On Big Bang in a Catholic context

New Teenage Saint, "Yoked" Bishop Barron, and more! | Catholic Social Media News
New Catholic Generation | 25.VII.2018 (St. James' Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBJ8sRM7Kw

I

Alanson Cleveland

A distinction must be made between which big bang theory you are talking about. As far I have been told, Fr. Georges Lemaître's version said that God is the one who started the big bang. The new atheist big bang theory which is what most people know about says that the big bang was started by a small little pin thing or something.

Just trying to prevent comment wars.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:11 I am Catholic, I do not accept the Big Bang theory, and accepting it as such contradicts, not indeed "creatorem coeli et terrae" but - given Genesis 1 is a prophecy given to Moses - qui loquutus est per prophetas".

Alanson Cleveland

Read my comment up above.

Rodney Burton

The Big Bang theory in no way contradicts Genesis 1; indeed, the scientifically determined order of creation follows it with great accuracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How many days before creation of man is Big Bang supposed to have occurred?

@Alanson Cleveland, did you note which article of the faith I saw direct issue with?

Rodney Burton

Hans-Georg Lundahl your concerns are not shared by the Vatican.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl No I didn't pay attention to what you said. For that I apologize. I am not really sure, but what I think you are trying to say is that because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created. Correct me if I am wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Alanson Cleveland : yes you are wrong.

What you think I am trying to say:

"because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created."

No, I am saying: because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says contradicting Moses on any item is wrong, because Moses was a prophet.

Kent Hovind has said lots after Moses, and mostly he isn't wrong - mostly also he is not even by mistake and despite his intentions contradicting anything Moses said.

@Rodney Burton : you mean the Vatican occupied by probable Antipope Francis? Previously by probable Antipope Benedict after probable Antipope John Paul II?

[Back to Alanson:]

It is for instance possible that Enuma Elish is older than Moses by perhaps a century.

If so, the reason why Enuma Elish is wrong where it is wrong is not its being said after Moses (by hypothesis it was said before him), nor that author of Enuma Elish was no prophet of the true God. The reason is rather, Enuma Elish is on items contradicted by ... Moses.

Apology accepted, btw, sorry for being too tired to say that at once.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl Then I have to ask. How does the big bang theory contradict the word of God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Again, how many days does Big Bang Theory put between "beginning" and creation of Man?

Alanson Cleveland

I don't know. Millions of years?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Billions.

Now read Mark 10:6. </dl>

Dr Grady McMurtry on Age of Earth - with comments, part one

On his videos (mirrored?), parts 1 to beginning of 3.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc

5:29 stars - an economic way of responding is, stars are not millions of light years away.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30

I

0:52 "none of them work"

Actually false.

Carbon 14 has a fair working outside usually detectable cases of reservoir effect for back since the carbon 14 level, the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, is the same in the atmosphere.

0.9892⁶⁴ = 0.4990946242600414
0.98925⁶⁴ = 0.500711737438632

This means, 64th root of 0.5 is between 0.9892 and 0.98925.

Now, 0.5 is "ratio remaining after a halflife" and it is also known as 50%.

1/64 of 5730 (halflife of carbon 14) is 89 and a half years.

And you DO get sth like 98.92 to 98.925 % modern carbon when you date objects of wood or leather from 90 years ago (a bit of a leeway for wood if tree was significiantly old when felled).*

32:nd root of 0.5 is 0.97858 - and for objects from 179 years ago, you tend to get 97.858 pmC.

You can check it over here:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

So, carbon 14 relatively speaking does work.

You have exceptions like reservoir effect (bones of people who ate much fish or shellfish tend to look a few centuries older than they are, sea living creatures, creatures living near ice allround the year and so on). And like during the buildup period before the modern level was reached.

This means, dates like 9600 BC and 8600 BC (beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe) don't mean they are necessarily that old (they could well be from Biblical years of Babel), nor the distance is necessarily that long (if older date is significantly more inflated than younger one, 40 years can look like 1000), but they DO come in that order.

0:58 If Libby "admitted it didn't work" I'd like a reference.

It certainly did not work for his halflife, done by lab tests on decay, I presume, since the Libby halflife is abandoned, I just gave the Cambridge halflife which replaced it. Somewhat longer.

