lands ... I've not seen it done. And gravity is more like a magnet than a string.

8:39

The hammer thrower is more like holding a stone on a string than magnets, right?

And gravity is more like magnets, right?

8:55

That won't happen.

[i e a larger object even starting off as orbitting a smaller one]

Well, no, not as long as:

a) neither object is moved or held in place by voluntary forces (God, angels)

b) and the smaller one is not being held in place (remember the old man's example of a wound up thing which will rotate around key if that is held).

I support Geocentrism according to a, God holds earth in lace and an angel keeps the sun moving.

Sungenis supports Geocentrism on version b. Earth is held in place by gravitational forces of rotating universe.

Summing up

Science has not shown Heliocentrism right and Bible wrong.

Science has not showed Heliocentrism equals a two body problem between sun and earth. Slightly complicated by another smaller one between earth and moon.

It has not shown the two body problem would continue for billions of rotations arond barycentre if not stopped like a perpetuum mobile.

It is not same thing as a thing moving with constant velocity staying in it, since curved movement = other velocity (Newtonian definition).

I am not sure whether a two body problem between two magnets on ice has been tested even.

And I am sure the model with voluntary movers/keep-in-placers has not been logicaly refuted either.

I have not seen any complete and reasoned proof of Heliocentrism being true apart from the example with the hammer thrower either.

... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses.

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

FreeInquisition : God Is Not Great, VII. "Revelation; The nightmare of the Old Testament" part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qQczyklZFU

At the very start he gets on to stating the obvious, that since there are many purported divine revelations and since they contradict each other ...

"Some of them are false and illusory."

Sure. Theogony was revealed by Muses claiming themselves to be able to speak both truth and to lie. And also they had before adressing themselves to the shepherd Hesiod (whom they insulted) been singing hymns to a list of gods starting with Zeus but ending with "Kronos of the crooked mind" (αγκυλομητης).

"It could be that only one of them is genuine ...

But first of all this is dubious and second it necessitates religious war to decide ..."

Well, we have already had religious wars and Communists and other promoters of Atheism have brought further ones on us.

Second (answering his "first") the fact of it being dubious in advance to an enquiry taking Hitchens as a starting point does not mean it need remain so or that others have not gone beyond doubt to reasonable faith. The fact that X has no sufficient proof for N does not mean that Y has no sufficient proof for it either. The fact that it is doubtful to Hitchens does not imply it should be doubtful to a Christian.

"The tendency ... to reveal himself only to illiterate and quasihistorical ..."

Yeah, as if Hebrews had not been the spur behind what was good in Greeks and Romans, notably in opposing Egypt and Babylon-Persia. As if a Hebrew scholar who did not know every verse of the Torah by heart would not have called himself "illiterate" without being so compared to us. And "quasi-historical" just reflects his bias against the Christian historiography.

"The Quran does not blame the Jews for the murder of Jesus, as one book of the New Testament does ..."

Which Gospel does not blame those known during the life of Jesus as "Pharisees and Sadducees, High Priests and Scribes" and the multitude they seduced? Who are with hindsight also called Jews (since those of that origin who became Christian ceased to be called Jews)?

Now, he goes on to Moses on Sinai, and calls the three first commandments (Catholics and Lutherans would consider them two as image prohibition is only part of first commandment) variations on one, he criticises the visiting of the sins of the fathers:

"This negates the reasonable idea that children are innocent of their fathers' offenses"

Unless they follow in the fathers' bad footsteps. A Roman Catholic commentary on this would include that it was understood of sons following in their fathers' bad footsteps, as a parallel passage also seems to indicate.

There is also a ritual visiting of iniquity of fathers on sons during Old Testament, i e an exclusion from Temple Worship and from other marks of ritual purity of those whose father or grandfather was guilty of a sin.

Hence the ritual exclusion of three rather than just one generation between Solomon and the Babylonic captivity in the genealogy of St Matthew. But in that case it seems the son and grandson of Athaliah's husband were not personally innocent either.

"It is added as in Genesis that God made the world in Six days and rested on the Seventh which leaves room for speculation on what He did on the Eighth day."

Well, this is as clear a "back-link" from Moses during Exodus to Genesis (which he wrote himself mainly using documents or traditions and of the six days that happened mainly before Adam was created he had a vision) as the "back-link" Christ gives in the Gospel when talking about marriage "from the beginning of creation".

