mardi 29 décembre 2015

Other list from CMI of lifespans


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35" ; 2) What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that ; 3) Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort ; 4) Tudor Times Demographical Stats ; 5) How Many Hours are we Talking About, and How Heavy? ; 6) New blog on the kid : When "Answers" Paint Middle Ages Black ; 7) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Provided some Lifespans of the Past ; 8)Other list from CMI of lifespans ; 9) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related ; 10) Story of a Cardinal's Title with Pre-Industrial Demographics

Creationist contributions to science
by Don Batten
Day of Holy Innocents, Monday 28-XII-2015
http://creation.com/creationist-scientist-contributions


I cite:

Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the classical scientific method; Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594), cartography, inventor of the Mercator map projection; Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), physics, astronomy; Johann Kepler (1571–1630), astronomy; Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), probability, hydrostatics, the barometer; Robert Boyle (1627–1691), chemistry, gas dynamics; John Ray (1627–1705), natural history; Nicolaus Steno, founder of stratigraphy (geology); Isaac Newton (1642–1727), dynamics, gravitation law, law of cooling, reflecting telescope, spectrum of light, co-inventor of calculus; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716), mathematics, co-inventor of calculus; John Flamsteed (1646–1719), Greenwich Observatory Founder; Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), taxonomy, biological classification system; John Dalton (1766–1844), atomic theory, gas law. There are many others.


Let's agree to disagree on whether four of these were good science contributors or not : Bacon, Galillei, Kepler and Newton. Some say they did LOTS and it was all or mainly good for science. I agree they did LOTS, but some was deciselvely bad for it. However, the lifespans I do not dispute, I will again make a chart of life expectancy of learned men 16th – 18th Centuries. I am adding Steno's lifespan from other page. Since he was worn out from mission among Protestants and died early, this is a point against mine. However, his life span is only second lowest.

(1561–1626), 65 : 39 1/13 minimum 39
(1512–1594), 82 : 55
(1564–1642), 78 : 59
(1571–1630), 59 : 64 4/13 lower quartile 64
(1623–1662), 39 : 65
(1627–1691), 64 : 70
(1627–1705), 78 : 71 7/13 median 71
(1631–1686), 55 : 73
(1642–1727), 85 : 78
(1646–1716), 70 : 78 10/13 higher median 78
(1646–1719), 73 : 78
(1707–1778), 71 : 82
(1766–1844), 78 : 85 13/13 maximum 85

But do lifespans rise or sink or neither, during the period? Let's divide the thirteen into an earlier seven and a later seven, counting the mid one in both categories.

Born up to 1627(both lifespans starting from that year):
(1561–1626), 65 : 39 1/7 minimum 39
(1512–1594), 82 : 59
2 - 3/7 Lower quartile 59 - 64
(1564–1642), 78 : 64
(1571–1630), 59 : 65 4/7 median 65
(1623–1662), 39 : 78
5 - 6/7 Higher quartile 78
(1627–1691), 64 : 78
(1627–1705), 78 : 82 7/7 maximum 82

Born from 1627(only the lifespan ending later from that year):

(1627–1705), 78 : 55 1/7 minimum 55
(1631–1686), 55 : 70
2 - 3/7 Lower quartile 70 - 71
(1642–1727), 85 : 71
(1646–1716), 70 : 73 4/7 median 73
(1646–1719), 73 : 78
5 - 6/7 Higher quartile 78
(1707–1778), 71 : 78
(1766–1844), 78 : 85 7/7 maximum 85

Yes, there is a rise. Minimum rises 16 years, lower quartile 6 - 12 years, median rises 8 years, upper quartile is identic and maximum rises 3 years.

This should not be read as if highest life expectancy(not to be confounded with statistical life expectancy) had significantly risen, but that hazards making people "die before their age" have been reduced, if not in overall population, at least among these learned ones.

Actually, during part of industrial revolution, the poorer classes were arguably dying younger than before, due to new hardships when fewer men tend bigger production entities with security measures not yet provided and medicine not yet there for them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St Thomas Becket
29-XII-2015

vendredi 18 décembre 2015

Jonathan Sarfati on Black Holes and Distant Starlight

Citing:

CMI : Black holes and Lilith: reality and myth (respectively)
Published: 11 September 2010 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/black-holes-lilith


Omitting the exchange of polite phrases in start and end of both letters. And diving each in its parts. I give another take on ...