3:30 That Potassium Argon doesn't work seems fairly obvious, even before looking at your example.

How many hundreds of thousands or millions years is the lava dated to which covered 900 year old artefacts?

And that should be enough for refuting old age, since it is the most used radiometric method except carbon 14 and since the latter can be squeezed.

If Flood was 5000 years ago, we expect 54.616 % of what level there was at the time.

But if level was a very low one, 54.616 % of it can well be 0.792 pmC.

With Potassium Argon, you don't even need to account for relative accuracy.

45 000 years old charcoal? That would mean the charcoal is a bit older than 5000 years, a bit older than the Flood. Lava surrounding it 37.000.000 years? No accounting for Potassium Argon ...

*

98.929 / 98.917 pmC according to the carbon date calculator - for 89 / 90 years. Meaning 89.5 years should be between that ...

II

dialogued

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:11 Can you be sure all three samples are from same lava flow?

If you can, well, we may see why lava flows vary in correct height sequence, for instance at Laetoli.

There could be a question of how deep down it was in the water during the Flood, however that may influence argon capture or argon retention.

George Baxter

Radiometric dating is not really applicable to fresh lava. One of the key requirements for dating is that sample must not have changed. A lava is a liquid and argon is a noble gas, it will rapidly diffuse out of the sample. That will inevitably lead to a very low argon reading. If that is used to "date" the sample then it would be erroneously old. So it is wrong and misleading to use fresh lava samples as a "proof" that the technique is flawed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but it is not a low argon reading, but a high one which translates as very old.

If fresh lava is flawed for the technique, how can you prove from it that the lavas you date (for instance in Laetoli) are not too fresh for it?

George Baxter

Yes. My error about the low value. The logic is still true though. The lava is not from a closed environment. The argon could have been from outgassing of the rocks/magma during the disturbance. You cannot reliably date lava via radiometric methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree, lava cannot be reliably dated, but my point is, more argon gets caught lower down in the water.

This explains the APPEARANCE of reliability of the lava of Laetoli.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 3
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc-qInfV174

1:38 On this video, I only have your word for speed of light not being a constant.

Sounds at least as good an explanation that stellar distances are not true, because the .76 arc seconds back and forth each year, measured for alpha Centauri against comparison of stars in the background are not parallax but proper movement.

In other words, most basic stellar distances closest to pure trigonometry are not known, and one therefore cannot deduce stellar distances by other methods based on this one either.

Your website, I'll have to ask you over FB.

Next time : rest of part 3, 4.

On Babel as a Proto-Type Earthly City

The Story of the Tower of Babel Explained (w/ Jerry Robinson)
True Riches Academy | 22.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGt0VYVxwDE

As usual, I comment at diverse places of the video. First two links to posts of mine:

I

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/07/if-tower-of-babel-was-rocket-project.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/07/if-tower-of-babel-was-rocket-project_23.html

II

4:03 "they stopped building the tower and they stopped"

Actually, it only says they stopped building the city. If the Tower of Babel was a rocket project, like the ones at Cape Canaveral and at Bajkonur, a continued building or projecting of the project could go on in other sites, independently of the city.

One probably actually continued doing the rocket project : observatories here and there like Stonehenge and Nabta Playa (both younger than Göbekli Tepe), Sumerian relief sculpture depicting Göbekli Tepe and Babylonians / Sumerians confusing Göbekli Tepe or the rocket up with Mount Hermon and the sons of God going down, Chinese experimenting with rockets, Greeks (and Aborigines of Australia) telling stories of heroes gone up to Heaven, Greeks telling a story of Giants piling Ossa and Pelion to conquer Olympus ... I think even Dream of Scipio by Cicero involves some kind of reference to a skytrip, herein possibly imitating a dialogue of Plato.

III

9:10 Pagan Babylonian ... first, he was a Hebrew.

Hebrews had "bailed out of" the Babel project. Hence they remained Hebrew speakers and they remained worshippers of the true God. If Thera was an idolater, he was an exception.

