vendredi 23 septembre 2016

Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's?


Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?
Frederick Edwords, Quarter: Spring Page(s): 30–42 Year: 1982
in publication Creation Evolution Journal
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolution-debates-whos-winning-them-now


Here two cases are given with several arguments for each. I am only reviewing those now, before perhaps returning to the article after that.

Against debates:

  • A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.
  • A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.
  • Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.
  • When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.
  • A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.
  • Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.
  • Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.
  • Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.
  • Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.
  • Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.
  • Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.
  • Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.
  • Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.


For debates:

  • Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.
  • When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.
  • Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.
  • The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.
  • Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.
  • To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.
  • With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.
  • Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.
  • With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.


Now, let me start commenting.

I
A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.

Answer:
A classroom implies an authority and disciple situation, which is not scientific. But I do not hear Evolutionists criticise classrooms.

There are other situations in life than that of scientific investigation.

Debate at least shares with it the relevance of the act of arguing, the fact of arguments being relevant.

This is so even if in a certain debate the arguments presented there are not such as to be relevant to sceintific research. Arguments are at the core of both.

II
A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.

Answer:
The argument here presented misleads people into thinking that consensus of the learned over a rather thin slice of time (and it is even thinner compared to the billions of years than to the 7200 years!) is a scientific argument.

It also misleads people into thinking a debate could be more misleading than a lack of one.

Which can only be true about a solidly Catholic and uncritically such population accepting wholeheartedly the revealed faith from God.

Not only if the Catholic faith is true is there no other such situation, but even if Evolutionism were true, there could be no such situation.

If everything from the past is to be questioned (we can't question the future before it becomes present) why should the present be immune?

If religion and culture of non-scientific types were such huge mistakes, why should today's science be immune from the origin of man making these huge mistakes?

So, even if evolution were true, this kind of argument could not be motivated by it, except by bad faith.

Especially since they love to refer to the Scopes Trial and the Huxley / Wilberforce debate.

III
Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.

Answer:
This is the kind of argument best answered by someone who cares for that kind of respectability.

If I cannot relate to treating even Evolutionists like a tramp asking for a fourteenth dram of whiskey on credit, how can I relate to them treating us Creationists like that?

If you are too much of a sucker for respectability, that may damn your eternal soul anyway!

IV
When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.

Answer:
Actually not.

An evolutionist could - if in good faith - say that Flood geology like the experiment by Guy Berthault for rapid strtification or "Flood Paleontology" like calling Permian and and Cretaceous different biotopes during Flood, at least for land fauna (Napoleon basin has an Elasmosaurus over trilobites, but both creatures are marine or aquatic) is BAD science. It would still be true that the creationist would in such a case be doing creation science and not Genesis exegesis.

The argument seems therefore of ill faith.

If taking this line, an evolutionist who is not so sure his own scientific case could stand with a creationist, can go on and on and, to those accepting the argument, hide that fact, by saying "creation science is anyway just creationism, which is anyway just based on the Bible", even if the case which the debate could reveal was someone having evidence of geological/lithographic or of palaeontological nature which is not "based on" Genesis but simply consistent with it.

V
A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.

Answer:
And a classroom situation before teens only (with parents banned) somehow does NOT?

Oh, wait, perhaps it is more like saying the public has no right to think for itself, scientists are there to take care of schools and schools there to take care of pupils, and public should just take what scientists and schools have to offer?

Ah, that is a far worse suggestion!

VI
Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.

Answer:
If in these debates the "debating is a creationist idea", this would tend to show that creationists have more confidence about debates, right?

As for "by their standards" I have seen Kent Hovind in debates where the "scientists" (as if he weren't one, at least amateur) have been very active in setting the standards and terms.

In fact, every standard and term except deciding unilaterally what the opponent may debate about.

If creationists have invested huge money in promoting debates, well, perhaps it is not so much "knowing they will profit regardless of the outcome", perhaps it is rather being very confident about the outcome.

VII
Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.

Answer:
The expert community - being evolutionist in the recent majority the argument refers to - is using a method common to charlatans, namely pretending they know so much better than the public that they are only answering enquiries and they also use another technique of charlatans, namely dividing opponents into individual "enquirers" rather than letting them together enjoy some debates.

An astrologer may tell a weak Leo that even Leos go weak if Moon is in Virgo. But if he tells that, he had very much better not do so in presence of a very strong Leo who also has moon in Virgo.

VIII
Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.

Answer:
Oh, you mean you evolutionists have, in the eyes of much public, actually lost debates?

IX
Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.

Answer:
If you think the 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, then 5 minutes per speaker orally is too short for a fair examination of both sides, why not take writing on internet?

A version of debate where I am very available.

If any debate becomes long and has many side issues, it may take some time before it is available in an overviewable way, but I am striving for it.

Btw, why has Tony Reed not made any effort to show the long debate I had with him and am editing?

Would be in his interest if he had made a good show.

X
Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.

Answer:
Well, that is so true of Evolutionist faith as spread in classrooms too.

Teaching evolution in classrooms is very different from teaching a scientific attitude and methodology per se and often leads to precisely "faith" rather than science.

XI
Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.

Answer:
How about "scientists" learning some debate manners and some logic?

How about NOT pointing out "this is misleading the public which is too dumb to reason correctly" and instead saying what the fallacy is before the public and hope it is well enough educated to get the fallacy as a fallacy?

THIS argument is actually showing that the one so arguing against debates actually HAS a very low opinion of the public.

XII
Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.

Answer:
Sorry, but the "own game" of creationists, as I have seen it, has been using logic and common sense. If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your science if it is any good? If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your integrity?

XIII
Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.

Answer:
Well, if scientific work means research and reporting to researchers, so is preparation for teaching evolution in class rooms.

Unless a lack of debates makes sure that very little preparation is needed, because a science teacher can get away with being very authoritarian to a creationist pupil.


Now, for the arguments for debates.

A sentiment which I generally speaking agree with.

I
Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.

Answer:
Hear, hear!

This was written in 1980's first half.

Have evolutionists become less debate eager since then?

"But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case."

Well, haven't we?

II
When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.

Answer:
Well, I too am making much of the fact that debates are declined. Rightly so, I think.

However, declining a debate can in fact deprive me of the occasion to comment on some extra ridiculous quirk in evolutionists' ways of arguing, which I am too dense to recall just from sheer memory.

After this fair warning, thank you very much.

