mardi 31 décembre 2013

Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

I was visiting Mark Shea again and saw this:

Merry Christmas
[on Catholic and Enjoying It]

Proclamation of the Birth of Christ

Today, the twenty-fifth day of December, unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.

Several thousand years after the flood, when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant. ...

I commented under it and got an answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image"

Roman Martyrology has year 5199 ... (and 2957 after the Flood)

Merry Christmas!
BillyT92679 > Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mark used the proclamation as stated in the OF.

[OF = Ordinary Form]

WesleyD > BillyT92679
The revision is actually more recent than that: it first appeared in a USCCB text published in 1994. Perhaps only in the USA are there two different versions?

An argument in favor of the new version can be found here*, and an argument in favor of the new version can be found here**. Silly me -- I like them both.

I tried to reply to the WesleyD:

[Quoting from his first link*] In this and similar cases, less precision is actually better, since it more closely reflects contemporary church teaching and biblical scholarship. Proclaiming exact numbers of years inevitably gives most people the impression that we know exactly when these biblical events took place, thereby unwittingly reinforcing a type of biblical fundamentalism or pseudo-historical literalism that does not conform to the principles of Catholic biblical interpretation. Considering how long ago these events are said to have taken place and how few historically reliable sources we have for events of the distant past (especially anything before the time of King David), it is better not to give the impression that dates are or can be known with great precision.

I do not think the commentators cited in the Haydock Comment would have agreed. And I do not think they agree from Heaven either.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Whose Work - Humanly Speaking - is the Haydock Commentary?

I have no idea who condemned "biblical fundamentalism" as a heresy, only it was NOT Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope St Pius X. Also I have no idea when "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth" became loaded with issues such as "contemporary church teaching"...

I think Kent Hovind might enter heaven well before Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. - if the latter gets there at all, that is.

Then I tried to post this, all I wrote above.

You do not have permission to post on this thread

Then I looked from Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. to Jimmy Akin. The comments are already closed, so I cannot answer there.

Here is a quote from the blog post:

The dates he gives for the earlier events in the Chronology are probably not right, and in any event we wouldn't claim today to be able to establish these dates with the exact precision that he did. In one case–the date of the Exodus–modern biblical scholars have generally dated it a couple centuries after the traditional date.

Here is in full a publicity on top of his blog. It also includes my answer to the quote I just gave, so I will quote it:

Start reading Jimmy's best-selling book The Fathers Know Best in under a minute!

If you believe that The Fathers Know Best, you will obviously support anno mundi date 5199 against Ussher's 4004 fr the birth year of Our Lord. But you will equally support it against the "unknown ages" stuff.

Now, there is a problem also with the Exodus revision. Dating Exodus to 13th C. BC implies more or less making Ramses II the Pharao of the Exodus - which arguably he was not. He has a grave in Egypt, not a corpse in the Red Sea for one. And for another, the Hyksos invasion fits in very well with an Egypt that lacks an army, while the Hyksos tyranny was the perfect occasion to forget traumatisation by the Ten Plagues brought on by Moses through traumatisation by a harsh tyranny. A "fundie" Egyptologist has identified Moses as Amenemhet IV (up to when he hit the Egyptian, that is, and probably rather than with perfect certainty***) - which if anything would bring the Exodus further back than 1510 years BC. His conclusion is that Egyptian time line needs crushing. With Exodus in 1510 BC Egyptian timeline still needs crushing but less than according to Protestant or Jewish Bibles.

I can relate this issue to my general distaste for "OF", since "OF" also removed a few Saints from the Calendar, not as was suggested on a morning when I was too tired to really notice because names were little in use, but in reality because some Saints, such as Philomena or Christopher or Barbara were deemed by commissionaries as "too uncertain", which they had obviously not been to the judgement of previous Catholic scholarship of previous centuries. And Christopher and Barbara are a bit more popular than Paphnutius (who would however sound better in French than in Anglicised Latin form).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Rainer Maria Rilke Library
St Sylvester, Pope
[who may well have cured
Constantine of leprosy]

* Christmas Proclamation
[on Catholic resources, by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.]

** Bad Liturgical News, Folks
[on Jimmy Akin's blog]

*** CMI : Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
By Daniel Anderson
Published: 23 January 2007

I usually link to articles in the above format, same for CMI as for any other link including my own, but since they have a logo, for linking, here is one to their site in general. I have some cautions, notably when they defend Malthus and Galileo, and of course they would prone Ussher rather than Septuagint based Chronologies like Roman Martyrology, or rather actually do so, but often they are a very good resource:


Just think of it, if George Orwell had waited to 1949 with publishing and called the novel 1994, he would have hit the nail for the "newspeak" date!

mardi 24 décembre 2013

I thought Hans G, Australia (also a reader of CMI site) was a spoof on me

I think appropriate, when writing to convert - if God gives them the grace - Atheists, to adress their reason and leave their hearts to God.

He sometimes takes another approach, which twice irritated me as I was afraid of being mistaken for him.

So I did a search and I found a comment of his that makes sense. Even in the context of dealing with atheists.

Here is the link to the article:

Handling Aggressive Atheists
Published: 9 June 2013 (GMT+10)

And here is the actual quote of his comment:

Hans G., Australia, 9 June 2013

Obviously atheists are not believing in creation, so they are evolutionists as well.

My approach: So, you believe in evolution and big bang about 15 B years ago. All this time was needed to have you here now, all those Millions and Billions of years are now behind you and you have not many years left being here.

In my case, I just started my future as a child of the creator and have all the time ahead of me, also called eternity. Think about it...........

I owe him an apology for a harsh word or two in my comments (one published, other not yet so) under his.

Today's article from them is also good:

Creation in schools hits the headlines : Attempts to ban critical thinking increase
by Philip Bell

It reminds me how Welsh, Breton and Catholicism were eradicated or drastically lowered in terms of proportion to population, from that of certain countries where previously universal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
= Hans-Georg L, France
Bibliothèque Audoux (Paris)
Christmas Eve

"In British Columbia, Canada, it is already illegal to teach creation in public schools." - Reminds me of Canadian atrocities involving fertility and even survival of tuberculosis, not to mention staying with parents, perpetrated on indigenous population up to seventies.

dimanche 15 décembre 2013

Dr. Frank Press ...

Two quotes:
I) Dr. Frank Press 1987, adressed by Robert V. Gentry
Earth Science Associates
Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!
Challenge to Dr. Press

Dr. Frank Press, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
P. O. Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912
March 24, 1987
Dear Dr. Press:

The February 1987 issue of Physics Today (p. 66) mentions the National Academy of Sciences as one organization which is opposed to the Louisiana creation-science law, now being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doubtless you already knew this because the booklet written by you and others, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1984) is quoted in the Physics Today report as follows:

..."It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid..."

More than anyone else, you should know why the above quotation is meaningful to me. Remember last August, Dr. Press? On August 4, 1986, I sent an overnight letter to you requesting a response to the evidences for creation, which I was to present at the International Conference on Creationism.

et c. [End of first quote. Read full challenge to Dr. Press on the link above.]
II) Dr. Frank Press now, protected by a Saudi King
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
President's International Advisory Council

Dr. Frank Press

Former Member, KAUST International Advisory Council
President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences
United States

... Since 1993, he has been a visiting professor at Cornell, California Institute of Technology, Stanford, and Indiana universities.

Dr. Press has been elected to fellowship in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society (London), the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Academie des Sciences (France). He is the recipient of 30 honorary degrees. Among his awards are the U.S. National Medal of Sciences, the Vannevar Bush Award, and the Pupin Medal from Columbia University. Dr. Press received the Japan Prize from the Emperor in 1993. He was awarded the “great gold” Lomonosov medal, the highest award of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ...

et c. [End of second quote. Read full presentation of Dr. Press on Abdallah University site, link above.]

I can not really imagine Russian Academy of Sciences or Japanese Emperor are very fond of Creationist criticism of Dr. Frank Press.

Nor would that be the case with King Abdallah.

Yesterday I wrote to a journalist of a French right wing newspaper - unfortunately stating Frank Press was at the King Abdallah university rather than an international advisor to it. I used some language about Abdallah I would not use about people I respect.

Somehow, I think he might just possibly know me and not respect me either.

It is known I blog very much at the Bpi library, a library institution in honour of Georges Pompidou. It is also - wrongfully - reputed I am a plagiariser. This has been pretty blatantly ironised about by Muslims when I was uploading scans of my own compositions. One old man asked me if I knew anything about downloading music. No, I said. He leered as if I was known to be an expert on the criminal use of such technology. And he was clearly Arabic and bearded and all. That was some months ago.

So guess what happened? When opening a session I have to click OK on a box stating among other things:

The unauthorised use of software is criminal offense. To learn about or report software piracy, visit the Software & Information Industry Association at

I am not a software pirate, just as I am not a music pirate. But yesterday I told a French - supposedly fellow Catholic - journalist I think Catholics who refuse to deal with my writings because I am Creationists are kissing the *** of King Abdallah (giving him both links) and today I am confronted with a library where there is a friendly information that software piracy is an offense.

And when I try to copy even my own comments from FB threads to use on my blogs, I am confronted with a page that scrolls away, as if some administrator was in a friendly way considering my act as an act of internet piracy. My friends already know I am copying out whole debates, or sometimes chosen comments of my own or of theirs, and strangers are usually told soon enough. None has sued me yet, so noone else should be pursuing me either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gaudete Sunday
in Georges Pompidou Library

PS, if you want to know it, I have received alms from Muslims often enough, or for that matter, like Saint Francis, been stowaway passenger (on local trains rather than on ships, and in order to blog when libraries are open and to sleep outside Paris when I sleep rather than for a mission to the Sultan as he did) often enough. But if they think they can go from the one to owning my honour or from the other to reasonably accuse me of piracy, there is something wrong with someone's sense of morals. And not mine, at least not compared to them./HGL

vendredi 6 décembre 2013

Philip Pattemore has written a book called "Am I my keeper's brother?" with a monkey on the front above the title. Shaun Doyle has reviewed it with the necessary corrections, mostly. He does not forget to remark the Bulverism in Pattemore's work, which is a good thing, nor to remark the total lack of exact citation or reference to any work by any Creationist, even when it could have helped explain his point, for instance when Philip speaks about baraminology - on which I trust Shaun Doyle. I have myself had occasion to look at a book* about Creationism in USA written by a French "Catholic" priest and "Dominican" friar, whom I think St Robert Bellarmine and St Pius V and St Thomas Aquinas might very well disown - and it misrepresents creationists as much in the pages I read that as to make me believe Philip Pattemore does the same thing.

