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]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/12/merry-christmas-2.html

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? http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/12/whose-work-humanly-speaking-is-haydock.html 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]
31-XII-2013

* Christmas Proclamation
[on Catholic resources, by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.]
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/ChristmasProclamation.htm

** Bad Liturgical News, Folks
[on Jimmy Akin's blog]
http://jimmyakin.com/2011/05/bad-liturgical-news-folks.html

*** CMI : Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
By Daniel Anderson
Published: 23 January 2007
http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

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!

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)
http://creation.com/aggressive-atheists

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
http://creation.com/creation-in-schools

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
24-XII-2013

"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.

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 http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/gentry-to-nas-3-24-1987.htm
AN OPEN LETTER TO: 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 http://www.kaust.edu.sa/about/iac/press.html ... 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 www.siia.net.

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
15-XII-2013

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

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
http://creation.com/review-philip-pattemore-my-keepers-brother

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)
  
  And
  
  
• 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 Creation.com 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
6-XII-2013

*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?
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/qcpdolh.html

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

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:

• Wrote to Palaeocritti about Jonkeria
• I Hope This Blog will Get More Writers - it is a Salvage Blog
• Approved by Nobu Tamura!

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
3-XII-2013

* 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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfffRl4RT4s

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