III
Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.

Answer:
I too enjoy hearing the evolutionist side. Up to when they shut up like clams.

Sometimes, after one does, like Paul Wettstein (other debater to edit my debate with), a supporter comes up in the combox and tries to tell me I was useless:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... with a Fanatic Evolutionist
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/09/with-fanatic-evolutionist.html


The debate he was commenting, not in but on in a metadebatish way was whether evolution can account for human morality.

IV
The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.

Answer:
What does "it would be better if it were not so" even mean?

Is this a hidden nostalgia for the anti-debate arguments?

For a situation where scientific community of evolutionists, no longer challenged by any alternative ones, like CMI, can enjoy the status of a clergy?

V
Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.

Answer:
Well, perhaps you did win some debates. Not sure you would rewin if on same themes.

But what do you even mean by calling creatiuonism "a serious threat"?

If you called some other community you disagreed with "a serious threat", you might be sued. By now, after 15 years of War against Terror, you might just get away with calling Muslims a serious threat (but not in France), but try that approach if instead of "creationism" you said "Judaism" or "immigration" or ... you see what I mean?

And a serious threat to what? To your doing science about things as they are now? No. To your deluding public into thinking Evolutionism correct? Well, I hope so!

VI
To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.

Answer:
Sadly enough, media have been more willing, lately, to give only the evolutionist case.

But this might be a problem more in francophone and suecophone media than in US ones.

VII
With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.

Answer:
Hear, hear!

THAT is the kind of attitude I want from my opponents!

Three cheers for the well prepared evolutionist debater.

Happy Birthday * For he's a jolly good fellow - André Rieu
CarlosAnthonyBuenfil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKNLsrv0du8


I just think he is wrong about the case though.

The overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution is only overwhelming rhetorically, in an enumeration of the amounts of evidence that supposedly "all" speak "just" for evolution. NOT for a detailed investigation in any particular line of evidence.

I have seen Tom Trinko (in a debate about Geocentrism), after doing a very good show by presenting the case that really was hardest to me, then ask me to, as a condition for keeping the debate on my blog, add his excuse.

You can read it on the top of the blog post I called ...

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
posted Saturday, 28 June 2014 on my blog Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html


VIII
Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.

Answer:
Actually, they would also be hearing that by accepting Evolution they would be denying either human reason or certain specific evidence. Not just that they would be denying that God the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, including of course Moses as final author of Genesis.

Apart from this correction, that is an attitude I like from Evolutionist opponents.

It is identic to part of my rationale for debating people I won't be converting.

Sporting fun, certainly, but there is always also being useful to those "on the fence".

IX
With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.

Answer:
So LITTLE evolution taught in public schools?

I'd like a system in which parents could chose confession to be taught, not just between Catholic and Protestant as in Germany, but also between Evolutionist and Creationist. And OBVIOUSLY no more school compulsion.


Meanwhile, when I try to get a corner of the debate, it seems that though debates are still being held, Evolutionists have become very much more wary of them.

I have had some difficulty finding qualified opponents. I am not boycotting opponents for being unqualified, so this is not as if I were doing myself the boycott of debating I reproach Evolutionists for doing.

Perhaps indeed the case for Evolution is so bad, that Evolutionists are losing the courage for debates!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Linus, Pope and Martyr
23.IX.2016

Update next day: confer also the essay on Argument from Reason which I called Parallel Answers. Here:

somewhere else : Parallel Answer to CMI
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/parallel-answer-to-cmi.html

jeudi 22 septembre 2016

A Taste of NioC?


No, I don't mean ma-nioc. I mean the acronym NioC for Not in our Classrooms.*

"Dogma doesn't build better medical devices, good science does."


But dogma may have a role to play in distributing the medical devices in a fairer way, one which is fairer to the poor.

And in making the distinction between good science building medical devices (not always that good in fact ... some medical devices go back to days when the medical understanding was by today's standard really faulty - and were and remain still good) - and bad science, attacking dogma.

"Since the 1700's, some supporters of a literal interpretation of the Bible had argued that scientific evidence existed to support their views, but such arguments had diminished considerably after Darwin's Origin of Species. Now, in the middle of the twentieth century ..."


It is of course entirely possible that between 1858 and 1950 such arguments have decreased, as it is certain that they have increased since then.

What makes me doubt Eugenie Scott's (or is it Glenn Branch's?) capacities as a historian is that she (he?) prefaces all this with "since the 1700's".

St Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of the four senses, and so he was a proponent of the literal interpretation as much as (or more than even?) than the other three. And he lived about 500 years before the 1700's.

References will be given on occasion or demand, right now I am off for coffee. Thá mí an hoffi coffi or whatever the Celtic phrase is** ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Emmeram
22.IX.2016

* Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
Paperback – October 15, 2006
by Eugenie Scott (Author), Glenn Branch (Author), Bill Nye (Foreword)
https://www.amazon.com/Not-Our-Classrooms-Intelligent-Schools/dp/0807032786#reader_0807032786


** A minute inspection might reveal I was mixing two Celtic languages. Rwy'n hoffi coffi or Yr yddwyf i'n hoffi coffi. In Welsh. Ddrwg gennym, esgusodwch fi cymysgu. / Is toigh leam cofaidh. In Scots Gaelic. Duilich , gabh mo leisgeul measgachadh.

Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14


1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14

I wonder if it is "prof solitaire"* who has under cover contact with a priest who shall pray for me to reassess the essays** he is unable to disprove, or people here watching the exchange and praying for me to see something to make me reconsider.

Anyway, it is from "prof solitaire" that I got the second of my links.

Citing, I:
Bales/Stassen as per Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html#c14


from Bob Bales's opening statement
3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere

Radiactive carbon-14 is formed in the atmosphere through the action of cosmic rays. The rate of formation depeneds on the cosmic-ray activity. The rate of decay (amount decayed in mass/unit time) depends on the amount present. Thus, the amount will increase until the decay rate balances the production rate. Equilibrium will be reached in approximately 30,000 years. Measurements of production and decay rates indicate that the amount has been increasing for some time. According to V.R. Switzer, a European conference reported two studies which showed the concentration has been increasing for at least 10,000 years ("Radioactive Dating and Low-level Counting, Science, 157:726, August 11, 1967). The paper mentions, without details, that this contradicts previous studies. However, there are other reports of increasing concentration which I have not seen: "Production of C-14 by Cosmic 8 Ray Neutrons," Richard E. Lingenfelter, Reviews of Geophysics, 1:51, February, 1963, and "Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray produced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and Their Interpretations," Hans E. Suess, Journal of Geophysical Research, 70:5947, December 1, 1965.

from Chris Stassen's rebuttal
3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere

The [14]C/[12]C ratio depends on a number of factors including:

Its rate of production, influenced by both the strength of the earth's magnetic field, and the cosmic-ray proton flux generated by the Sun.
The amount of carbon in "reservoirs" in the Earth, which is strongly influenced by climatic conditions.