However, here is the essay, the link to it:

No keeper’s brother
Am I My Keeper’s Brother?—Human Origins From A Christian And Scientific Perspective, Philip Pattemore New Zealand, 2011
Reviewed by Shaun Doyle

And here is a quote - from the review answering the book, not from the book itself, which I am not quite satisfied with.

He claims the church has a rather vexed history with science over the antipodes, geocentrism, and racism. The first is completely false—the ‘received opinion’ came not from the Bible but from Augustine, whose theology on the point was good, but his geography was bad. This was falsified by Christians before Columbus first set sail (Bartholomew Diaz rounded the southern tip of Africa in 1488—four years before Columbus sailed west to try and reach India) and didn’t impact the Christian hegemony of Europe. The second was the result of reading Ptolemaic cosmology into the Bible, and the third was also reading modern notions of race into the Bible—actually racism was aided by anti-biblical notions, including ‘pre-Adamites’ and evolution itself (figure 2). In all three cases the problem was not the Bible but the ideas men brought to the Bible. However, deep time and evolution directly contradict the Scriptures.

And another quote, from a picture text (picture featuring oceanic divides west and south of Oecumene):

Figure 2. The ‘antipodean heresy’ is the idea that humans lived on the opposite side of the globe who were not sons of Adam. It has oft been claimed that this notion caused the church to oppose Columbus’ proposed voyage west to reach India, though it is without historical basis.

Now, what St Augustine had said was NOT that « humans lived on the opposite side of the globe who were not sons of Adam », but that there lived no humans on the opposite side of the globe, because:

  • a) Adam and Noah lived on this side of it (as do we)


  • b) it seems to be impossible to get over to the other side of it by sailing.

What this saint but landlubber (hey I am a landlubber too, most of us are, but I have a ship’s captain in my family !) thought was that if anyone had sailed over the Ocean West of the Pillars of Hercules, he would also have sailed back and told us about it.

He did not know certain streams make sailing West much easier than sailing East. And he most certainly had nothing to do with Antipodean heresy about non-Adamites. Except by rejecting it beforehand.

Some Spaniards possibly did have something to do with it. They were, if so, laymen. The Catholic Church condemned the theory very promptly.

If the theory was proposed, it could not have been exactly repeating St Augustine’s argument – the Spaniards had after all sailed across the Atlantic (as the Ocean between America and Europe is called since it was discovered as not continuous with Pacific), and they had then sailed back. If the sailing question came into it, it was rather that they saw no technical possibility to sail across the Ocean with technology available to Amerindians even of the more technologically advanced in 1492 - 1520 and following years(we thank Thor Heyerdahl for the voyages known after vehicles as Kon Tiki and Ra that made us see they were wrong), and they were not thinking in terms of technology loss. The Church which was sure they were real descendants from Adam and from Noah was thinking in terms of technology loss, proof, the Jesuit Missions gave the Guaranís Agricultural technology and were called « reductiones » because they were « drawing back » the Indians to a human know-how they had left, as well as giving them back to the true God whom they had presumably left under Nimrod's apostasy.

But the main reason for the theory Indians were pre-Adamites, as formulated by often military laymen, was the observation of human sacrifice and the prejudice that such a thing could not be committed by any being really human.

Geocentrism is not « reading Ptolemy into the Bible » even as much as Christian Heliocentrism is reading Galileo – Kepler – Newton into it.

Ptolemy was certainly Geocentric, he was certainly supporting Geocentrism with some arguments that Galileo refuted, but Geocentrism does very much not depend on Ptolemy or on his failed arguments. And it is there in Bible as read by any Church Father up to the Galileo affair reading and commenting Joshua X or Psalm XCII.

Actually, if Pattermore is by denying Young Earth, descent from Adam, special creation of the same, original sin, personal sin, possibility of personal salvation from both sins, setting up a scheme where Catholic eschatology of the immediately after death is compromised (basically joining hands with Jews and Russellians), the deniers of Earth’s being still and down, and of Heaven’s motion going to cease and of Heaven having a limit to what is visible from us, beyond which are located the bodies of Jesus and of Mary as well as the Seraphim and the souls of the just not yet resurrected (Henoch and Eliah would be bodily present on a lower sphere before their return, martyrdom and final resurrection Apocalypse 11), are in their turn setting up a difficulty about Catholic Ultimate Eschatology, about where bodies of the Resurrected just will be located.

The Catholic Church, as it did not support pre-Adamite theory, as it even condemned it, and as it had not yet been confronted with Darwin, was not racialist. Some Catholic laymen ignoring Church teaching were.

There are of course other things to say on other paragraphs of this major refutation of a major error. Let it suffice for this essay that has had staff on occasion being patronising to a Geocentric critic and that the mantra on Church « reading Ptolemy into the Bible » (which St Robert Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII were very much not) is a bit Bulverising. Precisely as Pattermore is to the Creationists.

Not to mention that Distant Star problem which just vanishes into hot air if confronted with a serious defense of Geocentrism. Which I consider possible and have tried my hands at.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Nicolas of Myra
in Lycia in Asia Minor

*I did not review all of the book, but the part where Jacques Arnould O.P. finds it amazing that a Creationist he met could affirm that God created Paris. He thinks men did. I reviewed that in an essay trying to disentangle the respective roles of God and of men:

deretour : Qui créa Paris, Dieu ou l'homme?

But I did neither read nor review the rest of the book.

mardi 3 décembre 2013

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ...

First meaning of names like Permian or Jurassic, like Cretaceous or Palaeocene is of course a time in the past as supposed by the Evolutionists.

Second meaning is layers of rock. Such a layer - maybe thousand wharves* or maybe without wharves or maybe a dried out lake or ... - is from Permian, another layer is from Triassic above it, and above that you get Jurassic, above that Cretaceous, above that Palaeocene on same location. This is verifiable now, and it is the Geological Meaning of the word.

Third meaning is fauna and flora. Such a beast is from Permian only, such a one died out in late Permian, such another arose in Cretaceous. Fossils are found in layers belonging to one of these time labels. This is the Palaeontological Meaning of each such word.

Only, there is a discrepancy between Palaeontological and Geological meaning. In the Geological sense any place has rocks from very many of these times on top of each other. In the Palaeontological sense, fossils found on one location are pretty uniformly from one and same time label.

I already proved this preliminary by sorting the time labels from diverse fossil sites from a list taken on wikipedia.

Now I have gone through about one hundred and twenty five or thirty fossil species on palaeocritti site. No, let's wait. South Africa, Brazil, Arizona are ready, but there is so much more. And each is incomplete in original documentation of palaeocritti site, or most of them are. Antarctica, Zimbabwe, although ready too are very small as far as number of species on palaeocritti site is concerned. As for Tanzania I have just got started. Some of the species or genera already covered are also represented in UK and Ireland, which I have not started. I have though made the only contribution that needs to be made for Ireland.

So, no, it is too early, I cannot yet say I have completed the empirical evidence for this observation as far as it is available. I can only say that the wikipedia list of fossil sites was one probe and the going through of these countries on the palaeocritti site yet another probe leading me to expect that the complete available empirical evidence will also confirm my conclusion. Most Geological labels about layers of rock on top of each other are not backed up as Palaeontological fossil sites on top of each other. Or so far none is.

Unless there was a place in Mexico where Cenozoic marine fauna was on top of Mesozoic land fauna, something a Flood Geologist would explain with marine animals getting in with the new level of water above the first layer of mud during the Deluge and then getting buried themselves.

Some may ask themselves what right I have to copy the palaeocritti site. You will find the relevant correspondence with Nobu Tamura here:

In other words I am making a salvage blog for a site not paid for after 2016, like I would have wanted for my own MSN Group Antimodernism before it closed in 2009. So the Palaeocritti Blog, being a backup for someone else's site (mainly, with few additions by me) is unlike this one not mine to dispose of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Francis Xaver

* Clarification on "wharves":

I was seeking for a word meaning thin strata (lithological sense).

Not strata wide enough to include any fossils, but rather so thin there are several decades or hundreds of them visible on a rock wall at the same height as that of a fossil which presumably is within "a stratum" (palaeontological sense).

Thanking Mr Darwin of the blog Darwin Catholic for pointing out an unclarity, and hoping to have removed it./HGL

PS to footnote: Swedish would for this sense of "layer, coat, stratum, course, lap, seam" use either "skikt" or "hvarf" (varv in Modern Orthography). It is simply too thin to be confusable with the other sense of stratum./HGL

PPS to footnote: the English word would have been wharves if a cognate of Swedish hvarf. However, the English word is rather a loan from the modernised version thereof: varves.

Update 12/VII/2014:

On this video, Kent Hovind spends much time talking on how sorting happened in the flood:

The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (6 of 7): The Hovind Theory
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

The irony is he cites a man who said fossils aren't that much sorted. Precisely what I was saying here./HGL

mardi 26 novembre 2013

Kent Hovind - the first Truther

Forwarding a Finnish youtuber who appreciates him:

fyrstikken : The Kent Hovind - First Internet Truther

Not meaning he does not sometimes get Theology and History of Middle Ages somewhat wrong. Wronger than I would patiently bear in certain others./HGL

mercredi 20 novembre 2013

If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ...