If Genesis is wrong, not only Gospel but also Exodus must be wrong. Fortunately there is nothing to show it is wrong, except speculation based on atheist methodology of research or on merely misunderstanding what has been observed, what has been conclusively concluded and what has been concluded only as guesswork. Lots of the latter is regarded as falling within the first.

Hitchens goes on with a criticism of the V or IV commandment. Now, honour thy father and thy mother is of course good in its own right, but it is also reasonable to attach a blessing of longevity to those that follow it. Any life, thus longevity too, is attached to father and mother as physical origin.

He then summarises the four shalt nots and at last gives the final prohibition of covetuousness so that the word "wife" comes before the words "or other chattel".

It may be of interest that in Douay-Rheims and any other Bible I have seen (including my remote memory of King James), "wife" comes immediately after the first "this is thy neighbour's keep off even desire", and that first is "house".

Exodus 20:[17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour' s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Now, if house means just the building the enumeration as written makes little sense. But if house means "whole household" and desire means to desire to replace neighbour as chief in it, it makes sense this is worse than desiring adultery, just as honouring the parents does come before not actually committing adultery.

The first criticism of Hitchens after the summary is not about this point, but it is about "a sharp reminder to work and only to relax when the absolute monarch says so."

What a false analysis. Even a dishonest one, unless it is stupid. But who would have thought that about Christopher Hitchens?

Exodus 20:[8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

The indication to work is about what God calls in relation to each "thy works". Not "thy works for me" or "thy works for thy rulers" or "thy works for my priests" but "thy works". He does not say they shall be many. There is no Calvinistic Work ethic about it. When the Israelites first practise this, in the desert, the work was picking up mannah, and only on fridays should they pick for two days, for the day and for the following saturday or rather sabbath. Working more than required for survival made no sense. But not only does God not say they shall be many, he also calls them "thy", meaning the one obeying is responsible for them. And responsible generally to noone but himself and his close kin. Of course, mending clothes as they needed it would also be on six days out of seven only.

On a later occasion he warns Israelites not to take a King, least they get burdened by High Taxes and thus by a greater workload. Not to mention the possibility the King might not keep the commandment against covetuousness. Once his neighbours are his subjects.

Hitchens' analysis of this commandment is so backward, one could imagine he was really thinking of something else than the passage he purported to read. He might have decided in advance if the words could be strained that way they must, "since everyone back then" believed we had been created by gods to work relentlessly for them with no rest except such as agreed from their representatives on earth. Just as another debater was so sure a certain passage that could be strained into the earth being flat must in fact be so read, since "everyone back then" believed the earth was flat. And who are the Israelite Bible authors ("illiterate and quasihistorical") to be ahead of their time? Or he might have been very much thinking about the kind of mean creation motive world view we can find in another itchin', namely Zechariah Sitchens account of how mankind was created "by Enki himself" (as an adherent would call him) after the annunaki took such a decision for such a purpose namely of getting a work force.

God never said He needed those things. That is a miraculous discrepancy between Ancient Hebrew religion and the other Oriental ones in that time.

And Israelites believing in a God who doesn't need human work for himself, though he occasionally takes such, must have struck the Ancients as a very "irresponsible" people. It is no coincidence if they were called Dionysus worshippers. It is indeed possible they were branded as drunkards seduced by a demon nearly as soon as Egyptians got over the first shock of what the drowning of Pharao's army did to them. It is even possible Dionysus was first considered a demon and later a god to appease all the while being modelled on Moses before Pharao.

But the commandment really means that we are not God's economic assets. It means our efforts are our own, only subordinate to God and to His command of resting from them.

This may very well have inspired parts of the Greek and Roman culture that were later to distinguish Greece and Rome from the Oriental Despoties.

Under the rule of Priam in Troy and even more so Agamemnon in Mykenai we may be sure the economy was on the Oriental model. Earth was tilled and wine or oil was produced in function of taxes to be paid to temples and kingds representing the gods. This, like dependence on Hittite Empire was one of the traits Homer forgot about when writing about that society's from an events point of view. And even Troyan War itself was after Moses and the Exodus. So the change in society which reflects in heros speaking as the freemen of later Greek society rather than as slaves to the state which they were in the times described may well have been inspired by Hebrews. If Philistines were Achaeans we can see no difficulty in explaining how certain ones of them might have heard of the Hebrews, even if for polytheistic "pieties" they refused to speak very much of the monotheistic society. Directly and before all.