All of these factors vary; it is unjustified to assume that a non- uniform level means non-equilibrium. The concentration of [14]C in the atmosphere is calculated by performing [14]C dating on an object of known age (and calculating the difference between the dating age and the real age). The evidence indicates that it has been as high as 10% above its current value, and as low as 10% below its current value at various times in the past. It does not look like a process just now reaching equilibrium.

The "recent creation model" (with [14]C starting near but not at equilibrium) does not account for samples which give [14]C dates older than 10,000 years. Samples give ages to 50k years, which favors the "equilibrium, varying [14]C/[12]C ratio" model.

from Bob Bales's closing remarks
In carbon-14 dating, Chris seems to restrict the carbon-14 concentration to start near equilibrium and says that the creation model does not account for dates older than 10,000 years. But immediately after creation, there may very well have been little carbon 14. Material from that time, whenever it was, would date quite old, if the dating assumed near-equilibrium conditions.

Own comment:
In effect, I actually do believe, in order to defend a young earth, that C14 content at Creation and especially at Flood:

  • A, were very much lower than equilibrium
  • B, rose much more rapidly than with normal additions today in order to have since Flood reached equilibrium
  • C, and has in fact reached equilibrium.


Citing, II
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
on NCSE, spring 1982
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating


Question:
Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

Answer:
Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,200-year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.

When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about 6200 BC by tree-ring counts date at only 5400 BC by regular C-14 dating and 3900 BC by Cook's creationist revision of C-14 dating (as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.

Own comment
Two things:

  • On author of the piece and tree ring dating

    Chris Weber, one of the editors of Creation/Evolution, is a computer programmer and an amateur geologist. He has followed the creation-evolution controversy for over a decade. / Copyright 1982 by Christopher Gregory Weber

    I think he has missed a thing on two on tree ring dating. As a computer programmer and an amateur geologist, he may not be a specialist in tree rings.

    Neither am I, but I have seen some holes in it.

    For a series relevant to Europe, I have seen a bottleneck and a diagram showing how matches are for bottleneck. I would say, they are not exactly stringent in accepting matches. Reference unfortunately lost.

  • On Cook and still rising C-14 content.

    I have pretty conclusively disproven the "still rising" scenario.

    If it were, and if C-14 started out at a Flood 5000 years ago from a level of 1/64 of equilibrial level (assuming it were a single one), and assuming rise were thus limited to speeds of new formation seen today, we would either accept the half life it has and get very aberrant dates (El Alamein would date as Ghettysburg if we were 45% of equilibrial level right now and still rising and the 5730 years were both the true half life and accepted as such); or, other possibility, we would shorten the half life so as to fit datings with very well known historic dates. And in that case we would not be able to get a consistent half life. Older things would be datable correctly according to a longer half life, younger things by a shorter one.

    This I proved mathematically back here:

    New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
    from Wednesday, 28 October 2015, by Hans Georg Lundahl "at 05:26" (in some other time zone than mine)
    http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html


    The funny thing then is, I have since then seen this kind of inconsistency about half life (same or reverse, not sure which) about early C-14 datings from early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egypt. I would say (unless reverse to my last table on that link) that back then the C-14 level was lower than now and rising rather rapidly.

    If it had risen slowly, we would not have come up to equilibrial level yet.

    So, my scenario for a rising C-14 level is very much not Cooks, not a projection backwards from a level at presently perhaps rising.

    It is deduced from Biblical chronology and confirmed by early problems of C-14 with Egyptologists. It implies a rise more rapid than the now observed or equilibrially observable formation of new C-14. Which in turn implies a higher level of cosmic radiation, hence a level which could have given rise to both ice age and to a faster decay of "older" methods, like Uranium based or Potassium Argon.


And it is researching this second link, that I found the first one.

Whatever might be the reason for my coming across so much to refute, I hope it is useful for others.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Thomas of Villanova
22.IX.2016

* See Carbone 14 et Franc-maçonnerie.

** See the series I usually search on my blog by searching this one as Fibonacci : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

lundi 12 septembre 2016

What Can the Altaic Flood Legend Teach about the Real Flood


Talk Origins has the very great kindness to present us a list of several Flood Legends around the world. Among these the Altaic one.

Altaic (central Asia):

Tengys (Sea) was once lord over the earth. Nama, a good man, lived during his rule with three sons, Sozun-uul, Sar-uul, and Balyks. Ülgen commanded Nama to build an ark (kerep), but Nama's sight was failing, so he left the building to his sons. The ark was built on a mountain, and from it were hung eight 80-fathom cables with which to gauge water depth. Nama entered the ark with his family and the various animals and birds which had been driven there by the rising waters. Seven days later, the cables gave way from the earth, showing that the flood had risen 80 fathoms. Seven days later, Nama told his eldest son to open the window and look around, and the son saw only the summits of mountains. His father ordered him to look again later, and he saw only water and sky. At last the ark stopped in a group of eight mountains. On successive days, Nama released a raven, a crow, and a rook, none of which returned. On the fourth day, he sent out a dove, which returned with a birch twig and told why the other birds hadn't returned; they had found carcasses of a deer, dog, and horse respectively, and had stayed to feed on them. In anger, Nama cursed them to behave thus to the end of the world. When Nama became very old, his wife exhorted him to kill all the men and animals he had saved so that they, transferred to the other world, would be under his power. Nama didn't know what to do. Sozun-uul, who didn't dare to oppose his mother openly, told his father a story about seeing a blue-black cow devouring a human so only the legs were visible. Nama understood the fable and cleft his wife in two with his sword. Finally, Nama went to heaven, taking with him Sozun-uul and changing him into a constellation of five stars. [Holmberg, pp. 364-365]


Tengys (Sea) was once lord over the earth. Nama, a good man, lived during his rule with three sons, Sozun-uul, Sar-uul, and Balyks.