1) Creation vs. Evolution : If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ..., 2) CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered, 3) Literal Sense vs Literalistic Approach, Allegoric Sense vs Figurative Approach, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas, 5) Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

So, a question: Which is preferable (or, 'more Orthodox')-- the Alexandrian school's 'allegorical' interpretation of Scripture, or the Antiochene school's 'literal' interpretation of Scripture?
Michael Venerates Saint Chrysostom
(that is already a "not his full name")
Hard to make a blanket statement on that since the Scriptures have all the above : literal, allegory, metaphor, and symbolism... It also contains an exoteric and esoteric meaning often.
Both. But I love Alexandrian style.
Neither. They're both legitimate schools of interpretation that should be utilized.
I prefer a meeting place of the two.
The Fathers used many styles of interpretation for our should we...

In other words: it is never wrong to defend the literal sense of Scripture as true, as long as we do not reject the allegorical senses as if untrue.

The above dialogue was from a Traditional Orthodox forum.

Note that much Catholic and Orthodox Mariology comes from allegorical sense of OT. Note also that Christ taught the Apostles the allegorical and prophetic sense of OT during the forty days between Resurrection and Ascension.

Note also that allegoric sense does not mean OT was written as an allegory by merely human authors looking on NT and trying to express it, it was God who made events (rather than mere writings) the allegory of a NT yest to come./HGL

See further St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question I, Article 10.
Q 1 = The nature and extent of sacred doctrine : A 10 = Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?

mardi 19 novembre 2013

What I think I have refuted

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ...

Here is my little enemy:

Problems with a Global Flood
Second Edition
by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 1998
part 7. Producing the Geological Record

Here is his relevant argument:

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

  • the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
  • the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
  • why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
  • why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
  • why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
  • how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
  • why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
  • why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
  • why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
  • why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
  • why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

But the Wikipedia List of Fossil sites does not warrant to take Fossils from different "time" labels as being in different layers of same rocks. Anywhere, or almost, on earth.

And I answer:

Many times over he assumes, as have Creationists assumed, that Cenozoic layers are higher up than Mesozoic or Palaeozoic. It is true for rocks classified as this or that without fossils, but it is not true for the fossil bearing rocks themselves.

I get to the details (instead of just saying after many of them "answered already"):

  • 1) the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

    • Unnecessary assumption that fossils of Mammoths lie further up than those of Ceratopsians. In Hilda site you find Ceratopsians but no Mammoths. In parts of Russia you find Mammoths but no Ceratopsians. As far as I know Russia is flatter than the relevant part of Canada, so dinos were if anything further up than Mammoths.

      And, no, as far as wikipedian list of fossil sites is concerned, there are very few places where Mesozoic and Cenozoic are together at all. Yacoraite seems to have similar fauna both Maastrichtian and Danian, only separated by an iridium layer which is supposed to be the Kreide - Terziär boundary (why not C/T and Cretaceous/Tertiary instead of K/T?). But not Ceratopsians under it, nor Mammoths above it.

      Probably Mammoths and Ceratopsians were not best friends either.

  • 2) the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)

    • Algae are sea or lake but above sea bottom. Precambrian is just a label on how old that fossil bearing layer is. It does not mean Precambrian algae were any lower than Cretaceous (if any) algae.

  • 3) why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.

    • Because the mollusks, being same height more or less during flood, have different labels that only very theoretically "imply" different heights in the geologic column.

  • 4) why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.

    • Sorted into what?

      If you mean different "heights" of geological column, no, I do not think so.

      Except possibly where the brachiopods are the main fauna over several heights categorised as different times. Just as gastropods in Yacoraite are categorised as different times accoridng to the K/T boundary.

  • 5)why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?

    • If by High ground you mean "more recent", the reason is probably pterodactyls and pterodons did not get along so well with Smilodons and Cave Bears before the Flood.

  • 6) how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

    • Probably formed after Flood if so.

  • 7) why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.

    • In precambrian fossil sites you have simply an absence of greater organisms. If there had been greater organisms, geologists and palaeontologists would have labelled the rocks as at a "later time" than Precambrian. Nothing says precambrian sites need have been lower. Or are in fact now.

  • 8) why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]

    • Not completely, since there are contested footprints and contested placing of artefacts.

  • 9) why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

    • The world was not overpopulated.

      They usually kept away from dinos. Wouldn't you?

      Trilobites were usually under water. Men usually do not live above them.

  • 10) why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].

    • Because it is the same layer.

      That does not imply different fossil sites are different layers.

      It does mean the layer was thick and burial rapid, though.

  • 11) why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

    • Again there is a confusion between layer and fossil site.

      Plant x is found in Permian biotopes, because Permian beasts liked to stay near plant x. Plant y is found in Triassic biotopes because Triassic beasts liked to be around plant y. And plant z can be found on both biotopes and goes well with both x and y, I suppose.

Anything you would like to reply? Take a good look at my "chronological" sorting of the Fossil sites (which wiki only sorted after continent and alphabetic order of names). Take a good look at my reflections on Cretaceous faunas in general and the Permian and Triassic of Beaufort (which is not Cretaceous) in the appendix to it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre, University Library
Sts Severine, Exupery and Felician

vendredi 15 novembre 2013

Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort)

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ...

The Geological Column ... a General Sequence with Many Exceptions?

Some people are not ready to believe in the virtues of wikipedia, even if they lack staff to check up in field work. I am not into geological field work anyway, so why not take on the wikipedia research?

I did.

First there was a general impression after looking at Lagerstätten and List of fossil sites. Then there was what seems to me to be a near complete confirmation. Nearly all are from one period or epoch. Those that span two usually span two neighbouring. Those that span two neighbouring usually do not bridge the larger boundaries, between Precambrian and Paleozoic, between Paleozoic and Mesozoic, between Mesozoic and Cenozoic.

The very little list where they do - a tiny minority from the whole list - is crucial. I have taken a special look at Yacoraite, Hilda and Karoo so far.

I have first already looked up Yacoraite which is both Cretaceous and Tertiary or more precisly both Maastrichtian ("late" Cretaceous) and Danian ("early" Paleocene). Between the two parts there is an iridium layer which is supposed to be a remnant of the world wide K/T boundary. But I have found no mention of Dinosaurs in the Cretaceous part, nor any mention of Large land Mammals in the Paleocene part. It seems to me the fauna "above boundary" and "below boundary" is pretty much the same fauna. It includes fish, I think birds too, and gastropods. I mean gastropods are so divisive between Cretaceous and Paleocene faunas! Not!

There are two other spots on earth where we have Maastrichtian and Danian, plus one where we have Cretaceous going on even up to Eocene.

And if we go to the "lower" boundary of Mesozoic, there is one place in South Africa where it is kind of bridged. Karoo Supergroup. But this divides into other places most of which are firmly on one or the other side. And if we go to Beaufort formation, it further subdivides ... into assemblage zones with fossiles from what has been called "mammalian like reptiles" ... nothing like very Dinosaurian things in the Triassic part of Beaufort, nothing like the amphibians or archosaurs. Just the kind of animal that recent evolutionists call ancestors of mammals but not yet mammalian. Both the assemblage zones called Triassic and those called Permian. See Appendix A. The fauna for Triassic assemblage zones is if not identical at least clearly close to that of Permian ones. One of the animals was compared to an otter, another to a wolf, but obviously evolutionist dogmatism cannot allow assigning remains from the Permian to modern animals. I am not good enough at zoology or paleozoology to clearly affirm or deny they are an otter and a wolf.

Other animals are very well described as dragons. One had once been named - very appropriately - Dracocephalus, it looked very much like the dragon heads on the drakkar ships. And the number of skulls without all the rest could indicate some munching on torsos and legs had been going on before - according to what a Christian might assume - the Flood struck the area. When you find so many skulls together, with so little other bones, the Flood of Noah would hardly be the only disaster.

But Beaufort is clearly not the area where you find typically Permian and not Triassic fauna or clearly Triassic and not Permian fauna - unless you go along evolutionist lines and say "Dinocephalians went extinct before Triassic." You find Biarmosuchians - whatever that is - all along the assemblage zones. Precisely as Yacoraite is clearly not the place to find first clearly Cretaceous and then clearly Paleocene fauna. Now finding Dinocephalians in only two of them might mean these were scary for the rest of the animals and so only peopled two out of eight areas.

Again, Hilda is a very clearly Cretaceous fauna. It is typical. So are lots of other fossil finds. They give you dinosaurs. And those are displayed in museums. They give you ducks and those are usually not displayed in museums. The rock is usually limestone or sandstone.

Here is the duck reference:
Creation Ministries International : Modern birds found with dinosaurs
Are museums misleading the public?
by Don Batten

I propose that the Cretaceous typical fauna represents not a certain stage of past evolution, but a certain pre-flood biotope.

Like a beach.

Sand from beach would form Cretaceous sandstone. Shellfish from sea at beach would form Cretaceous liemstone.

I propose that a beach of the immediately pre-flood could well have a cretaceous biotope, and another beach from exactly the same time another biotope. And inland biotopes could be different from those too. And get labelled as "other stages" by those evolution believing paleontologists.

But as for "a general sequence with many exceptions", I do not find clear evidence of the sequence being there at all temporally or strictly vertically where I have been looking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Albert of Cologne
who had been teaching
St Thomas d'Aquin at Sorbonne

Appendix A



Supposedly some of these could be "ancestry" ... they count as ancestors of Mammals. The other synapsids are supposedly cousins that died out.

  • Cynognathus crateronotus
  • Procynosuchus delaharpeae Remains Holotype (RC 5): skull Referred specimens: UMZC T.819 (partial skull, holotype of Parathrinaxodon proops); BP/1/226 (Aelurodracro microps); BP/1/591; RC 12 (holotype of Procynosuchus rubidgei); RC 72 (Galeophrys kitchingi); RC 92,(Leavachia duvenhagei); BP/1/650 (Protocynodon pricei); TSK 34 (complete skeleton).["Perhaps the most unusual characteristic of Procynosuchus was that it may have lived a semi-aquatic lifestyle like modern otters, most other cynodonts were terrestrial (lived on land). It was around 60 cm in length, and probably fed on a diet of fish." = A Permian otter, perhaps?]