Dayton L:s Questions and Sarfati's Answer:

I
Dayton:
In your latest article, you state that black holes are regions of space consisting of such intense gravity that no light or information can escape from them. So, really—all theories about them are really speculations? So, it is possible that they aren’t holes into other dimensions or even collapsed stars, etc. Am I thinking right on this—so far? Could they actually turn out to be something completely different than what we’ve been told? (A gateway to hell—just to push it to the limit … just although … ).

What I’m really getting at here is this … is the thinking closed on black holes?

Sarfati:
I think the evidence for black holes is very strong. They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole. (As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

Finally, there are observations consistent with black holes, quite independent of any theories of their origin from stars. They tend to attract matter that forms an accretion disc around the equator. This matter falls inward and releases much gravitational potential energy. In fact, this is an extremely efficient mass-to-energy conversion process, turning 40% of the mass into energy, compared to only about 1% with thermonuclear fusion. This can be observed as a strong X-ray source. The process also results in powerful relativistic jets from the poles. This would explain X-ray binaries: a black hole sucks matter away from a companion star.

There are also observations consistent with supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, including our own. A certain star (S2) orbits around something in the galactic centre at a distance of 17 light hours (about three times that of Pluto), and period of only 15 years (Pluto’s is 248 years). This is consistent with the gravitational pull of 4.1 million solar masses. Furthermore, if this object were not smaller still, the star would collide with it; it’s likely only to be 6.25 light-hours, not much more than Pluto’s orbit. But the only object known to theory that could compact over 4 million solar masses into such a small volume is a black hole.

HGL:
I'll conventiently break this down.

i:
Sarfati:
I think the evidence for black holes is very strong. They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole. (As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

HGL:
I'll even break this further down.

i a:
Sarfati:
They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

HGL:
Which is speculative. Not an observed fact.

Saying this is like saying a future intelligent reptile race are a theoretical possibility from Darwin's and others' theory of Evolution.

i b:
Sarfati:
Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole.

HGL:
In a Universe meant to last for about seventhousand and some more years, would this ever happen?

Is Sarfati not peddling an Old Age theorem, without realising it? Or, if he prefers, a Deep Time one?

i c:
Sarfati:
(As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

HGL:
This is actually dealt with in a shorter way by Sarfati under ij:

ij:
Sarfati:
Finally, there are observations consistent with black holes, quite independent of any theories of their origin from stars. They tend to attract matter that forms an accretion disc around the equator. This matter falls inward and releases much gravitational potential energy. In fact, this is an extremely efficient mass-to-energy conversion process, turning 40% of the mass into energy, compared to only about 1% with thermonuclear fusion. This can be observed as a strong X-ray source. The process also results in powerful relativistic jets from the poles. This would explain X-ray binaries: a black hole sucks matter away from a companion star.

HGL:
The X-rays might have this origin or another one.

Like angels turning the "stellar engines" on that wave length. Confer "the stars were fighting Sisera from their orbits".

iij:
Sarfati:
There are also observations consistent with supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, including our own. A certain star (S2) orbits around something in the galactic centre at a distance of 17 light hours (about three times that of Pluto), and period of only 15 years (Pluto’s is 248 years). This is consistent with the gravitational pull of 4.1 million solar masses. Furthermore, if this object were not smaller still, the star would collide with it; it’s likely only to be 6.25 light-hours, not much more than Pluto’s orbit. But the only object known to theory that could compact over 4 million solar masses into such a small volume is a black hole.

HGL:
These sizes are supposing standard Heliocentric cosmology and its presumption about parallax is totally OK. See below.

II
Dayton:
Peering into the universe:

How can a telescope actually see “millions” of “years” into the past, when all they do is magnify the light they receive? Light being as it is only transmits the “picture/snap-shot” of an event. However, once light is created, it travels until it is absorbed or dispersed.

If we can see an object a million light years away—we are looking at a snap-shot of a moment in time that is constantly progressing in itstime-line continuum. So if we were to magnify that timeline tunnel until wecan see it with a magnification factor that enables us to see it from adistance of only a few miles … would we see it as it was a million years ago, or would we see it as we are presently seeing it but only with a greater clarity like you would when looking at an object from a distance on earth through a strong pair of binoculars?

Sarfati:
I’m not sure exactly what you are asking with your second question. I would suggest that Dr John Hartnett’s application of Carmelian relativity would help (see for example chapter 5 in our Creation Answers Book, and his book Starlight, Time and the New Physics, above right).

HGL:
The answer he was asking for was more probably one which would precede the next question which Sarfati answered.

When an object is so far away as to get its light rays to us after a certain time, then an optical device will not reduce the time it takes for light to travel, it will only increase the angle so as to make the object appear in a grandeur as if it were closer.