A good man with three sons closely matches the Biblical story.

Someone (probably a bad man) being ruler of all the world is possible.

Ülgen commanded Nama to build an ark (kerep), but Nama's sight was failing, so he left the building to his sons.

I don't know the rest of the stories about Ülgen, so I can't say how closely he matches the Biblical and real God.

However, when St Thomas Aquinas listed the degrees of false religion, he considered that of the "Tartars" as better than idolatry, though less good than islam (and I suppose that is how he would have viewed Amerindians too). And in some cases an idolatrous name for a false god has been reused by Christians of same language (Jumala, Finnish, Dievas, Lithuanian). I am not sure whether this is the case with Ülgün or not.

Nama's sight failing is probably false, extrapolation of post-Flood very shortened longevity.

The ark was built on a mountain, and from it were hung eight 80-fathom cables with which to gauge water depth. Nama entered the ark with his family and the various animals and birds which had been driven there by the rising waters. Seven days later, the cables gave way from the earth, showing that the flood had risen 80 fathoms.

This part is interesting.

In the Bible we have the direction "fifteen cubits above the highest mountains".

Changing 15 cubits to 80 fathoms is usually called exaggeration. But it is interesting that the legend states that the Ark was built on a mountain - and that ropes were in any shape way or form there to determine how much water had risen.

This is probably true about the real flood and the "fifteen cubits above the highest mountains" part.

Seven days later, Nama told his eldest son to open the window and look around, and the son saw only the summits of mountains. His father ordered him to look again later, and he saw only water and sky. At last the ark stopped in a group of eight mountains. On successive days, Nama released a raven, a crow, and a rook, none of which returned. On the fourth day, he sent out a dove, which returned with a birch twig and told why the other birds hadn't returned; they had found carcasses of a deer, dog, and horse respectively, and had stayed to feed on them.

Timescale of Flood radically shortened. Dove talks - and this is, though false per se, prophetic of when a dove and a voice from heaven were there in the Baptism of Christ.

In anger, Nama cursed them to behave thus to the end of the world.

Noah pronouncing a curse is in the Bible too. Probably Mongols descend from Ham and were not willing to tell real story, even if not descending from Chanaan (or one could say Mongols like Japanese do descend from Hittites, or from one Hittite, at least in their élite, which I believe to be correct on other grounds*). One could even argue "Nama" could be a portmanteau word for "Noah" and "Ham".

When Nama became very old, his wife exhorted him to kill all the men and animals he had saved so that they, transferred to the other world, would be under his power. Nama didn't know what to do. Sozun-uul, who didn't dare to oppose his mother openly, told his father a story about seeing a blue-black cow devouring a human so only the legs were visible. Nama understood the fable and cleft his wife in two with his sword. Finally, Nama went to heaven, taking with him Sozun-uul and changing him into a constellation of five stars.

This is of course rather far from anything in the Bible - except some wives giving their husbands bad council. And husbands refusing to hear them. It probably owes some details to episodes in the wilder and bloodier times of this people.

There could even be some kind of reference to Nimrod trying to reach Heaven through the top of a tower. "Nama" would even have an echo from first syllable of Nimrod or first two of Enmerker.

Apart from that, Tengys could also be a combined reference to Nimrod or Tubal Cain as post- and pre-Flood tyrants along with the great waters of the Flood itself.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Blessed Name of Mary
12.IX.2016

* Heth was first born of Chanaan. Probably the direct issue of him in Turkey were speakers of Hattic, not of Hittite, but speakers of Hittite eventually identified with them (hence their name) and so could have been considering themselves as Chanaaneans too. The reference to Japanese, possibly also Mongol one, descending from one, is about Aeneas as son of Venus and about Amaterasu as great-grand-mother of Emperor Jimmu. I suppose the goddesses as mothers originally referred to priestesses or rather one priestess, Puduhepa serving both a sungoddess (like Amaterasu) in one rite and a love goddess (like Venus) in a slightly different one and believing herself they were the same. She became a Hittite Empress. As Jimmu was not yet arrived in Japan, only his descendants there became Tennos, the road of that kind of dynasty would have been able to go through Mongol or Altaic regions before reaching Japan. And if so, and if historic Hittites retained (unknown to archaeology) or regained some knowledge of descent from Chanaan, one can see why "curse of Ham" would not have been a very favourite topic, while not being totally ignored either.

Nama cursing scavengers to behave badly is of course also an echo of Adam, through sin, not through pronouncing a curse, doing so very much earlier than Noah.

mardi 6 septembre 2016

Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present


1)Creation vs. Evolution : Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present · 2)New blog on the kid : I Also Find the Flat Earth Refuted

Here is the link:

CMI : Refuting absolute geocentrism
Refutation of our detractors
by Robert Carter Published: 6 September 2016 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response


Previewed on: http://creation.mobi/refuting-geocentrism-response

Which was preserved on: http://www.webcitation.org/6kDlL9bAB

And here is my answer (I had a preview), though I would rather consider myself a critical supporter than a detractor (of course, they could consider me a detractor as to this respect):

I Stone on String, Don Petit and Newton's First Law

"It was claimed that geokinetic theory cannot explain why the planets don’t fly off into space, since “gravity only acts at the speed of light” (some geocentrist models require gravity to propagate at infinite velocity). Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance. Even if gravity waves arriving at Jupiter are delayed by a couple of minutes as they propagate outward from the sun, there is never a time when gravity is not there. In any case, under General Relativity, gravity curves space, and that curvature is always there. Also, the recent measurement of two black holes colliding is evidence that gravity propagates as a wave and at the speed of light (We already know that many of them reject this experimental evidence. Update: there has been a second detection. Also, Hartnett has defended the data interpretation.)."


The formulation of objection was lending itself to a strawman of the argument at its best. See following.

Before going on, ether and friction: I think friction is due to atomic matter and that ether is the ultimate subatomic matter, capable of defining place of particles (and therefore of taking them with it) but not of exercising friction, as if it were atomic matter.

"Another area of criticism dealt with questions about where the planets get their continual force to move forward. “Why don’t the planets spiral into the sun?” The answer is simple: Newton’s First Law, of course! Once the planet is set in motion, it will continue in motion until acted on by an outside force. Since there is no appreciable drag acting on the planets, they continue to orbit. Another part of their model requires ‘ether’ and they believe this ether would cause drag on objects moving through space. Yet, there is essentially no friction in space, and we have measured it by sending multiple space probes through the essentially frictionless void of space without ever having to take any ether-caused drag into account."