Babylonian, Ur of Chaldees ... well, if he was from the Ur that Woolley dug up, yes, he was in a very Classic sense either Babylonian or Sumerian (I'd say Sumerian, because Babylon was founded some time between Genesis 14 and Joshua's conquest, relating carbon dates of Amorrhite era to a carbon / Biblical date table, so Babylon did not exist in Genesis 12 - its precursor at Göbekli Tepe did no longer and Babylon as such not yet).

On the other hand, if he was from the Urfa also called Edessa, I am not sure Babylonian is quite an appropriate designation even geographically.

Woolley's Ur : 30°57′47″N by 46°6′11″E
Urfa : 37°09′30″N by 38°47′30″E - very close to Göbekli Tepe

IV

11:03 A city whose guardian is God.

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifiant eam, nisi Dominus custordierit civitatem, frustra vigilat qui custodit eam.

13:17 A city built for the glory of man can be converted and be guarded for the glory of God - even to eternity.

Christians of Mossul mean, conversion of Ninevites under Jonah's preaching is still bearing fruit.

15:36 While both Canaan and the City have a curse, both Canaanites and Cities can convert and escape the curse.

A Syrian or Lebanese is not under the curse of Canaan if he is a baptised Christian.

A city is not under the curse you mention, if it is ruled according to the law of God (like Rome was up to 1870, when "Italy" invaded the city of Popes).

16:33 It is also true a converted city can fall again (or be inadequately converted) and be Babylon; the Pope and several other good Christians escaped one of the sacks of Rome, because they fled in time from the bad manners of chariot races and perhaps worse.

But once Rome had been sacked, once Popes decided there, and worldly power found it awkward, Colosseum was a homeless shelter of gigantic proportions - and the poor slept close to where the martyrs had "slept".

V

11:58 I wonder, are all of the cities we have all the time counterfeits?

Or have some cities, some of the time, been remodelled, partially and imperfectly, after the model of New Jerusalem?

Well, look at Matthew 28:[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I think I saw something like "teach ye all nations" in there, and some of them had cities, both Greeks and Romans, both Cretans and Egyptians ... so, if we accept Christ gave power to the Apostles with successors to fulfil this, and I do, this means some cities have been cleaned up.

Someone the other day considered it so cool the Khazar Khagan Bulan Khan became a Jew ... I think Constantine, Clovis and Volodymyr of Kiev, to name a few are even cooler. Rome became, Paris remained, Kiev became a Christian city.

This obviously also means, real freedoms have been added to cities, as they converted to Christianity (and taken away again, as they fell into the hands of the enemies of Christendom).

Long Reply to Hovind

7/20/18 -Dr. Kent Hovind: Creation that Destroys Evolution - Beryllium
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 20.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N55HEpU0qRw

I

6:47 "four elements" is not exact equivalent to "elements" in chemic sense.

II

12:06 I agree that big bang is stupid, but on another point.

IF all matter and energy were one time squeezed into a space as small as a period, well, it was very crowded and very hot and that would explain why it exploded.

The theory neither says it came from nothing, nor from a great squeeze or crunch, and obviously also not it was eternally a dot in eternity past before big bang, it leaves the question "open".

It is just that each of these secondary interpretations has a huge problem, crunch to bang having a spring quality perhaps least problematic, that the theory has a huge problem at this level.

It's the next level which is REALLY idiotic.

Matter and energy explode outwards, and somehow each bit starts to rotate and matter starts to gravitate together along each of the directions. How do you explain THAT?

As to all matter and energy being in that small space, it is per se less problematic as to space question, as long as you believe atomic theory : since atomic theory (as accepted by Creationist Edgar Andrews) says matter is mostly empty space. Mount Everest, squeeze all protons and neutrons and electrons together with no space between = smaller than an armchair.

To squeeze even more, you would probably have to squeeze a lot of matter inside the larger particles too.

But it is at least conceivable.

It is only very unnecessary : you don't have to buy atomic theory on everything between protons and electrons in atom and one and other atom's electron shell being empty space, and you don't have to believe the whole stuff either, unless you believe in projecting expansion of space (see redshift) backwards to the utmost opposite from the direction to where things seem to be going.

III

13:01 Alan Guth has a problem in geometry.

Divisions of space are potentially infinitesimal. There is no such things as an infinitesimal actual division of space.