    [As to Permian Otter, I had to give that idea up, attractive though it is: Procynosuchus delaharpeae - on my back up blog - now has a disclaimer linking to the discussion which changed my mind thereon: [Assorted retorts] ... or Preliminary Answers on AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge (with a correction on the "Permian Otter" or "Teckel")]

  • Charassognathus gracilis Remains Holotype (SAM-PK-K10369): complete skull and postcranial elements (cervicals, ribs and limbs elements).


  • Lystrosaurus
  • Dicynodon
  • Cistecephalus microrhinus
  • Tropidostoma microtrema*
  • Eodicynodon oosthuizeni
  • Patranomodon nyaphulii Remains Holotype (NMQR 3000): Skull with lower jaw and postcranial elements
  • Anomocephalus africanus Remains Holotype (BP/1/5582): partial right side of the skull and some poorly preserved postcranial elements "This small therapsid from South Africa is the most primitive anomodont known. The jaws was equipped with peg-like teeth."


  • Burnetia mirabilis Remains Holotype (BMNH R5397): Compressed partial skull.
  • Ictidorhinus martinsi Remains Hypodigm (AMNH 5526): skull lacking lower jaws.
  • Herpetoskylax hopsoni Remains Holotype (CGP/1/67): nearly complete skull and lower jaws. Referred materials: BP/1/3294 (distorted skull and lower jaws).
  • Lemurosaurus pricei [It was originally described based on a poorly preserved skull and thought to be related to Ictidorhinus. A second better preserved specimen showed that it is a Burnetiamorph.] Remains Holotype (BP/1/816): poorly preserved skull with lower jaws Referred Material: NMQR 1702 (skull with lower jaws)
  • Paraburnetia sneeubergensis Remains Holotype (SAM-PK-K10037): complete skull with lower jaw.
  • Lobalopex mordax Remains Holotype (CGP/1/61): skull and lower jaws with parts of the first four cervical vertebrae in articulation.
  • Lophorhinus willodenensis Remains Holotype (SAM-PK-K6655): anterior half of skull lacking lower jaws and most of palate.
  • Bullacephalus jacksoni Remains Holotype (BP/1/5387): Nearly complete skull and lower jaw.
  • Hipposaurus boonstrai Remains Holotype (SAM 8950): Complete skeleton. Referred materials: SAM 9081 (distorted skull and postcranial elements, type of H. major); CGP/1/66 (Skull). Hipposaurus is a small primitive biarmosuchian therapsid from the Middle Permian of South Africa which was originally thought to be a gorgonopsid. [name means as noted horse lizard, but looks more like a miniature hippopotamus than a horse in reconstruction ]
  • Pachydectes elsi Remains Holotype (BP/1/5735): transversely compressed partial skull without lower jaws.

Gorgonopsids and Gorgonopsians

Phylogony and Evolution of Gorgonopsia etc., by Eva Gebauer,
Dissertation before University of Tübingen

In it she mentions that one of these had teeth like the Smilodon. Can we be sure it was not a Smilodon? Evolutionists saying "there were no Smilodons in Permian times" have that for a reason, what is ours?

  • Aelurognathus tigriceps Meaning of the generic name Cat Jaw Remains Holotype (SAM 2343): [details left out]
  • Aelurosaurus felinus Meaning of the generic name Cat Lizard RemainsHolotype: partial skull
  • Aloposaurus gracilis This small gorgonopsid had a slender narrow skull. It is known from a single weathered skull from a probable immature individual. Remains Holotype (AMNH 5317): weathered laterally compressed skull
  • Arctognathus curvimola Remains Holotype (BMNH 47339): badly preserved skull Referred specimens: SAM 3329 (skull, holotype of Lycaenodontoides bathyrhinus); BPI 174 (skull, holotype of Lycaenops pricei)
  • Arctognathus breviceps Remains Holotype (SAM 9345): skull
  • Arctops willistoni (synonym of one below!)
  • Broomicephalus laticeps Holotype (RC 101): skull Referred specimens: RC 33 (large weathered and crushed skull: 32 cm, type of Rubidgea laticeps)
  • Clelandina rubidgei
  • Clelandina scheepersi C. scheepersi (BRINK & KITCHING, 1953) = Dracocephalus scheepersi BRINK & KITCHING, 1953
  • Cyonosaurus longiceps Skull of Cyonosaurus longiceps in the Field Museum of Natural History.
  • Dinogorgon rubidgei Remains Holotype (RC 1): snout
  • Gorgonops torvus The type species. The holotype is an incomplete and flattened skull found at Mildenhalls, Fort Beaufort, South Africa.
  • Gorgonops whaitsi Originally the type species of Scymnognathus. Despite being known from a large number of specimens from the Karoo Basin, Beaufort West (Tropidostoma/Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone), the species remains poorly known.
  • Gorgonops longifrons A large specimen known from an incomplete and flattened skull about 35 cm long.
  • Lycaenops ornatus skeleton, Buffalo Museum of Science
  • Lycaenops angusticeps Skull of ... at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
  • Rubidgea atrox Holotype (RC 13): skull Referred specimens: BPI 248 (Type of R. platyrhina); BPI 246 (Type of R. majora)
  • Scylacognathus parvus Holotype (AMG 3751): Referred specimens: BPI 399, TMP 245, TMP 246, BMNH 4099, BPI 263
  • Sycosaurus laticeps Holotype (SAM 4022): Referred specimens: BPI 126
  • Eoarctops vanderbyli Remains Holotype (SAM 5598): skull
  • Galesuchus gracilis


  • Pristerognathus baini**
  • Pristerognathus peyeri
  • Pristerognathus polyodon
  • Pristerognathus vanderbyli
  • Glanosuchus macrops Remains Holotype (GS M 796): partial skull Referred specimen: NM QR 2908 (snout) "This predator had a wolf-like appearance." - A Permian wolf, perhaps?


  • Agnosaurus, Avenantia, Delphinognathus, Moschognathus, Moschoides, Pnigalion = Moschops*** Remains Several skulls and postcranial elements
  • Anteosaurus magnificus Remains Holotype: Skull Referred specimens: known from skulls and poscranial elements of more than 30 individuals.
  • Criocephalosaurus vanderbyli
  • Jonkeria° remains acc to wiki: Jonkeria ingens skull, Amer. Mus. No. 5608; Skull of Jonkeria sp. in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago (no photos of whole skeletons in wiki, no article in paleocritti)
  • Mormosaurus, Pelosuchus = Keratocephalus moloch Remains Several skulls and postcranial remains.
  • Moschosaurus, Struthiocephalellus, Struthiocephaloides, Struthionops, Taurocephalus = Struthiocephalus whaitsi Remains Several skulls and postcranial elements
  • Phocosaurus, Taurops = Tapinocephalus atherstonei Remains Several skulls and postcranial elements
  • Riebeeckosaurus longirostris Remains Two skulls. This medium size Tapinocephalid differs from the others by its extremely elongated snout.
  • Titanosuchus ferox Remains Large amount of skull fragments and postcranial elements.
  • Australosyodon nyaphuli Remains Holotype (NMQR 3152): Skull and mandible, left side well preserved, right side crushed. "Australosyodon is the South African version of the Russian Syodon. This medium size carnivore was one of the most primitive dinocephalians."
  • Tapinocaninus pamelae Remains Holotype (NMQR 2987): Skull and mandible. Paratypes: NMQR 2985 (skull and mandible); NMQR 2986 (skull and mandible), ROZ K95 (skull and mandible).


Not classified:

  • Saurorictus australis Remains Holotype (SAM PK-8666): skull and few postcranial fragments


  • Procolophon trigoniceps
  • Sauropareion anoplus


(Wiki: The order has almost been treated as a dustbin for diapsids that are not obviously lepidosaurian or archosaurian.)

  • Galesphyrus capensis
  • Youngina capensis


  • Milleretta rubidgei Remains Complete skeletons
  • Eunotosaurus africanus Remains Partial skeleton "Eunotosaurus africanus was a small turtle-like reptile from the Middle Permian of South Africa. It is known from incomplete skeletons characterized by plate-like ribs."


  • Anthodon serrarius Remains Holotype (BP/1/548): Partial skull and vertebrae
  • Owenetta rubidgei Remains Several skulls
  • Pareiasuchus nasicornis Remains Several specimens including complete skull and postcranial elements. Osteoderms.
  • Pareiasuchus peringueyi Remains Nearly complete skeleton
  • Pumiliopareia pricei Remains Complete skeleton with osteoderms.
  • Bradysaurus baini Remains Several skeletons.
  • Bradysaurus seeleyi Remains Skulls.
  • Embrithosaurus schwarzi Remains Skeletons.
  • Embrithosaurus strubeni
  • Nochelesaurus angustus = Nochelesaurus alexanderi = Embrithosaurus angustus Remains Skulls.


The lists are conflated after genus from the different assemblage zones in Beaufort as given per wikipedia for Karoo supergroup. Every species has, when possible, been assigned what the remains are, either from wiki or - usually - from paleocritti. Exceptions from those are noted.

General comment:

Tapinocephalus Assemblage Zone is very rich in big ones. That and Eodicynodon Assemblage Zone, thought to be the two oldest from Mid Permian are the ones where you find Dinocephalians.