Look at this:

"Since there is no appreciable drag acting on the planets, they continue to orbit."


Er, no.

In Newtonian explanation, they continue to orbit rather than spin off at tangents, precisely because Sun is making a very significant drag, known as gravitation.

Newton's first law speaks - and possibly very incorrectly, at least it has never been proven - of a non-accelerating motion just going on and on - straight forward. An orbit at least changes direction, and Keplerian ones change speed too, and are therefore accelerating (including decelerating, which is called negative acceleration). This means that Newton's First Law, even if it were on other grounds proven to be true in its application to uniform movement, will not cover orbital movement, since it is not uniform.

Rather, the orbital movement is supposed to be a continually renewed resultant movement of two continually present vectors: inertia from previous movement and gravitation from Sun.

There is a very legitimate question on why the newer and newer resultants keep coming in the same orbit rather than spiralling in or out.

One is in the habit in school rooms of showing an experiment of "stone on string".

However, in the case of a stone on a string, the inertial force is not kept in check by simply a dynamic force. It is kept in check by a fairly static solid. Let's check out the difference.

When in Don Petit's experiment the inertia onward of water droplets is kept in check, it is so by the electromagnetic force of charged knitting needles.

This force, like gravity, has its strength weaken when distance is increased and grow stronger when coming closer, since both operate by a law of inverse proportionality to square of distance (the two forces differ in what they are positively directly poroportional to).

A string, on the other hand, has some elasticity. This means it is wound, and that a pull outward partly unwinds it, and so its fibres "try to" rewind and exert a greater inward force.

Get this: solids exert greater or equal inward force as distance grows slightly while forces are instead weakened when distance grows slightly. Solids do not expert more force, perhaps rather none at all, if distance to centre decreases, whereas forces are strengthened if distance to whatever is "pulling" is diminished. So, solids and forces work, not just in different, but even opposed ways.

This means that the dancing water droplets of Don Petit around a charged knitting needle are a far better model for the PROPOSED mechanism behind the solar system than ever the stone on string experiment was.

In which case will orbitation cease fastest? Well, stone on string experiment, orbitation will continue as long as there is sufficient centrifugal force (unless string breaks). Or as long as it is renewed by moving the hand. And in Don Petit's case ... one could predict orbitations would cease immediately, as inertia and "gravitation mimicking" electromagnetism would not balance sufficiently to make even one orbit, but one would be wrong. On the video I saw, the mean period before droplets spiral totally onto knitting needle is fifteen orbits. Not 50. Not 15 000. Just 15.

Here is the video:

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


So, to highlight another sentence:

"Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit ..."


Probably granted.

"... and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance."


Well, no. Not granted. This is confusing inverse square law attractions with solids limiting outward movements.

"They criticized us, saying that the heliocentric system is easily knocked out of whack. No, the earth and other planets are large and massive objects and the dynamic forces keep them in nice, tight orbits. Is this sustainable for thousands of years? Yes. Millions? Quite likely. Billions? Maybe not. But so what? It only has to be stable from the beginning until today."


What we need to live is a system that functions from the beginning to Doomsday. The question of whether heliocentrism as per Newton WOULD function nicely or not does not depend on the fact that the real system (however it be esplained) is functioning. However, if it is to be a candidate for being identic to the real system, that does depend on whether the Newtonian explanation would really work.

Stone on string experiment is irrelevant, Don Petit's experiment suggests it would not.

II Redshift revisited

"We also saw several examples of people rejecting redshift/blueshift for calculating local motion, but nobody explained why, when we measure the absorption lines of hydrogen here on earth, those same apparent absorption lines seen in interstellar objects are shifted one way or the other?"


Your own site has an admission that circular motion around a centre can cause red shift and Doopler effect to happen when observing light source or sound source from centre.

In other words, red shift is useful for calculating movement around Earth each day, not for calculating movement outwards. For blue shift, I pass, for the moment.

III Parallax and Consistency of Universe revisited

"Clearly, the stars are not “fixed” in relation to one another. What then holds them in their respective places are they whirl about the earth at incredible speeds? Why do neighboring stars orbit at the same rate as distant galaxies when there is a multi-billion-fold difference in their respective distances?"


If the phenomenon usually referred to as annual stellar parallax is NOT of parallactic nature, is NOT the inverse apparent motion of - as per heliocentric theory - our "real motion", then parallax as such does not give us any information as to the distances to any stars. In other words, all stars could be as close as one light day.

"Another common aspect of their model is the belief that all the stars orbit at the same distance from earth. But most of them firmly defend parallax measurements. Yet, the fact that some stars have a detectable annual parallax wobble and other do not shows that stars are at different distances from earth!"


If the mathematics of "common" and "most of them" is correct, a sufficient margin of illogical Geocentrics exist to make two mutually exclusive positions both majoritarian among Geocentrics. Big deal?

I am not Neo-Tychonian, and I do NOT believe stars orbit Sun, I believe that like Sun they have a daily orbit around Earth, some minutes (of the clock!) faster than that of Sun.

IV Absence of Angelic Movers from Answer.

Riccioli as well as St Thomas Aquinas did not believe gravity or inertia or things like that were behind the daily, yearly and other periodic, circular or spirographical motions of Heavenly bodies.

They believed, when God had "appointed" orbits and such, He actually did APPOINT them TO the obedience of someone, namely angels.

This dispenses of quite a lot of arguments, like this one:

"But Tycho Brahe’s system is absolutely a kinematic model (it only describes motion, not the reason for the motion). It is a mathematical system that attempted to explain the then-available data, but did so without physics. It is simply not true to assert otherwise."


True. The main contenders about "reason for the motion" were back then:

  • God moves each Heavenly body by direct act of Divine Will;
  • God appointed lifeless Heavenly bodies to lifeless forces (gravitation was not yet in play, magnetism was, as per Kepler having this idea for his Heliocentric model);
  • God created the stars and planets as living creatures;
  • God appointed it for angels to move the celestial bodies.


Obviously, the last one is not operational science. But equally obviuously, we have not needed operational science about the universe beyond, unlike things on Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets are not ours to tinker with.