Divisions of a pizza are infinitesimal (unless you ask about the atoms which take some space not divisible while they stay the same), but actual divisions go like "undivided - two halves - half and two quarters to four quarters - three quarters and two eights to two quarters and four eights - on quarter and six eights to eight eights".

You can go on infinitesimally, but you cannot reach an actual infinitesimal.

This is also why Thomas Aquinas has a point in Prima Pars, Quaestio II, Article III.

Or, he had [Alan, not Aquinas] - not sure if he stays with his stupidity from 1996.

IV

18:58 If God created from nothing, some things would perhaps have looked a bit like big bang, when He did it.

In the beginning - how many nanoseconds? If any at all.

God created Heaven - how many nanoseconds, if any, before earth?

And Earth - appearing in the middle of Heaven, and it took it how many nanonseconds (if any at all) to do so?

Assume verse 1 conceivably could have taken three nanoseconds, or less, if you have a slow motion of them, it might have looked a bit like Big Bang.

Not that the theory itself as a whole is correct or anywhere near it, but the part you object to is the part we have as Christians too, in a way.

V

20:44 the idea of "things that are not going to burn" - was that an idea in OT too?

Because, even if Odin was a fraud and an apostate, he seems to have had some Hebrew good sense left, even in Sweden (I know, it's hard, that is why I left the place).

About thousand years from when he said it, in Old Icelandic his words sounded like:

"eitt veitt ek ther aldri deyr : dóm om daudhan vern"

One thing I know, which never dies : judgement on a dead man.

VI

As to the end, Chesterton did find he liked to have someone to thank for water - and for wine and beer.

And he did go to a priest, to confess before "God and men" he was sorry for some things he had done before that.

If YOU want to get God's absolution, why don't you go to Topeka and ask Pope Michael for details (he may ask you to be faithful to your first wife though).

Short Reply to Roger Scruton

Roger Scruton: How Fake Subjects like Women Studies Invaded Academia
PhilosophyInsights | 26.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98tWAHAv2BI

2:35 Mr Scruton, this attitude* was there before women studies, in regards to for instance evolutionism and heliocentrism ...

* See what he was saying at 2:35 in video ...

Why Tim Challies is wrong to be a Protestant

Why Tim Challies is wrong to be a Protestant · ... on Church Authority and Saints

Answering, bit by bit, this video:

Why I'm Thankful To Be Protestant
Tim Challies | 31.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOhZj_HgHGA

Here are my answers:

I

Come on ...

• when Luther nailed the theses he was still more Jansenist than Lutheran!
• and anyway he would not have approved your take on the "Lord's Supper" as we know from his dispute with Zwingli!

Plus, he was an admitted Bible translation forger (Romans 3:28).

II

0:49 Thanet.

Where St Augustine of Canterbury landed in 597 AD, on orders of Pope St Gregory the Great.

Have you been there?

Is it a root to you as English-speaking Christian?

If so, where was the Church in 597 AD? Were Sts Gregory and Augustine Calvinists? If they weren't, but Calvinism is still the real Christianity, where was the Calvinist Church back then?

III

1:54 Right ... the ex-Lutheran in me notes, Luther would not have been content with your take on Matthew 26.

IV

3:03 Instead he found just further despair ...

Because he was exceptionally clearsighted? Or because he was exceptionally deaf to God's mercy (up to shouting out his own take on it)?

I have my take on that one from back when CMI (I appreciate their Creationism, which is more often relevant than their Protestantism) was celebrating Reformation Day:

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Strays into Protestant Hagiography Today (part 1 of series)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/10/cmi-strays-into-protestant-hagiography.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : What Luther Got Wrong More (pt 2 of series)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/what-luther-got-wrong-more-pt-2-of.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Was the Bible For or Against Luther's Work? (part 3 of series)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/was-bible-for-or-against-luthers-work.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Mercator and Geert Groote (excursus)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/mercator-and-geert-groote-excursus.html

V

3:51 "a full one year plenary indulgence"

You must have recalled wrong.

An indulgence of "one year" is by definition a partial indulgence, which is less than a plenary one. So "a full one year plenary indulgence" is impossible.

Say you are trying to win an indulgence for your uncle who lived a bad life, but repented on his death bed and so is not out of question he could be in heaven sooner or later.