Notes to Appendix A:

*[Tropidostoma microtrema] Abstract: The dicynodonts Oudenodon bainii and Tropidostoma microtrema are remarkably similar in most aspects of their morphology. The most obvious distinguishing feature is the presence of tusks and/or postcanine teeth in T. microtrema and their absence in O. bainii. However, some specimens of T. microtrema lack tusks or postcanine teeth. This variability raises the possibility that O. bainii and T. microtrema are not distinct species, but rather endpoints on a morphological continuum. Resolution of this uncertainty is necessary because both species play important roles in Upper Permian terrestrial biostratigraphy. Here we address this issue using several types of data. Our results show that the bone histology of T. microtrema is comparable with that of O. bainii, emphasizing their similarity. However, a geometric morphometric analysis of snout shape and a traditional morphometric analysis of skull dimensions can reliably differentiate tuskless specimens from those with tusks and/or postcanine teeth. We examine several scenarios (e.g. anagenesis, sexual dimorphism) that could explain the observed distinction, but multiple lines of evidence, including stratigraphic range data, suggest that the two morphotypes are regarded best as distinct species. Because O. bainii specimens have been collected at Tropidostoma Assemblage Zone localities in the Karoo Basin of South Africa, the first appearance of O. bainii can no longer be used to define the base of the Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone and Oudenodon-based correlations with other basins should be made with caution.

Article first published online: 14 SEP 2007;jsessionid=15B476BDBA5CA29B77E52E0E0E27E5A1.f03t01

**The search in Paleocritti gives only a work referenced in another article. Glanosuchus macrops - (see above) Getting back to Pristerognathus I find it was discovered in 1904: Pristerognathus baini was named by Broom (1904). It is a 3D body fossil.

Paleobiology Database Pristerognathus baini

***Wikipedia: Moschops was a roughly 2.7-metre-long (9 ft), massively built dinocephalian. It has a short, thick and massive head, which is broad across the orbits. The occupit is broad and deep, but the skull is more narrow in the dorsal border. Furthermore, the pterygoid arches and the angular region of the jaw were quite heavy, allowing the insertion of strong jaw muscles. Due to that and because it possessed long-crowned, stout teeth, it is believed that Moschops was a herbivore feeding on nutrient-poor and tough vegetation, like eycad stems. Due to the presumably nutrient-poor food, it very likely had to feed for a very long time. Its anatomy allowed Moschops to open its elbow joint more widely, enabling it to move in a more mammal-like way than the other crawlers in its time. That might have helped it to carry its massive body more easily while feeding.[1] Very likely, most dinocephalians were rather slow-moving animals, but capable of raising themselves, for short bursts.[2] It is also possible that Moschops and other dinocephalians were semiaquatic, given the heavy build and the limbs with their spreading hands and feet. The heavy head could have been useful for diving after food.

M. capensis M. koupensis M. oweni? M. whaitsi?

°I found info on Jonkeria at :

J. truculenta [a skeleton is shown, but I do not know what was there and what ws reconstructed]

J. boonstrai Janensch, 1959: According to Boonstra, Janensch has given a convincing diagnosis of the specific features of the holotype skull. He also stresses the herbivorous nature of the dentition. MAK000809.

J. haughtoni Broom, 1929: The type is a fairly good skull, with some limb-bones, which can be placed in the genus Jonkeria. It can be distinguished from the other species of the genus. Synonym: Dinosphageus haughtoni Broom, 1929 - original name J. crassus Broom, 1929. According to Boonstra, in the holotype consisting of dentaries and postcranial bones, the humerus cannot be distinguished from that of J. haughtoni, and as there are no other distinctive features it should be considered a synonym of J. haughtoni.

J. ingens Broom 1929. The holotype, originally Dinophoneus ingens, together with its synonym, J. pugnax Broom, 1929, and three other known skulls constitute a distinct species of Jonkeria.

J. koupensis Boonstra, 1955: The holotype is a good pelvis readily distinguishable from that of any other known species of Jonkeria.

J. parva Boonstra, 1955: A small humerus is quite distinct from that of the other known species of Jonkeria. I think it is not unlikely this may turn out to a distorted or otherwise modified specimen.

J. rossouwi J. rossouwi Boonstra, 1955: The holotype consists of postcranial bones readily distinguishable from those of the other species of the genus. Two other specimens are known that show the same distinctive features, indicating this is a valid type (probably corresponding to one of the species name on skull characteristics).

J. vanderbyli Broom, 1929: The holotype is a good skull of Jonkeria which according to Boonstra is easily distinguishable from the other species of the genus.

Palaeos Vertebrates Therapsida Tapinocephalia

mercredi 13 novembre 2013

Simple logic on the title of this blog

Dixit Sarfati:

"It’s a matter of simple logic, called the disjunctive syllogism: either things were made or they were not. If you have a third alternative, please let us know, as well as explain why the law of excluded middle is somehow abolished."

Either cats and dogs were made or they were not made. Either biological life was made or it was not made. Disprove one, you have proven the other.

However, one can argue that "being made" is common for them according to evolutionary and creationist view, or abiogenetic and creationist view, just as "not being made" is common for "cats and dogs do not really exist" and "cats and dogs have always existed", common for "biological life does not exist" and "biological life has always existed".

So it is properly a question of three or four binary disjunctives* about biological life and about difference between cats and dogs:

  • exist or do not exist

    (if exist:)
  • were made or always were

    (if were made:)
  • by conscious design or not by conscious design

    (if made by conscious design:)
  • from pre-existing material or not from pre-existing material.

That being so, there are more alternatives than evolution to knock down before one can say a disjunctive syllogism has established that life with its diversity is there because of creation ex nihilo by a good designer. And the creation ex preexistenti gives quite a few alternatives for the identity of the maker of form but not of matter. None of the Pagan cosmogonies include creatio ex nihilo.

But I guess there is something else the poor benighted atheist really means also when he says confusely "disproving evolutionism does not prove creationism". He means "proving evolution is not possible does not prove that creation ex nihilo is possible". Which of course it would at least by default if there were only two alternatives.

We have different evidence for creation ex nihilo by a wise designer. There is the philosophical one - and there is the Biblical one.

The philosophical one can get complicated. That is why I appreciate that some sites - including CMI - do give reasons for backing up Biblical testimony.

That said, there is pretty good evidence against both abiogenesis (which is why latest research on it is beginning to look elsewhere than "primordial soup", where the same conditions that produce amino-acids of simple lengths in the first place also tend to destroy them) and also common descent of at least mammals (see my work on chromosome numbers).

Saying that biological life or the difference between cats and dogs is illusory boils down to a kind of scepticism close to solipsism. A rainbow can be an illusion of solidity - an illusion made the same way as the paintings in the pointillistic style of imprssionism. Try to go round a small rainbow at a waterfall or at your garden hose sprinkler, it will not look like the object it looked like but seen from another side. It will look as the same side although you know it is a different side - until you chose an angle where it vanishes. And biological life or the difference of cats and dogs is not any more likely to be the kind of illusion where a globe with a very large radius looks flat from the outside because it is within the width of sight so close to flat. Difference in kind of existance or in kind of life are not as simple to mistake one side for other as a difference between two things that look nearly the same.

So, biological life is real and so is the difference between cats and dogs. Otherwise no one can know nothing.

A society which adopts that kind of thinking - which hinduism (of a certain school at least) and buddhism do - in practise leave us with a lot of people knowing what a lot of other people say they cannot know and want to initiate the worthiest ones of the others into realising, whereas others still elaborate on initiation by promising an evasive knowledge despite the general lack of knowledge. It is a society very prone to secret societies.

Saying they were always there would be kind of an option ... except that it comports a difficulty of how items that begin and end can add up to a series without beginning and ending.

So, they were made, i e came into being.

Abiogenesis fails for biological life. Evolution fails for common ancestry of mammals due to chromosome numbers. Blind evolution fails for traits like eyes or wings or certain symbioses (like that between fig tree and certain wasps).

They were then made by design.

But if so, the designer either could bestow life on what had no such, or life was already there. "Annunaki creationism" or "ancient alien astronauts creationism" leads back to the unacceptable infinite succession of finite lives, because they were only there to modify, not really to create. If they were only biological arrivers, they were not suchlike superior to the things they manipulated, as to be able to bestow life. Nor would they elude the problem of abiogenesis, since they would presumably have evolved on another planet from ultimately life "evolving from non-life" unless there too life had been planted by visitors which only takes the problem one step further back - and each step back makes it worse if, as one may think (for instance since hydrogen is consumed making helium all the time***) the universe had a real beginning.

This leaves us with the need for a real creator. With real intelligence. And really able to bestow both existence and life on what had none such before.

And pagan divinities generally do not claim all that. Marduk is not supposed to have created Tiamat or Nergal. He is not supposed to have created earth just like "poof" but laboriously taking the parts of the killed monsters and reusing them. Odin and his brothers are just a repetition of Marduk in that respect. Zeus does not even change Gaia in any way, he is supposed to descend from her.

In contrast:

IN the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

From Brenton's translation of the LXX, Genesis 1:1-3 Or Douay-Rheims, with Haydock comment:

Genesis1:1 In the *beginning God created heaven and earth. 2 *And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: *Be light made. And light was made.