I will come back to "operational science" at the end.

"The sun is much more massive than the earth. Thus, the sun should not orbit the earth."


Granted, if gravitation were only mechanics available. Look at socker balls lying on a socker field. As long as only Earth and socker ball have their physical properties involved, there will not be much play going on. When players DO get into the field, sometimes two heavy players will "orbit" a very tiny ball. And certainly the ball will move due to voluntary movements, not due to mainly only gravitation and inertia of the two bodies Earth and ball.

V Moon Landings and Geosynchronic Satellites etc.

"But think about this: a geostationary orbit can only be achieved above the earth’s equator, and the equator is tilted in respect to the rotation of the universe. If it is the universe that is “pulling upward on the geosynchronous satellite”, keeping it from falling back to earth, it cannot do so evenly throughout the year and thus the satellite could not sit still in reference to earth."


My model is rather based on the ether rotating around Earth to the speed of the stars.

Note that St Augustine as well as Riccioli with understandable prudence avoided to decide whether (Hebrew model) angels move stars through absolutely empty space WESTWARD only at different speeds or (Greek model) Heavens are as a solid (if ether, then only quasi-solid) moving Westward each day, angels (gods to Pagans) are causing the (usually) opposed, slower Eastward motions (like angel of Sun causing axactly just only the annual motion, and getting daily motion for free as God turns the Universe around us each day). For my answer on geosynchronic satellites to work, ether needs to function as a quasi-solid.

"Notice that Mercury does not have an equatorial bulge. Earth does, as does Jupiter. They believe, and adamantly defend, that the bulge on Jupiter is due to rotation, and the lack of a bulge on Mercury is due to a lack of rotation (Mercury rotates slowly, once every 59 earth days). But they then go on to say that the bulge on Earth is due to the universe rotating around the earth. Likewise, the Coriolis force on Jupiter is due to its rotation, but they believe the Coriolis force on Earth is due to the universe is rotating around the Earth. Thus, they require multiple explanations of the same phenomena. In geokinetics, there is one explanation: both rotate."


As Sungenis and DeLano would say, a bulge is equally possible through universe rotating around a body fast enough (available for Earth, but not for Jupiter, if Geostasis is correct) and if body is rotating fast enough (available for Jupiter possibly, but not for Earth). To cite their famous application of Mach "the physics is exactly the same". So, no, they are NOT providing two very similar phenomena with two widely diverging explanations, only with two applications of a basically same one.

"There are other things that affect the length of a day. The moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, and the geometry of the earth is not perfectly round. This affects the length of a day. The earth is also not uniform on the inside. Changes in the magnetic field have been linked to changes in the length of a day. This means that things are wobbling around deep inside the earth. In the geocentric universe, these wobblings affect the rate of rotation of the entire universe? Remember, our clocks are accurate enough to measure these changes, and Newtonian mechanics gives us a valid reason for them."


With angels dancing these wobbles, no problem.

"It pains us to note that many of them do not believe in the moon landings. If one has to reject so much operational science in order to explain the universe, science cannot then be used to explain the universe. So why bother to try to build a ‘scientific’ model at all? This is their greatest Achilles’ heel."


  • Your pain is at best irrelevant, at worst a case of "emotional extorsion" or threat of involving psychiatry, neither of which is an argumentum ad rem;
  • The moon landings are not operational science, but a claim about past events. There were - at least as the story goes - eleven of them in a past which has not been repeated since back when I was a child;
  • As such, credibility of the historical event is to be judged by credibility of testimony (you might be "pained" to note I allow not too much of that to one Calvinist who, if correct, was admitting to committing a sacrilege by risk of spilling what according to what his liturgy was mimicking in real Holy Masses would potentially have been the Precious Blood);
  • And apart from credibility of testimony, there is in fact operational science involved in assessing probability of the claims actually occurring non-miraculously:

    • Would flag have waved as if in wind, if on athmosphere-less Moon?
    • If moving pictures closely resembling Moon Landing, but which feature reflections of pyramids in face shield and therefore not taken on Moon, exist, can pictures of Moon landing have been taken by trick photography?
    • If a feather and a hammer were both dropped on Earth, which has an athmosphere, hammer drops first. Unless feather is loaded. Moving picture of event - the extant one - is not so clear in details that one can exclude this.
    • Is van Allen's Belt

      • Fictional? That would be throwing out SOME operational science.
      • Real, but astronauts avoided cancer by never going there?
      • Real, but astronauts had good protection, though its exact need was not foreseen?
      • Real, and astronauts were exposed enough to get cancer, but their bad health was hushed up?

  • There is also the question of what each side would risk if being correct and speaking up. We are far from the guarantee of martyred witnesses. On the contrary, astronauts agreeing with the story have been treated as veteran heroes the rest of their lives and the ones that were killed in failed takeoff before the first landing can have been killed to make sure no one dared to speak up.


This said, Moon Landings not being the likeliest story I know of, as history goes, as a Geocentric I have no need to deny it. If they went there, they were moving faster than down here, but not faster than they would be moving here if Heliocentrism were true, and the gravitation (supposing as not quite unlikely this is a universal force) of Moon is much less than that of Earth, therefore speeds would affect them less.

VI Papacy (non-such of Bergoglio and in general)

"We are not trying to be gadflies, but we do wonder if their views on evolution and the age of the earth match those of the most recent papal pronouncements?"


One solution is saying these pronouncements are not Papal since these men were not Popes.

I agree with Lita on the title heading Peter vs his ‘successor’ : Bergoglio is no successor of St Peter.

Somewhat inappropriately, since simony is a personal, not a doctrinal failing, one Walther von der Vogelweide was saying to then (real) Popes:

Wilstu haben Petri Êren
Haltich dann zu Petri Lêren.


Referring to how St Peter treated a proposal by Simon Magus. Well, same words are very much more appropriate when one man wants to be honoured as successor of Peter and really not have the doctrines of St Peter (those aptly cited).

Lita's reasoning about papacy in general is less candid.