You fulfil the conditions of a one year indulgence (properly! including the full hatred of all sins you need to have yourself, which your uncle was defective in), he comes out of Purgatory one year earlier (whenever that may be, it could be nine years from now instead of ten years from now). If you fulfil the conditions of a plenary indulgence (your full hatred of all sins even more important), he comes out of Purgatory straight away.

There is a rumour that indulgences for monetary gifts were done away with at Trent, but it seems there was just a decision to better oversee the men in the position of alms collectors (like Tetzel was).

3:56 "for all the sins of the last year"

Ouch, that was a bad take on what the theology of indulgences means.

Years (usually one or three) or days (usually three or forty or hundred) are about time in Purgatory which is satisfied by the indulgence instead of by time there.

You can win indulgences for yourself too, but a plenary one is only valid as no purgatory for your previous already repented and forgiven sins (you can't win an indulgence while in mortal sin), and a one year is not for the last year before winning it, it is a ticket for one year off from Purgatory. And if you were anyway only getting forty days there, the rest goes to a soul on God's choice who would otherwise have spent longer time there, due to no one winning an indulgence for him ...

Ah, if it's a Holiday Plenary, if it is not a Holiday Partial Indulgence of One Year - that is what must have been the text you mangled ...

Not planning to do precisely the Scala Santa, though, as long as Bergoglio is that close by ...

(And while Santiago is also for indulgences, I actually made it as a petitionary prayer for my life on earth, not for an indulgence ...)

I am sorry, I missed that 300 days (the indulgence marked "300 giorni") is also a typical indulgence time for a partial indulgence.

VI

4:38 Are you sure St Francis Xaver's arm is mummified?

I'd credit him with being incorrupt ...

VII

5:06 Yes, it matters it is the Blessed Virgin, She is called "Hammer of All Heresies"

Why? Because Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites perhaps too, but certainly Arians and Nestorians, tended to get sth wrong about honouring Her - meaning that the ones honouring Her correctly were the ones who saved good Christology at Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus.

Sure that one of the heresiarchs is not Voltaire?

I am not sure you aren't missing a point : the two men could be someone quite else, and Luther and Calvin added in the "book back margin" ...

I actually sent the Jesuits there that question. I mean, their considering themselves and Bergoglio as Catholics, erroneously, doesn't mean in any way that they can't understand basics on the artwork in their Church (I hope ...)

VIII

6:34 "and that's been a very deliberate move on the part of Roman Catholicism"

On the part of what?

You mean on the part of the Vatican II Sect!

I walked into the Cathedral of Tulle. Archbishop Lefèbvre had been archibishop there. In his time, the Church must have had the full Catholic artwork and looked like a Catholic Church should do, but since he was replaced, some things have changed.

Moveable walls were placed as bare walls or walls for pinning things, and they were hiding what was behind ... that is the Vatican II Sect which did that very deliberate move you were talking about, but please don't call that "Roman Catholicism", will you.

Apart from that, Tulle was nice, people were hospitable, meaning, he must have given good catechesis on alms giving and it was not quite forgotten ...

IX

7:01 "Because they return Scripture to the centre of our life and faith ..."

Return? You mean there was no Church in 1500 which placed Scripture where they did?

How then can that placing be Scriptural?

Matthew 28:20. All days means all days.

A Church that did not exist in 1500 or on 500 and anytime from then to our days cannot be Christ's Church.

A practise which did not do so can at least not be an obligatory one, except as replacing other obligations.

7:07 "they found in Scripture there is no support for the system of indulgences"

There is, here: Tobit 4 : [7] Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee. [8] According to thy ability be merciful. [9] If thou have much give abundantly: if thou have a little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little. [10] For thus thou storest up to thyself a good reward for the day of necessity. [11] For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. and same chapter, even clearer as to connection to indulgences for the dead : [17] Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy, and with thy garments cover the naked. [18] Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.

It is not that they positively did find there is no support, they rather refused to find the support there is for indulgences (some resolved the problem by claiming erroneously Tobit is not Scripture).

X

When it comes to teachers I trust, they do not include either Luther or Calvin, they do include Sts Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine and Ignatius of Loyola.