Here is the comment:

Ver. 1. Beginning. As St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the same title as this work, the Book of the Generation, or Genesis, so St. John adopts the first words of Moses, in the beginning; but he considers a much higher order of things, even the consubstantial Son of God, the same with God from all eternity, forming the universe, in the beginning of time, in conjunction with the other two Divine Persons, by the word of his power; for all things were made by Him, the Undivided Deity. (Haydock) --- Elohim, the Judges or Gods, denoting plurality, is joined with a verb singular, he created, whence many, after Peter Lombard, have inferred, that in this first verse of Genesis the adorable mystery of the Blessed Trinity is insinuated, as they also gather from various other passages of the Old Testament, though it was not clearly revealed till our Saviour came himself to be the finisher of our faith. (Calmet) --- The Jews being a carnal people and prone to idolatry, might have been in danger of misapplying this great mystery, and therefore an explicit belief of it was not required of them in general. See Collet. &c. (Haydock) --- The word bara, created, is here determined by tradition and by reason to mean a production out of nothing, though it be used also to signify the forming of a thing out of pre-existing matter. (ver. 21, 27.) (Calmet) --- The first cause of all things must be God, who, in a moment, spoke, and heaven and earth were made, heaven with all the Angels; and the whole mass of the elements, in a state of confusion, and blended together, out of which the beautiful order, which was afterwards so admirable, arose in the space of six days: thus God was pleased to manifest his free choice in opposition to those Pagans who attributed all to blind chance or fate. Heaven is here placed first, and is not declared empty and dark like the earth; that we may learn to raise our minds and hearts above this land of trial, to that our true country, where we may enjoy God for ever. (Haydock)

Ver. 2. Spirit of God, giving life, vigour, and motion to things, and preparing the waters for the sacred office of baptism, in which, by the institution of Jesus Christ, we must be born again; and, like spiritual fishes, swim amid the tempestuous billows of this world. (v. Tert.[See Tertullian?], &c.) (Worthington) (Haydock)---This Spirit is what the Pagan philosophers styled the Soul of the World. (Calmet) --- If we compare their writings with the books of Moses and the prophets, we shall find that they agree in many points. See Grotius. (Haydock)

Ver. 3. Light. The sun was made on the fourth day, and placed in the firmament to distinguish the seasons, &c.; but the particles of fire were created on the first day, and by their, or the earth's° motion, served to discriminate day from the preceding night, or darkness, which was upon the face of the deep. (Haydock) --- Perhaps this body of light might resemble the bright cloud which accompanied the Israelites, Exodus xiv. 19, or the three first days might have a kind of imperfect sun, or be like one of our cloudy days. Nothing can be defined with certainty respecting the nature of this primeval light. (Calmet)

Even if we had not had tradition from which to infer that God made everything there was from nothing according to traditional exegesis of "bara" in the verse, the fact that Genesis does not mention any previous material definitely encourages the exegesis. This makes Genesis the oldest known Theological claim corresponding to our basic conclusion in philosophy. It deserves to be at least tested. And I do not think it fails, on any single account. Next question is whether it is Christianity or the twin religion Judaism/Noahidism which properly follows up the Old Testament. But I write other blogs on that one.°° It is not like seeking for a needle in a haystack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque publique
d'information, Beaubourg
St Brice

* A disjunction need not be binary, of course. It can be ternary or quaternary or "even moreary." Sherlock's ideal was to make it complete by a complete enumeration of alternatives and a complete elimination of all but one of them. That was also the ideal behind St Thomas Aquinas' division of each section in questions and of each question in articles in the Summa.

** See my articles linked to in

Letter to Nature on Karytype Evolution

or, if you speak French, see the article:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Fission de chromosomes: Diagramme de PZM corrigé - et refuté.

*** See Dom Stanley Jaki, cited in Unwanted Priest by Fr Fryan Houghton.

° When Haydock adds "or the earth's" he is taking into account, but not deciding for, the possibility of Heliocentrism being a fact.

°° The first of these is generally against atheism about the Gospel and about theism. It also takes into account claims raised by both Jews and Atheists. The second is against the claim that Protestantism were somehow the proper inheritor of the Gospel:

somewhere else

Great Bishop of Geneva!

mardi 12 novembre 2013

Some answers since a youtube comment can not so easily be answered always any more (on youtube)

Here are some words from the latest comment on a youtube debate before youtube changed the comment system:

I can't tell the difference between science and religion. You would not know a fact from a bible myth. IF we all came off the same boat why aren't we all the same race? IF our great great grandfather talked to God wouln't we all be the same religion? What is the name of the global mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?

They were posted to me under the video:

dotoree : "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" summary of book by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

  • I can't tell the difference between science and religion. You would not know a fact from a bible myth.

  • IF we all came off the same boat why aren't we all the same race?

  • IF our great great grandfather talked to God wouln't we all be the same religion?

    • After Noah walked justly with God (or while he was still doing it, possibly) a greatgrandson of his started idolatry. Ham had a son called Kush who had a son called or titled Nimrod (possibly Nimrod was a title and Asshur was his given name). He started idolatry as he started the building of the Tower of Babel or before, and after the languages split idolatry went on, except on the line of Abraham (and even he had idolatrous family members).

      See my previous articles:

      somewhere else : "maybe Zeus does exist"?


      Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Gesta Danorum ("Deeds of the Danes") ...

  • What is the name of the global mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?

    • In Hilda archeological site it is called "late Cretaceous". In Yocaraite it is called Cretaceous and Paleocene or Maastrichtian and Danian according to whether the fossils (pretty much the same ones, as far as I could tell, neither very dinosauric in Cretaceous nor very large mammals in Paleocene right there) are below or above the K-T boundary. In other localities it is called Jurassic and Cambrian and Permian. If we skip what the rocks overall in a location are classified as and look only on the ones that carry fossils, in most places on earth it has only one depth and one name per place. The depth would be the real mud layer from the Flood in that area. Or that first mud layer that hit the animals actually walking or swimming before the Flood. The name would be what Geologist not believing the Flood chose to call it.

      It may surprise you, but both Woodmorappe and I are actually into testing this in somewhat different ways - my own take (since I am a desk researcher as opposed to a scientist) took me to wikipedia's list of fossil sites.

      See previous article:

      Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?

vendredi 8 novembre 2013

Creation Ministries International are peer reviewed ... a bit too much

Alas, this does not merely mean they have the same advantages as the Evolutionist peer reviewed media (National Geographic, Nature, science et vie ...) such as those advantages might be, but also some of its faults.

There is on that site a rhetoric about the real lesson of Galileo affair being that the Church should not be too bound up with the scientific consensus.

First of all, a scientific consensus is only bad if it is wrong. A scientific consensus about 2+2=4 is something mathematicians should cherish. A scientific consensus about man having 23 chromosome pairs with two chromosomes in each (I have also come across what seems to be a terminology with 23 chromosomes, two chromatides in each, but it is less usual), and sex being determined by the sex chromosomes, for female in case of XX, male in case of XY, such a consensus should be cherished by geneticists.

Second, this is not at all true. That is not what the Galileo process was ultimately about. Nor even how ecclesiastic procedrues started.

Third, in defense of this, they use what amounts to at least some degree of dishonesty - just as an evolutionist site would against a cretionist argument.

Here is the story:

I read this:

Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved?
by Shaun Doyle

I agree, generally speaking. I want to add a remark and do add it:

About what I feel about Geocentrism - not believing it is inconsistency, it has led people away from the faith to approve too devoutly of Galileo (who had at least at times a Bible view in which God would not reveal scientific truth in the Bible) or of Isaac Newton (who was an occultist). But non-Geocentrics are often also Christians. Even Catholics.

As I am a Catholic, the last short sentence should not be expanded as "even Catholics are also Christians", but as "non-Geocentrics are often also even Catholic Christians".

Now, there is this thing about comments on that site, they have to be approved in advance. Mine was not. I get this mail:

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on titled Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved?.

Please see Galileo, Geocentrism, and Joshua’s Long Day Questions and Answers.

Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle
Creation Ministries International

Your original comment: etc [which I copied above.]

I click the link given and chose this essay:

Geocentrism and Creation
by Danny Faulkner

Now, Danny Faulkner is in a way the man to write such an essay. He stood up against Hugh Ross about the Distant Starlight Problem. And he did not use Geocentrism as a solution. I do.*

If Earth is the immobile center of the Universe, the annual movement of proxima Centauri is a movement really in the star rather than apparently in the star and really in our base. But if so we have no triangle with one known side and two known angles. And therefore not any evidence for the first set of stellar distances, the one on which all the others are based. And we can therefore not have any evidence for such and such a star being 13.5 billion lightyears away either. Which means that my basic answer to Hugh Ross is less convoluted than Danny Faulkner's. That does not mean Danny Faulkner did not have any arguments I did not have. I cherish his argument about comets. But he neglects the most basic defense against the distant starlight problem.

I will add that I once did believe that starlight was created in transit. Even if a star was so far away that what light shone immediately from it on day four has not reached us yet but we are still seeing light that was created along the ray between it and us, that is no problem to me. But if a star explodes before our eyes, and it is so far away it must have exploded before it was created, that makes God a liar for creating the starlight in transit from a star which can never have existed. Note, the implication is not "after what we see, God is a liar if we see it and universe is young", but "after what we see, God is a liar if he created a spectacle of what never existed". So, there is a real problem with distant starlight - if it is all that distant.

And Geocentrism says stars need not be at all as distant as that. Because Geocentrism does not accept the phenomenon best observed in proxima Centauri as parallactic and this implies that there is no triangulation basis for saying it is about four light years away.

Danny Faulkner must have been aware of this solution, since he is an astronomer, and I am not. Still, he does not take it. So, in a sence, he is the man to write an essay like that. Now, to the essay he wrote, I will not cite and refute every sentence in detail, but concentrate on a few crucial matters.

However, the Church did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four centuries ago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around the Earth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism, which could be called geokineticism since the Sun is not regarded as the centre of the universe either, as discussed below). Being based upon real history, creationists in theory could be accused of repeating this mistake by rejecting evolution.

As he is a Protestant, and as the Galileo affair was a Catholic affair, I wonder what exactly he means by saying the Church supported the wrong side. As a Catholic, I identify the Church of Christ, as such, as visible ("a city on a mountain cannot be hidden") and as "pillar and foundation of truth", with the Roman Catholic Church - or, at broadest, adding the Orthodox Church as well. There may be souls outside that Communion, which rightly should be inside it. C. S. Lewis may have been such a soul. Danny Faulkner and Jonathan Sarfati may today be such souls - and in their case it is not too late to become Catholics. But since Danny Faulkner cited the Belgic Catechism, he is obviously a Protestant and as such he does not make that identification of where the Church is. And though both Luther and Calvin rejected Copernicus and Kepler, neither did so "ex cathedra" or even "ex officio judicis" (whichever dignity a Catholic might give to the decision against Galileo in 1633). Calvin "condemned" Kepler in one sense and condemned Servet in quite another sense. Kepler was perhaps condemned in a Catechism or Summa by Calvin and Copernicus only in the Tischreden of Luther. It was Catholicism - or at least its officials at the time - which condemned Giordano Bruno as Calvin condemned Servet, it was Catholicism which condemned two theses that Galileo had supported and which as to his person was content with him giving an abjuration of those two - but put him in a house arrest. So, I have some difficulty in seeing how Danny Faulkner can say "the Church" did support the wrong side. Unlike me, he is not habitually identifying the Catholic Church as historical entity, called Papist by its denigrators of the time, with the Church that is the bride of Christ.