Next Hitchens makes a point that Hebrews already knew murder and adultery, theft and perjury were not OK and parallels to the good Samaritan who had never heard of Christianity ...

"let alone following the pitiless teachings of the God of Moses who never mentions human solidarity or compassion at all"

In a way Hitchens really has a point and it was made by St Paul (against sodomy among other vices found among Romans). There is such a thing as the Natural law, there is such a thing as the law God wrote in every human being's heart, including of course Hitchens'. And the good Samaritan was no exception to this, and the Hebrews were no exception to this.

But first one correction: Samaritans though disobedient to the "commandments of the first tablet" by notably worshipping elsewhere than the Temple and also by tolerating that some of them actually worshipped in the temple of Jupiter Hospitalis or Zeus Xenius, they did generally believe the Torah and even the Heptateuch - Torah plus Joshua plus Judges. Only from Ruth on did they reject the Jewish canon, out of rejection of the Davidic line.

Second an observation which both Chesterton and C. S. Lewis have made about morals. Revealed morals are not about revealing smething previously unknown but aboutv reminding of something previously known - and perhaps a bit forgotten. "We need to be reminded more often than instructed" is sth that Lewis loved to quote.

Third, just after the Exodus from a slavery where they were "oppressed so hard they could not stand" they might have needed a reminder in time before they started doing to less fortunates as they had been done by. Like driving slaves to work 29 days of the Lunar month, instead of giving them four days rest (or five if both first and last day are a Sabbath).

Likewise, just before entering Canaan they might have needed a reminder of the universality of obligations prohibiting murder and unchastity - since in Canaan there were cults that included those into their religious rites. And as for prohibitions against theft and perjury, would not certain societies even honour those who were successful at those things? Like favoured by "Hermes" or by "Mercurius" or by "Odin". And of course the persons honoured as for instance "Odin" during their lifetime (it might have been his real name, but the cosmic or cosmogonic background was not his background)if such were very damnable liars. Condemned by the command against false witness as much as by the first few commandments. Those very few but important ones about the one True God.

And it is a half truth to say the God of Moses does not mention human solidarity. The word solidarity is two edged. Sometimes it means kindness and charity, especially to someone in need. In that sense the God of Moses really did command it. In many ways and in some not really found in the Babylonian or Egyptian mores. A poor man pawns his mantle - were Babylonian or Egyptian creditors in the habit of lending it back to him each night so he need not freeze?

On the other hand "solidarity" may mean a thing like "there is work to be done, al share, noone shirk" ... and in that sense solidarity is not always recommendable and indeed irrelevant for the Samaritan but very relevant for evil deeds like the Tower built at Babel. It was the rationale behind persecuting Christians for not praying to the Emperor's genius. That genius was supposed to be the protector of the Emperor and thus the Empire. Not praying to it to make its work really well would have seemed unsolidaric to the Roman Pagans. And Jews got away though as impopular, because Judaic worship had been explicitly granted as a licit religion, but Christians were persecuted for lack of solidarity.

I fear some people who want to build peace between adherents of different religions on peace agreements between religions (formal ones like Balamand agreement between "Catholic Church" and "Orthodox Church", or even worse Assisi Prayer Meetings or informal ones like an informal agreement to avoid awkward claims of truth or exclusive salvation or other exclusive claims) may one day persecute real Catholic Christians and obviously Fundamentalists as well, for not being solidaric enough with this kind of "peace agreement."

"it is absurd to banish envy of other people's possessions or fortunes"

It seems Hitchens came to Atheism from a Protestant background of the Black Tulip - you know the Five points of Calvinism where the very first point, the T of TULIP is "Total Corruption".

It is a part of the Christian creed that God does not demand or command the impossible and so it is not impossible to banish from one's heart envy. But as a Calvinist would not know that, the Atheist Hitchens does not know that. Seems that, like Shaw (according to the good diagnosis of GKC), Hitchens stood for "Calvinism minus what remains of Christianity in it".

"the spirit of envy can lead to emulation and ambition and have positive consequences"

Emulation in itself is not coveting one's neighbours own possessions. Just as the desire to marry is not coveting the wife who is already one's neighbours.