Answering a non-Satanist who comes close to arguing for Satanism

Well, with this post, this blog on what US refers to as "7.11" has 711 posts. Post-ID has both 999 and 696 - and, fortunately not the reverse of the first.

Now, as usual, who I comment on is on a video. Warning, do not go there, that is why I don't give clickable link:

Satanic Bible vs. The Holy Bible
Repzion | 14.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxBV2ZxSO0

No, it is not very seductive to normally minded people, but some aren't and to the rest, it is painfully stupid.

OK, it can be seductive to ignorant people too. This is what I am trying to fix:

I

5:27 If you are formerly from a Baptist home, it seems that becoming - it would seem - Satanist would have caused you more confusion when wide awake than I have after a night with too little sleep.

• 1) Jesus neither turned nor claimed to turn fish into bread or bread into fish.
• 2) Jesus did multiply on two occasions both bread and fish - and both happened after He had turned water into wine.
• 3) But the glaring point is, if you were right and "he" hadn't - how could "he" have gotten away with claiming "I turned water into wine" or claiming "I multiplied bread and fish" if the adverbs going along with claims were "on a wedding near home" and "before thousands of people who got fed, twice" if nobody ever saw "him" do it?

If I asked you "do you remember last year, when you came over to France and I smacked you on the head in three boxing rounds, each ending with your falling down knocked out?" would you believe I did that just because I had made such a claim?

No way (and very rightly so) ... and that very elementary critical reason does not depend on having a college degree, on knowing how to read or on having access to reliable fact checking news media.

There is no such thing as someone claiming to turn water into wine and being believed without showing anything.

Would the Satanic Bible by any chance be claiming "he" did it by magic? If that is supposed to mean sleight of hand, tell me when Oliver Twist (I think there is a stage magician who took his stage name from a Dickens character) is getting empty handed to a starvation stricken area (big or small, doesn't matter) and by sleight of hand produces food for everyone ...

5:40 Oh, you agree with Jesus not feeding 5000 men plus women and children from two breads and five fishes?

Well, that is one thing.

Next thing is, explain how the story he did arise. "He" claimed it? Could work for acts done out of human observation or with one easily accompliced observer, like what Hercules did with no human or only Iolaus watching. For treating a party near home to wine made from water or feeding 5000 people, the idea "he" claimed it and got away with it makes no sense at all.

II

6:21 "and not hurting anybody in the process of that"

Hmmmmm ... would this mean things like "not hurting anybody who counts" or "well, it's not really hurting him, can't be"?

By the way, at 6:47 you don't look very happy.

III

7:39 "a passage which says that a woman can be sold to her rapist"

It says her father decides on whether he must marry her or has to pay dowry. Wait, that was the parallel passage ... here is Deuteronomy:

22:[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Taking her ... doesn't actually specify by rape, does it?

Also becoming rape victim's husband is not like becoming her absolute master, he cannot get rid of her:

he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Obviously it is a system for paying damages to a rape or seduction victim and her family. Not an option for a rapist to buy a rape victim if he likes to!

7:51 "as a slave" is not specified.

Parallel passage as I recall has father decide whether rapist has to marry her or has to pay damages equivalent of dowry ... and if a father in that position is NOT taking his daughter's wishes into account:

• a) he's not a very Hebrew father to a daughter;
• b) she might be worse off staying with her father.

7:58 Does the Satanic Bible also say the reciprocation need to be in the form of a freewilled verbal yes? Or could it involve sth other?

In other words, I don't think the quoted words are a foolproof guarantee Satanists will neither rape nor commit statutory rape.

They are perhaps however an incitation for Satanists to be too concerned about rape and statutory rape. I recall that Satanist girl who killed a man who made advances after she "admitted" she was underage. She had made fighting statutory rape a kind of "crusade" ... of a non-Christian type.

IV

Oh, Foundational Falsehoods is now an audiobook.

Payable.

Shows that videos that are for free can at the same time be also sold as audiobook - same content in two formats, one for free, one paid - no problem with that one.

And because it is exactly that content, I actually took it on.

This is the beginning of a series of blog posts, on the format on blogger they are for free:

Creation vs. Evolution : A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/02/man-not-at-all-prejudiced-against-god.html