  • While "petros" is indeed "pebble" it is also the masculine counterpart to feminine "petra" - which means rock. Feminine nouns are not usually given for men to use as given names. + It seems that Aramaic has same word for both (kifa = rock, Peter).
  • The next verse is, as usual among anti-papists, omitted from reasoning (Matth 16:19 et dabo TIBI claves regni caelorum)
  • When a Pope accepts to be tried, he cannot act in same case as judge - unless he were to break off the trial. Peter didn't. (A modern non-Pope Montini was given an accusation act and could have accepted to be tried by a delegated jury, rather than send Father Georges de Nantes away).
  • Lita is assuming St Peter was defending himself in a trial. It could also be the case he was facing the kind of accusation Montini and Bergoglio have been facing and explaining why he was innocent in front of what amountged to ecclesiastic rioters.
  • Making a row about a real Pope, when he is not acting the role, as Walther von der Vogelweide knew, is not inacceptable for Catholics. Which was what St Paul was doing.


If Bergoglio is doing a very un-necessary compromise by denying Biblical Creation, or Joshua X:12, 13, so is Lita by denying Papacy.

VII Back to Natural Law and Operational Science:

If a person rejects a purely naturalistic origin of the universe, they still have to decide on how much science to accept. For us (strangely in common with leading evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson), we draw the line between operational science (how things work) and historical science (what happened in the past).


For me, not all of what is "how things work" is operational science. Non-necessary aspects of the past (unlike 2+2=4 from Day 1 or before) is in a sense "how things work" - namely how they worke-D in that past. So, if past events are even so not operational science, perhaps they should ask if "how things work" is the best complete definition of it. I would say "how things work before our very eyes at close enough range to verify it with certainty".

So, two more things are NOT operational science, to me, though both can be termed "how things work".

The hidden (electrons have never been actually sighted : the wave width of light is too large to be disturbed by an electron, and electronic microscopy can as little show electrons as optic microscopy can show photons, also the soul, except in so far as it can be ascertained by introspection, also hidden plots others but not oneself is in the confidence of).

The distant. In fact, stars are too distant to be seen from more than one side. We cannot take a stroll of 8 light years and verify that half of the stroll, we approach alpha Centauri, mid stroll we have to avoid getting grilled by it and second half of stroll we can see alpha Centauri receding (with our Sun on the other side). Unlike how microscopy allows studying a bacterium from all sides.

Since the universe was created by God at a specific time in the recent past, it would be folly to take present processes and extrapolate them back to infinity. This is essentially what the evolutionist does. When they do so, however, they run into innumerable problems (we documented many of them in our powerful book and documentary Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels). Simply put, the universe resists such explanations because it was created.


Fully agreed. Lamech the Cainite having certainly two different parents and probably four different grandparents would have been stupid if he had projected that principle back to Adam and Eve. Sure, in their generation, Lamech would have had a corresponding exponent of two as different ancestor positions, but they would be coinciding in only two different persons.

On the other hand, once that universe was set up by God, everything should work according to a set of laws, for the Universal Lawgiver would have created the universe commensurate with His divine attributes. His unchanging nature means we have a universe that can be understood through unchanging scientific law (and of course the occasional miracle, an addition to natural law).


Everything works according to the real laws of the Universe. Including miracles, since when God set up the laws in the six days, He also decided on what miracles would be possible to Himself and what He would totally ban.

However, things working according to the laws of the Universe do not mean they work "because of" the laws of the Universe, they work because of some cause.

Not all of these causes - for instance God's own and the angels' capability of moving things - can be classified as what is now called "scientific law". The exceptions are not just miracles. They are also every voluntary move you or I make, since these involve spirit directing matter, at some point very certainly without matter moving due to a previous effective cause that is physical, but moving as it does only through the effective cause of human will. If you write an A and a B, lots of physical laws will be working in how you draw and how the colour or shape is attached to the medium (paper, sand etc). But no physical law at all will be explaining why you draw an A in the word "Autumn" or a B in the phrase "Break of the Day". Only a linguistic law, of English rather than physics, will be explaining that.

The exceptions are also Creation - since this is previous to both ordinary and miraculous. But a Geocentric would add the daily movement of the Heavens around Earth as yet another exception. And it seems that so was St Paul doing:

Romans 1 : [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Day and night (as the Psalmist notes) are very clear expressions of God's attributes, if analysed Geocentrically.

Colossians 2:[8] Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:

Up to very recently, the word "philosophy" means among other things also science. And the Democritan and Epicurean philosophy was famous for explaining EVERYTHING according to a scientific theory which was based on "elements" - i e atoms, quanta - of this world. Since he was not Tychonian (which is certain), and had not analysed the difficulties of a perpetuum mobile (as far as I know, at least), he tried to give a purely naturalistic explanation of Geocentric astronomy. Sun moves faster and is higher than Moon, because it has less density. Stars are even faster than Sun and are even higher up than the Sun, because they have even less density than that. All things move out of accident, like the whirls of a whirlpool. Well, Robert Carter will agree with me that such a purely naturalistic approach to Geocentric astronomy is no longer possible. Therefore, accepting Geocentrism - that is what we actually observe! - leads to some kind of proof of God (Prima Via in Summa Theological I, Q2, A3, or the argument which Josephus attributes to Abraham).

Another thing which Democritus tried to explain with reference to the "elements of the world" was of course the mind and life. That too fails.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Petronius of Verona, Bishop
6.IX.2016

mardi 23 août 2016

C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's


1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14

First, Tas Walker's:

Uniformitarian age, years ago  Calibration factor
Tas Walker's calibration curve, p. 8, Journal of Creation 29(1) 2015
0, present  1
1000  
2000  
3000  0.9
4000  
 0.8
5000  
 0.7
6000   >0.6
 0.6
7000  
 0.5
8000  
9000  
 0.4
10,000   <0.4
11,000
12,000
13,000  0.3
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000  >0.2
 0.2
20,000  <0.2
etc.


The diamonds in the diagram (see link to his article) are calibration points, points where he felt he could tie a geological event to a Biblical year.

Here is mine:

Uniformitarian age, years ago  Real age  Calibration factor
Using my Fibonacci table.
2580  2580  1
2769  2759  0.996
2968  2938  0.990
3167  3117  0.984
3386  3296  0.973
3625  3475  0.959
This (above) is the abouts of the Exodus 1510 BC
3914  3654  0.934
4273  3833  0.897
4742  4012  0.846
5391  4191  0.777
6570  4370  0.665
8399  4549  0.542
12,278  4728  0.385
Decimal (above) ending with three sixes, whatever that might mean ...*
31,707  4907  0.155
And this last (4907 "BP" / 2957 BC) is the Biblical year of the Flood, and 31,707 stands for a variation between 20,000 and 50,000.