"If God had really wanted people to be free from these thoughts, he should have taken better care to invent a different species"

Ah no. Let no man say, when he is tempted, it is the Lord who tempts me.

Man is capable of succumbing to plague but also capable of not catching it. Plague is not human nature like two eyes and one mouth are human nature, and neither is grasping after your neighbour's possessions. After what your neighbour already owns. Meaning the individual items he owns. Saying "I want his swimming pool" is a sin, saying "I want a swimming pool like that" is not a sin.

"Is it too modern to note there is nothing about protection of children from cruelty? Nothing about rape? Nothing about slavery?"

Protecting children from being sacrificed to Moloch was in the heart of the conquest of Joshua. But societally protecting children from getting beaten a bit harder than they deserve is not something that can be done except by interference of say social assistants. And that exposes children to the cruelty of the incompetence of non-parents who have many cases and do not really know them personally.

Rape is diversely related to the prohibition of adultery. In case the victim is someone's wife, the rapist was stoned.

In case the victim was unbetrothed, and not guilty of neglecting to resist if possible, her father had the option to either exact judicially the equivalent of a dowry for his daughter or exact the perpetrator making up for it by marrying his victim.

If Hitchens really does not want to insult the Hebrews of those days, he can count on the father usually doing what the daughter asks. Meaning rapes between friends with relations getting out of hand were likelier to end in marriages than such where the perpetrator was a stranger.

Slaves, as to Hebrews they were protected by a law making it compulsory for a slave owner to free his slave after seven years unless he wanted to marry within the household. As to non-Hebrews, specifically Canaanean slaves, they were at least less likely to be working on Sabbaths or to be sacrificed than the slaves of Pagan peoples (in Uppsala the nine men sacrificed every ninth year to Odin were typically slaves).

"... to say nothing about Genocide"

It seems the man who entitled a chapter of his book "the nightmare of the Old Testament" just overlooked what a nightmare Cananean society was. Before some of their societies were wiped out.

Note that this kind of wiping out could only be done by God's command, and that in eth New Testament we have a directly contrary command: mission to all nations.

Hitchens claims the law of Moses positively recommends some of the things (cruelty to children, rape, slavery, genocide), since next chapter includes instructions

"on the conditions under which they may buy or sell slaves"

Regulating and recommending are two differnet things.

St Louis IX regulated prostitution, it does not follow he recommended it.

Next complaint is against "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ... according to King James.

But Douay Rheims has:

Exodus 22:[18] Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.

According to Hitchens "Christians" used above verse to kill and torture women who were not conforming socially.

If he is speaking of Salem Witch trials, there seem to be indications witchcraft was really going on, unless you dismiss the eye-witness testimony. I heard about this being stated in a book I never read, back nearly thrity years ago, so I am not quite sure it was the Salem Witch trials.

I am sure Calvinism is not properly speaking Christianity as such.

I am sure Magic is not limited to women, nor are they more culpable than men if using it. But women may be more prone. It seem Hebrew text has "a witch" but Septuagint and at any rate the Vulgate (I just looked) the masculine which in such a context really stands for gender neutral. As one used to say always "man" for what is now often called "human being".

I am also sure that women not conforming socially may be very many other things than practitioners of witchcraft, like St Clare becoming the first Franciscan nun against her father's wish. Or like St Joan of Arc saving France on God's command and being falsely accused of witchcraft - while the real culprit in that respect, Gilles de Rais, was a man and went unmolested.

Also, some witches can be dealt with very simply by exorcism. The death penalty was limited to certain grave cases in the New Covenant (in Visigothic law when witchcraft had caused a death, for instance). Generous possibilities of penance were given. Madame de Montespan who had hired witches (but perhaps not been initiated herself) in order to get Louis XIV was sent to do penance in a Monastery. Witches condemned by Spanish Inquisition were often sentenced to do the Pilgrimage of Santiago.

Under Old Testament some witches who should have been dealt with by death back then were not so. Witch of Endor is a known example.

Then he continues with a lamentation for the Canaanite population. As if there were no crimes meriting something like that, or as if Israel getting out of Egypt would have been ready for a peaceful mission with lots of martyrs like later the Christian conversion of Roman Empire.

"This supposed Covenant is the basis for a Nineteenth Century irredentist claim to Palestine which has brought us endless trouble up to the present day."