Suppose all stars are really one light day above us (that means 25 million 920 thousand kilometers, if the light day is time measured by solar day, some light minutes less if time is measured by stellar day), than a telescope might aggrandize the stars so they are appearing as if they were three light hours away. But if they really WERE three light hours away, they would right now not be appearing where they were yesterday, but where they were three hours ago, speaking as to angle of observation. They would appear elsewhere.

Transpose this to the supposed light-YEARS the stars are by Heliocentrics assumed to be away and to some of them being millions of them away, this of course leaves the distant starlight problem for Heliocentric Young Universe Creationism exactly where it is.

And here I have already stated that the CMI standard answer is to my mind not satisfactory, stars being MUCH closer is, and this just requires:

  • Geocentrism;
  • Hence Tychonian orbits arranged by moving angels;
  • Hence supposed "parallax" and "annual aberration" of stars also arranged by moving angels;
  • Hence these NOT being a reverse view of our own supposed annual movement;
  • Hence the parallax NOT giving a first step of "cosmic distance ladder".


As I have stated often before, and might be stating often hence.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Rufus and Zosimus, Martyrs
18-XII-2015

jeudi 17 décembre 2015

Dave Armstrong, Creationist*, says Creationists must not be divisive

This is an answer to what he wrote earlier, when he self identified as Creationist*, and has reposted. Now he is undecided.*

Dave Armstrongs syllabus #40
40. That to believe in the theory of evolution is to become – ipso facto – a modernist.

Dave Armstrong
Pope Pius XII (a modernist?) in his Encyclical Humani Generis (12 August 1950) spoke directly to this issue. First of all (I note in passing), he writes concerning the authority of encyclicals (which RadCathRs seem to have forgotten when it comes to Pope John Paul II):

Hans Georg Lundahl
What if Pius XII was indeed a modernist?

Also, he did NOT speak directly to the issue of actually BELIEVING Evolution. Rather, he walked about the question as a cat around hot porridge. He only made it clear that he was not canonically opposing something which falls short of opposing a canonical ban on Evolution which he NEITHER dared to pronounce NOR to deny.

It had been given by the Council of Trent.

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html


Had he said directly, in so many words "go on, believe evolution even if it flies in the face both of Bible and how Church Fathers have exposed it over first millennium and scholastics and theologians over second millennium" - he would very clearly have excommunicated himself according to a very well known canon by Trent.

Humani Generis
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent,

Hans Georg Lundahl
Note : expounded, not just left to the imagination.

Humani Generis
since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Generally, not necessarily, this once?

Humani Generis
But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Hans Georg Lundahl
But perhaps to discussion among non-Theologians. Seriously, he is speaking about a matter UP TO that time in dispute, like at a certain moment the question of the Blessed Virgin Mary's freedom from Original Sin from FIRST moment (as we rightly believe) or only AFTER she had miraculously prayed for it one second later than her conception (the other alternative).

That had been a dispute for some centuries between Dominicans and Franciscans when Pius IX of blessed memory was preparing the dogma of 1854.

Or the question of freewill and predestination, on which a ban was put.

No one had disputed young earth creationism up to when Lyell and Darwin came around, and even in 1859, George Leo Haydock was not in the least disputing it.

However, had the Pope meant "this has recently become disputed, I am now putting my foot down to stop the evolutionary nonsense", he would have been entirely within his rights.

Even when here formulating the rights he was not using, he was using the phrase "pass judgement".

Had he passed judgement that Evolution is wrong, he would have met a Modernist defection. And wounded Cardinal Bea, whom he had made his father confessor. Had he passed directly judgement that Evolution is actually OK to actually believe - he would have met the kind of opposition that Rad Trad Catholics are now giving the real successors of him, in this and subsequent acts of apostasy.

He did neither. He washed his hands.

Dave Armstrong
Note again, that submission is not confined to ex cathedra statements – the authoritative “world” which RadCathRs seem to wish to reside in almost exclusively. Pius XII then touches (I notice) upon development of doctrine and Church authority, which has relevance to the current dispute over Vatican II and supposedly “novel” doctrines:

Humani Generis
21. . . . together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church . . .

Hans Georg Lundahl
Is he perhaps overdoing development of the Doctrine? Is "only obscurely and implicitly" really the language of St Peter on St Paul, or of Council of Trent?

When it comes to Holy Mass, one could say that the full doctrine of the Mass would be only obscurely and implicitly contained in Hebrews - if it were the only source. If there was not also OT prophecy (Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec - one of the really clarifying points in Hebrews - or Malachi 1:11 - or the words of institution). But as these other Bible passages do in fact exist and also liturgic tradition, the deposit of faith in total does contain the doctrine of Holy Mass as a real and propitiatory sacrifice very clearly.