But let us go to the important points. Biblical and Scientific.

I first note that Danny Faulkner did not adress the fact that Joshua when working a miracle - not a writer when explaining to people with little scientific instruction, but a man performing a miracle when adressing the entities involved in it - told precisely Sun and Moon rather than Earth to stop moving.

But let us adress what Danny does adress:

Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘… the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’. [...] This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent.

OK, Danny. I am no Hebraist, I trust you on what niphal means in Hebrew grammar.** The earth cannot be moved by any outside agency, but it can and does move itself ... so you mean the earth is a living creature with a will? I suppose you do not pray to Gaia (as I for my part do not pray to the angels holding the Sun and alpha Centauri, I unite myself in prayer with them whenever I attend Mass and hear the preface "una cum angelis atque archangelis ... cum cherubim quoque et seraphim ..." and intellectually think these angels belong to a choir above archangels but below cherubim), but do you think "she is complaining" about things? Would the evils be overpopulation or abortion in that case?

Or do you think the Earth is orbitting the Sun by a balance of two forces working out that way: inertial movement after previous motion on the one hand, gravitational pull from the Sun on the other?

Hold it ... gravitational pull would be an outside agency! Earth would be moved - passive, niphal.

In Newton's view (but not in Aristotle's) if the Earth was moving at same speed in same direction through space, it would be as firmly established and not moved (in the niphal meaning pure passive) as if staying in one single spot. But in Newton's physics the change of diraction and certain changes of speed would be accelerations and due to - outside agency.

In Galileo's view, earth could have a circular motion around the sun, a motion which never stopped because there was no friction ... but in Newton's physics, circular movements are never the mere continuation of a previous movement.

In Newtonian physics and astronomy, there would indeed by an outside agency moving the earth through gravitation, and that outside agency would be the mass of the Sun.

It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’. Presumably even Bouw wouldn’t accuse God of poor communication if he didn’t believe that the Bible taught that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him.

What is said about earth not being moved is said literally in the one psalm. What is said about David in psalm 15 not being moved is said metaphorically in the other psalm. Introducing the word "path" in the interpretation of that other psalm is changing the metaphor. The metaphor chosen is precisely the metaphor of being rooted in one spot, only that spot is not a locality, but the truth of God. Exactly as in Matthew 16 Peter is made into "this rock" (which is of course not moved from the true doctrine of faith and morals).

In Psalm 15 and Matthew 16 there is no path at all in the metaphor chosen. Rock and not moved are synonymous. That is why I cannot believe a true successor of St Peter truly speaking ex cathedra could do anything except expose the true doctrine of faith and morals once given.

Next to history.

Bouw claims that heliocentrism has led to all sorts of moral degeneracy. The example he discusses is astrology. This is a bizarre assertion, given that astrology flourished for millennia before the heliocentric theory became popular, and seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has flourished. Ironically, the dominant geocentric theory of history, the Ptolemaic system, was devised primarily as a tool to calculate planetary positions in the past and future as an aid for astrological prognostications.

Bouw got it a bit backwards, true. It was when astrology was reflourishing that Copernicus and Kepler and Newton were seen as an improvement on Ptolemy for that precise purpose.

astrology [...] seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has flourished.

Not nearly as much as it had decreased in the West between St Augustine and the wave of Averroism in Sorbonne, against which St Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Tempier fought.

Kepler comes under great criticism by the geocentrists because of the great role that he played in the acceptance of the heliocentric model. Some of this criticism is quite strained. He is blasted for having dabbled in astrology, although it was common and, as shown, hardly confined to heliocentrists.

Kepler and Geocentrics were both categories of astronomers often enough astrologers. I do not think that Clavius the Jesuit and friend of St Robert Bellarmine was an astrologer, though. But the point is, it is heliocentrism rather than geocentrism which is rooted in astrology. Precisely as Catholics and Protestants have both persecuted, but Catholics start with 280 years of being persecuted, Protestants start persecuting pretty immediately at the Reformation. St Peter did not treat Jews loyal to Kaiaphas as Luther and Knox treated Catholics loyal to Papacy. St Peter did not reposition the Arc of the Covenant, as Luther and Zwingli repositioned altars and tabernacles. So, of Catholics and Calvinists, it is Calvinists that start with brutality, not Catholics. And likewise it is Heliocentrics that start with astrology, not Geocentrics. Kepler and Newton were occultists. Copernicus may have done no horoscopes himself, but he was popularised by people doing such.

I do not need Tycho Brahe to have lived a good life to accept his corrections of Ptolemy and his faithfulness to a stationary earth. St Robert Bellarmine lived a good life and he accepted Tycho Brahe's astronomy.

Another example of Bouw’s poor logic is the observation that ‘… the first heliocentrists were pagans who did not hold the Bible in high esteem’. While this statement is technically true, it plants a very false and misleading impression. Such a statement plants in the minds of many people that the near converse is true, that is, that the first geocentrists were not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem.

Aristarchus the Pythagorean was indeed a Pagan and may have held the even then extant books of the Old Testament in no esteem at all. He may have not even have known about them. But he was also a Pythagorean who held divination in very high esteem. Ptolemy was not the first Geocentric, Aristotle was so before him.

Now, let us get to Galileo.

While he did not invent the telescope, Galileo was apparently the first to put the telescope to use observing celestial objects. He found a number of things in the sky that ran counter to what the church, parroting ancient Greek ideas, said. Examples are the craters on the moon and spots on the Sun. Greek philosophers had reasoned that the moon and Sun, as celestial objects, had to be perfect. As such, they ought to have been free from blemishes such as craters and spots.

The Church as such did in fact not say these things. The proof is that Galileo was not condemned for even one of the things he saw in the telescope. The two sentences condemned in 1633 resume as non-movement and centrality of sun, movement and non-centraily of earth. The four moons of Jupiter are not among the condemned items. The craters on the Moon were not so either. The spots on the Sun were not so either. As to Galileo's claim the Milky Way was made up of small stars, Clavius confirmed that there were many stars not seen by the naked eye in it, but refused to decide whether this is so for all the matter of the Milky Way or whether there is also some kind of other matter involved - cloudy or dusty or whatever. This claim was not on the list of condemnations either. A list of two items is very short and it is pretty easy to verify that this other thing is not in it.

In fact, Danny Faulkner is parrotting prevalent ideas of how the Church was Aristotelian in those days. He did not get this conclusion from studying the texts of the historic period we are talking about. Except, possibly, those of Galileo himself.

One was the discovery of four satellites, or moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also obvious that its motion does not leave behind the satellites of Jupiter. Bouw is correct that this is an argument by analogy, but one cannot so easily dismiss this argument. The critics of heliocentrism must explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are different.

God put us on Earth, not on Jupiter. It is on Earth and not on Jupiter that millions and billions of human eyes and inner ears testify at least prima facie for a stability of the big thing on which they are posed. It is on Earth and not on Jupiter that millions and billions of eyes testify to the movement (daily first of all, but at a closer look also periodical) of the big things in the sky we are not posed on. That is the main difference, epistemologically speaking.

I wonder if Danny Faulkner meant any hint of uniformitarian duty of physically explaining the difference. But if so, he is introducing a premiss which was possibly irrelevant at the time and which even now is more closely associated with Atheism than with Christianity - the assumption that the movements involved are automatic and mechanic, like things falling to the ground or like water falling and falling gallon after gallon over a waterfall, rather than voluntary like dancers holding lamps in their hands.

And stars having voluntary movers is supported by the Bible - unless one wants to say the texts are more closely supporting the actual personal life of the stars themselves. Ramandu and Coriakin, like in Voyage of the Dawn Treader or Oyerasu like in Out of the Silent Planet, but not functioning as overseers of life on planets, rather as movers (and therefore Earth has no Oyarsa, and Satan is not Oyarsa of Earth, unlike that Space Trilogy). There is a very clear text in Baruch 3, speaking about Wisdom, my added emphasis:

[31] There is none that is able to know her ways, nor that can search out her paths: [32] But he that knoweth all things, knoweth her, and hath found her out with his understanding: he that prepared the earth for evermore, and filled it with cattle and fourfooted beasts: [33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

[36] This is our God, and there shall no other be accounted of in comparison of him. [37] He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.

The last verse is of course the reason we do not see Baruch in the Jewish canon of OT, as well as the reason why this chapter is read on Holy Saturday in the Catholic Liturgy.

But even in texts accepted by Jews and thus also by Protestants like Faulkner we find this idea:

[7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

That is from Job 38. If you wish for modern fantasy literature parallels, I think Ainulindale is as much a reflection on this verse as Akallebêth on a verse from Matthew 24.

Or this one:

[58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Daniel 3. Note that of all the list only Earth is not adressed in a vocative or a second person imperative:

[73] O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever. [75] O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[76] O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [77] O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [78] O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Do lightnings happen as acts of spirits? God speaking in Job seems to think so too:

[38:35] Canst thou send lightnings, and will they go, and will they return and say to thee: Here we are?

So, no, there is no purely mechanistic view of heavenly movements that obliges Christians. Therefore Danny Faulkner is wrong to say "[t]he critics of heliocentrism must explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are different" if thereby he means giving different purely non-voluntary mechanisms.

But to return to Daniel, earth is not seen as able to herself hear the words "bless and exalt him forever".

What was it again in Psalm 92 [1 b]?

For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

Danny explains, I cite again:

Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘… the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’. [...] This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent.