My own approach is rather different, there are about three calibration points, earliest of which is Flood AND I consider there was a fluctuation around 31,707 between 20,000 and 50,000 years "before present", which I do not take into account, I streamline this fluctuation into one C14 level (3.90625 % of present/stable) which gives so and so many extra years (26,800). Later on, with higher levels, there would be less fluctuation, so, the closer the table comes to the present, the less fluctuation it represents. Or the less necessary fluctuation.

Actually, a calculation factor is not exactly a good description of what happens mathematically, since every level lower than that of present gives an exact amount of extra years. I think my first attempt of a recalibration was botched because I took discrepancy between historic date of Trojan War (1100 BC according to my then sloppy memory) and C14 dating of one level of Troy (1200 BC, dito) as meaning a calibration factor of 31/32, and I thought this was significant about the C14 level - no, it is not the calibration factor, but the extra years which is so.

My timescale is based on real years, since it is in those that the rise of C14 levels actually occurred. The distances are a certain fraction of a halflife (c. 179 years). For conventional dates this looks very odd of course, that is why the original posting of my recalibration has a left hand column of real dates and gives conventional dates (more or less corresponding) in the definition.

Obviously, we also differ about Biblical dates, me using the Christmas Chronology of the Catholic Church (abolished in Novus Ordo sect 1994) for the years of Flood, Abraham, Exodus, while he uses a more Masoretic or KJV based Chronology.

I have some diffidence about early very steep rise of C14, though I calibrated successive rises of C14 on a rather fine mathematic model, the Fibanocci series (by values of which I multiplied a fraction of the rise, not sure about all details any more), since I consider it possible that Göbekli Tepe, first off was intended by Nimrod as a kind of launching ramp (notice it is the tip which shall reach into heaven, not the tower which shall be so high that it does so) and second therefore is the real tower of Babel. However, 358 years after Flood seems a bit early for the days of Peleg in LXX Chronology. Therefore, this table fits a bit better, perhaps with Ziggurat of Ur as Tower of Babel and Woolley's Ur (rather than Urfa close by Göbekli Tepe) as as Ur of the Chaldees.

Also, the very first period after the Flood seems a bit crowded, man would have come into South America within 179 years after Flood, for instance.

This latter point could be arranged. For instance, if there was an early spread before attempting to build a city and a tower and if it continued beside Tower building and if the later spread - Genesis 11:[9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries. - ... partly followed same ethnicities as the earlier one, which as more sporadic would have been not mentioned in Bible.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Saint Batholomew, Apostle
23.VIII.2016

* Meaning the full decimal as shown on calculator. Not the one I showed, which is only three first decimals.

samedi 13 août 2016

Why was Palaeocritti Site Important to the Creationist Cause?


First off, it is down.

"Notice: This domain name expired on 07/13/16 and is pending renewal or deletion"

Second, I had agreed with Nobu Tamura, one project leader for it, to save as much as possible before it went down:

I Hope This Blog will Get More Writers - it is a Salvage Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-hope-this-blog-will-get-more-writers.html


Approved by Nobu Tamura!
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/approved-by-nobu-tamura.html


Defining terms:

What is a salvage blog?
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-is-salvage-blog.html


Third, I found no other writers, but did some job anyway.

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com


Fourth, when I saw the original site was down, I knew I had failed:

Mission failed
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2016/08/mission-failed.html


Now, you may wonder why the original site, and by extension my back-up blog or salvage blog was so important to a Creationist?

It was managed by Evolutionists ... yes. But Evolutionists who were being unusually candid about what kind of material we have for each species or genus, how many fossils, how well preserved, where the type fossil - called holotype - was found, how many countries around the world it is found in (Pterodactylish things are found in UK, Austria and Brazil, for one ... not always same species).

My dream would have been to prove that no where in the world do vertebrate fossils overlap, except perhaps in NW Mexico shrimps and prawns from "Palaeocene" being situated above Ceratopsians from "late Cretaceous". And shrimps and prawns aren't vertebrates anyway.

My other dream would have been to use the fossil map to make a map over the pre-Flood world. One part of Austria you have a Pterodactylish thing, as said, so it was presumably land. Near Vienna you have a very old seal, probably coast. Elsewhere - in Salzburg I think - you have a whale, so it was probably sea. West Morocco has trilobites, probably sea, perhaps shallow seas or lakes. In Karoo you consistently find land animals, so Karoo area was land. Jonkeria, Moschops, the skeleton which looks like an otter or teckel (dachshund), except its legs are reptilian (could some geneticist have been doing an evil experiment on real mammals?)

But in order to fulfil it, I would have needed either a prolongation on the part of the palaeocritti site, or fellow writers for the salvage blog, so it could have been completed quicker.

Site is down, though not yet deleted. I went through very few countries. Algeria was a short one. So was Antarctica. Austria - the whale not from Vienna/Nussdorf (there was one there, next to the seal) was from Linz, not Salzburg - Belgium, Brazil. United Kingdom only got started. For US, I only did Arizona. Linking to complementary articles on the web. In Africa, I started with South Africa and got started on a few more, see the page Locations. Where I also tried to make a new list about how well preserved they were ...

I hope someone donates - or that they charitably try to supplement at least the world map part, according to fossils - which I could never make. If they, being scientists and evolutionists, are interested in doing such a service for a creationist who is in letters rather than science.

Meanwhile, Creationists who unlike me and like the team behind palaeocritti are scientists, are missing this opportunity:

CMI : Fossil snakes and the Flood boundary in North America
by Chad Arment
http://creation.com/fossil-snakes-and-the-flood-boundary-in-north-america


The placement of the geological boundary between Flood deposits and post-Flood deposits is a point of debate within creation science. One method for estimating the placement of this boundary utilizes biostratigraphy. [footnote] Ross, M.R., Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, J. Creation 26(2):82–87, 2012.


Well, the thing is ANY such kind of layer could be pre-Flood. Perhaps not the one with two snakes of same kind (unless Noah's pair was one of each species, so they could diversify back into the two after Food), but in my experience from the site which is now down, there is no such thing in vertebrate palaeontology as biostratigraphic layers above each other.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
St Hippolytus of Rome
and St Radegundis of Poitiers
13.VIII.2016