I agree about the irredentist claim a k a Zionism. So did Pope Saint Pius X.

Now, the "supposed" part would not have been se good about the Covenant as such as about "basis". You see, Palestinians also are Israelites. Though, since Christians or Muslims, not Jews.

Of course some Moslem Palestinians claim descent from Mohammed and therefore from Ishmael. That is the Moslem Aristocracy. But the population over all did not come there with Muslims. There was an indigenous Semitic population in the Holy Land well before Omar's armies. These forced some but not other Beduin tribes to become Muslims (this I know from The Desert a City*). Meaning there were Christian Beduins there under Roman rule. Obviously they would descend as much from the Christian inhabitants of Judea, Samaria and Galilea as their neighbours East of Jordan from Edom, Moab and Ammon.

And this also explains why some of them under Chosroës (my source is still Derwas Chitty*) apostasised to Judaism and followed Chosroës to Persia after he was defeated by Heraclius. If they had had no Jewish background earlier on, they would not have felt as mcuh attraction to those things.

It is a bit funny on the one hand to mourn for Palestinians being victims of Zionism of Jews and on the other hand lamenting the Palestinians came there through their Israelite ancestors under Joshua.

"It goes without saying that none of the gruesome events described in Exodus ever took place"

If he had said something like that about Lanzmann's Holocoast TV series, in certain parts of Europe, he would have gone further than most so called Revisionists or Negationists - and would like them have been sued and fined or put in prison.

I skip a discussion of who the archaeologists were and go to the discussion of the evidence:

"No Egyptian Chronicle mentions this even in passing"

Well, Egyptian ones no, Greek yes.

Dionysus taking gruesome revenge on Pentheus may well be a very distorted recalling of Moses who threatened with the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Notably the Bacchae getting off may well reflect the Israelites getting off. The daughter of Pentheus killing her own son may well reflect - in a gruesome and demonically distorted way - two different events, namely the daughter of one Pharao saving Moses and the oldest son of another one (remember Moses had been 40 years in the desert) dying in the night when Israelites painted Blood of the Easter Lamb on their doors. Isralites have been called Dionysus worshippers and Feast of Tabernacles a Dionysus Feast by Pagans who did not grasp what Monotheism was.

Joshua's miracle of staying the Sun was more closely echoed in two episodes connected to Agamemnon: Sun going reverse way when his father Atreus made his uncle Thyestes physically commit an atrocity. And a memory of this not being the original setting for a Sun bhaving curiously, namely Agamemnon pursuing the Troyans and praying the Sun would stop so he had time to rout them. It did not and he had not.

Egyptian motive for distortion of story obviously the trauma with its immediate loss of prestige for Pharao. Greek motive, or rather Achaean one (since Greeks seem to have arisen from a mixture of Achaeans and those whom they had conquered), was the similar loss of prestige for Agamemnon. He was not able to repeat Joshua's miracle.

"But all the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded."

Like Italian archaeologists discard Romulus and Aeneas? Well, I do not.

Archaeology is not able to prove all of the past events, nor all of those recorded in reliable history. Lack of archaeological evidence does not make history unreliable. It can show so many soldiers from either side of Napoleonic and English and Prussian armis lie buried there, but cannot show what happened to the soldiers who survived Waterloo nor which side won.

Creationist archaeologists have been revisiting the evidence and finding items overlooked by the Israelis. Whether we go to periods of Egypt fitting the Moses story (like the suggestion Moses could be Amenemhet IV of 12th Dynasty as co-ruler of Pharao he fled from and thus the Exodus with the drowning of Pharao's army (attested by wheels and battle wagon axes of Ancient Egyptian models found in Red Sea) preceded narrowly the Hyksos invasion.**

Or like making alternative datings of Jericho with its walls. Notably those that did fall outwards.***

Israeli expertise would often enough have a Sadducee bias. Basically meaning they are Atheists. If so, they would not want to find unwelcome evidence of the supernatural. Especially God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Francis of Borgia, S. J.
10-X-2013

*The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestian Monasticism Under the Christian Empire (Paperback)
by Derwas James Chitty(Author)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Desert-City-Introduction-Monasticism/dp/0913836451

**CMI : Searching for Moses
by David Down
http://creation.com/searching-for-moses

***The walls of Jericho
Bryant Wood
http://creation.com/the-walls-of-jericho