But in Daniel 3 it seems earth as such cannot do things on its own:

[74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever.

All other creatures enumerated are adressed as if capable of hearing the words of the three young men in the furnace - which is at least true of the guardian angels. Earth seems to have none. Hills do. Cattle do (think of the donkey of Balaam).

If Jupiter and its four moons (and those discovered after Galileo) have such, they can very clearly have Jupiter moving around Sun, its Moons moving about itself for purely æsthetic reasons - as part of the praise they are doing to their maker. That is the physical reason why Earth is different from Jupiter.

It cannot be moved from spot because it has no angelic mover.

Moon has one, Jupiter has one, each of its moons has one, earth no.

Let us contrast earth and heaven now, back to Psalm 92:

[2] Thy throne is prepared from of old: thou art from everlasting.

It is not said of God's throne that it cannot be moved. Heaven is prepared but not made unable to be moved from by outside agencies. And the mover of Heaven's daily motion is God. How I know Heaven is meant in this verse, and not Earth? Well, we have the passage "swear not be Heaven, it is the throne of God, nor by Earth, it is his footstool". And the God-man who said that was of course familiar with His human ancestor King David's psalm. Earth's immobility is in the psalm put into parallel with God's beauty, just as the throne's preparation is put into parallel with God's strength:

[1 a] The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself.

The throne of God - i e Heaven - is daily moving around us because God is strong. The daily movement of Heaven has for immediate physical causation the strength of God. God girds himself when moving Heaven, because in moving Heaven he serves our needs of day and night and our need for knowing him as the mover of day and night. Precisely as in human form he girded himself when about to serve the Apostles with a foot bath.

However, Bouw misses one of the most important points of Galileo on this. The geocentric model of Galileo’s day was that all celestial objects orbited the Earth. Here Galileo had found four celestial objects that did not directly orbit the Earth, but instead orbited something else. The geocentrists were not willing to give up an inch on this, because their already overly complicated Ptolemaic model had already endured a tremendous amount of tinkering. They feared that surrendering this would lead to the discovery of other objects that did not orbit the earth, which would further chip away the geocentric model.

Here Faulkner is again conflating Geocentrism with the Ptolemaic model. He is also conflating Ptolemaic model with the stance of Galileo's "enemies" - which include Christians like St Robert Bellarmine. And again, in 1633, his second trial, he was not harrassed about the moons of Jupiter.

If this discovery does not strengthen the Ptolemaic model it certainly strengthens the Tychonian one against it. Which was known and supported by St Robert Bellarmine in the first trial.

Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo’s third evidence for heliocentrism, the phases of Venus. The full set of Venereal phases can happen only if Venus passes both in front of and behind the Sun as seen from Earth (Figure 1, left). The Ptolemaic model placed Venus orbiting the Earth closer than the Sun, but always near to the Sun as constrained by observations, but that would preclude gibbous phases from being seen since that would require the Earth to be roughly between the Sun and Venus. On the other hand, moving Venus’ orbit beyond that of the Sun would allow gibbous phases, but would not permit crescent phases to be seen.

This is of course a clear evidence against Ptolemy, but it does not cut the issue between Heliocentrism and Tychonian astronomy.

The truth of the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less significant contender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories than modern geocentrists would have us believe.

It was important enough for St Robert Bellarmine to consider it.

But it is true that it was not known outside astronomical circles, mostly, and also that it was not satisfactory to their sense of "system", mostly.

It is even true that Copernicus and Ptolemy were for the most people concerned "the only serious contenders." If Tychonianism had been more important, socially speaking, Heliocentrism might not have won the day.

The reason is that the Tychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists. Geocentrists could hold on to a stationary Earth while discarding virtually everything else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so many other compromises, the Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on either side.

We might happen to think Ptolemaic model wrong but Geocentrism as such - the obverse of the condemnations of 1633 - right.

[Bouw] insists that heliocentrists of four centuries ago did not offer real proofs and further claims that they improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the status quo.

I agree they have offered no real proof - except such as is so only due to atheistic methodology. If astronomers can dismiss my explanations as "irrational appeals to magic" (as they have done) that is because they do science in a paradigm where God and angels are not considered as causes of physical phenomena on a regular basis.

The currently presumed proofs for earth's rotation can be explained as æther following Heaven's rotation. The proof by direct observation (from Moon) can as easily be explained as the Moon moving with observers around a non-moving and non-rotating earth.

The proof from annual aberration can be angels dancing with the stars. The proof from parallax (which also involves us with the Distant Starlight Problem) can also be angels dancing with the stars. Movements which are explained by exotic appeals to gravity distorting the light rays can be angels dancing with stars and planets. Movements or variations which are explained as star covered periodically by an exo-planet can be angels dancing with their stars or doing something with them.

That is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo, the status quo should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his favoured geocentric model, the Tychonian system, should prevail. This is preposterous. The Tychonian system was not the status quo then; the Ptolemaic model was.

I do not know exactly what Bouw meant by status quo. I do know what I mean by prima facie evidence. In absence of real challenge to it, it should prevail. Now, earth may seem flat prima facie viewed, but there is a real challenge to it. Earth also seems non-moving to two of our senses, prima facie. Since there is no real challenge to that, it should prevail. Semen prima facie seems to be a liquid and as such life giving. There is a real challenge to that from the microscope: what gives life is not the liquid per se, but small solid bodies swimming around in it, carrying about half the genome of the potential parent. And so on for any other scientific question as long as we deal with questions of fact rather than with questions about what paradigm to adopt.

And Geocentrism is a question of fact, not just a deduction or item of Ptolemaic system and separated from that also a deduction or item of Tychonian one. It is a question of fact which is prior to either system. Aristotle refuted Aristarchus before Ptolemy did.

[W]hile [Bouw] correctly notes that the failure to detect stellar parallax was an argument against the heliocentric model, he quickly concludes that this was circumstantial evidence for geocentrism (or as he prefers, the Tychonian model).

It was circumstantial evidence for Geocentrism and used as such in the first process of Galileo. And the first process was not vindicating the entire system of Ptolemy : it was not vindicating Ptolemy at all, except in so far as he was a Geocentric, and it was not attacking but actively using Tycho. Who indeed had argued that absence of parallax was evidence against Heliocentrism.

Galileo was answering that parallax would be detected with better telescopes if such could be had.

But let us note what parallax they were talking about. Least uncautiously (as I did myself for long) we conclude the "parallax" discovered in 1838 is evidence for Heliocentrism.

Of course the heliocentric model can explain the lack of trigonometric parallax if the stars are at incredible distances. This turned out to be the case, and there is compelling evidence that even the nearest stars are more than 200,000 times farther from us than the Sun is. If lack of parallax was evidence against heliocentrism and for geocentrism, then one would expect that when parallax was finally detected in the 1830s, trigonometric parallax would be taken as evidence against geocentrism and for heliocentrism.

I am not defending Bouw, I am defending St Robert's position.

If stars - not counting Sun and planets - are the rim of the visible Universe, then the parallax would be pretty uniform for each direction. In Autumn we are on the Pisces side of the Sun just as the Virgo is on the Sun side away from us. Pisces and all other stars in that direction would then have greater angular distances if we were the ones moving. In Spring, we are on the Virgo side of the Sun and Pisces on the Sun side away from us. Virgo and all stars in that direction would be observed with greater angular distances if we were the ones moving.

It would be either us moving around the Sun or the Fixed Stars moving around us with the Sun if that was what we observed. In Aristotle the latter would be excluded, since one does not speak of containing places moving around what they contain, but of things moving in the place that contains them.

Only this is not the parallax we get in 1838. What we get one which shows either - if we are supposed to move - that stars have very different distances from us, or, if we do not move, that if they move with the Sun, they are not doing so at same distance from it and at same time in same extent as it. And if we accept that angels can dance with their stars (those that have stars, that is), to honour their maker, just as that of the Sun stopped to honour Joshua and went back to honour Hezekias and went dark to honour the namesake of one and legal descendant of the other, then we can conclude, that stars are moved by their angels for æsthetic reasons, one of them being to dance in time with the Sun.

However, this is not Bouw’s conclusion. Instead, Bouw modifies the Tychonian model so that the Sun in its annual motion drags along the distant stars.

In Faulkner's text "this" means parallax being observed proving Heliocentrism. But of course Bouw's conclusion is not what I offered as commenty below that either. And in Bouw's model, which in this respect I do certainly not share, the "parallax" would be trigonometric exactly as on Heliocentric standard assumptions and so it would also land us with Distant Starlight Problem. Since the distance between star at two positions would equal distance of sun at two positions. But if 1838 what was discovered was not parallactic as far as observation goes but a proper movement of stars (moved by their angels, dancing in time with the sun), there is nothing trigonometric about parallax and it gives no basis for distant starlight problem either.

And therefore Geocentrism - though not exactly the model of Bouw as far as parallax is concerned - is a solution to the distant starlight problem. And a simpler one than the ones offered by Danny Faulkner in his debate against Hugh Ross.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Octave of All Saints

*Video here:

GeneralHanSolo : Hugh Ross vs Danny Faulkner - How Old Is The Universe?

My comments with debates (you remember when youtube allowed one to do real debates in comboxes?) here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context

**Maybe I should not have:

The Niphal stem usually denotes the passive or the reflexive voice. However, some verbs, such as nacham (meaning “to repent” in the Niphal), may be better translated with the active voice.

Wikipedia : Niphal

In Swedish repent is actually reflexive - ångra sig. But true enough, verbs are not always same diathesis in different languages.

So, the passage would be meaning (if you analyse instead of translating fluently) "shall neither be moved by outside agency nor move itself" - literally in Psalm 92, metaphorically in Psalm 15.

The verb of moving when referring to "state of being in movement" rather than "action of putting sth else in state of being in movement" would in Latin be passive (moveri, the psalm has "non com-movebitur"), while French has the active form "bouger". In Swedish and German it is reflexive for being in movement: "röra sig", "sich bewegen".