So, is he perhaps here overdoing the case of Protestants, against Trent?

Dave Armstrong
In other words, let the Magisterium determine such weighty matters, not “each of the faithful,” as in RadCathRism and sola Scriptura Protestantism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
That misses that the Church has already for two millennia been determining it for us, in favour of Biblical Creationism.

Dave Armstrong
Then he declares upon the relationship of evolutionary theory to the Catholic Faith:

Hans Georg Lundahl
No, what he does is not DECLARING, what he does is REFUSING to declare it either way.

Humani Generis
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that,

Hans Georg Lundahl
"Does not forbid" does not exactly amount to clearly affirms licitness of.

Trent clearly affirmed licitness of monastic vows, necessity of those bound by eternal vows of keeping them and a few other ones. Oh, why not honouring images.

And the language used by that council very clearly was not a "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that"! It was a clear malediction on those who did consider these things forbidden.

Humani Generis
in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology,

Hans Georg Lundahl
Ambiguous.

When is the "present state" from? 1950 January 1st to December 31? 1925 to 1975? A general "present" in principle, reapplicable time after time to whatever state will be present then?

What the "present state" of human sciences is, can be gathered by some analogy, in general, like after Volta they know more about how electricity works.

That the bones of dug up belong here, and the even more clams dug up belong here, and the measurements of carbon 14 in such and such a deposit, no doubt at all.

But do evolutionist conclusions firmly belong there? Or can creation science counter arguments belong as weightily to it? Or can they by now even have totally countered evolution, except to Atheists and Modernists of ill will?

So, "according to present state" is very ambiguous.

Humani Generis
research and discussions,

Hans Georg Lundahl
So far a question not of belief, but of research and discussions. Please shout if you see "believing evolution" mentioned later on! I didn't!

Humani Generis
on the part of men experienced in both fields,

Hans Georg Lundahl
So the "judgement", if such, doesn't concern, so far, ordinary Catholics.

It concerns a select group of people, men experienced in both fields.

Was Teilhard the Chardin experienced in both fields or just heterodox in both fields?

And gravely so?

Why was Teilhard de Chardin judged as a person, but not one word about the doctrines contained in his works?

Perhaps some Galileo syndrome.

Humani Generis
take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution

Hans Georg Lundahl
OK, the research and discussions can take place with regard to evolution.

It still does not clearly say we can actually believe evolution!

Humani Generis
in as far as it inquires

Hans Georg Lundahl
And note how Pius XII avoids getting into what it actually affirms!

Humani Generis
into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter

Hans Georg Lundahl
What is preexisting and living matter?

Was he actually talking about the doctrine of how babies are made?

A sperm and an egg cell, both human, fully human, are indeed pre-existing and living matter for each human body. But that is not evolution.

Was he talking about Norse Mythology stating that Ask and Embla were created of two tree trunks?

If these were no longer living trees, in that story, they were not altogether devoid of life either, and so that would be pre-existing and living matter.

Note that he altogether avoids the issue of evolution from some kind of monkey (note that the generic term is applicable to the kind of primate evolutionists state we have evolved from!)

Humani Generis
– for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Oh yes. Thank you.

ONE clear judgement! And a correct one.

Traducianism is condemned, and therefore probably Book of Henoch is not inspired. At least not if he is right (which I think he is, despite all the learning of Rob Skiba to the contrary) and if that book also says that the souls of the nephelim were spiritual offspring of the fallen angelic fathers rather than direct creations by God - unless, again, you would say that Nephelim were not really human at all, though they might have children which were, if you see what I mean.

Also, more to the issue of evolution, is the proposition that human mind is an emergent property of an evolved primate brain, which does not require any soul substance and especially not one distinguishing man from beast ontologically.

THIS however is NOT in itself a licence to believe that the body of man, on the contrary, did evolve from lesser primates. Some of which would be classified as monkeys or apes.

Nor is Pius XII again directly condemning that. He is shirking the issue.

Creation vs. Evolution : Scenario impossible
[part six on a previous series mainly against Catholic Evolution accepters.]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/scenario-impossible.html


Humani Generis
However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution,

Hans Georg Lundahl
What we history and letters buffs call "the reception" of this document very much passed by this aspect of giving reasons for BOTH opinions.

Humani Generis
be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure,

Hans Georg Lundahl
When exactly was this condition fulfilled?

Humani Generis
and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11]

Hans Georg Lundahl
What judgement is he speaking of?

NOT Humani Generis, which is judging sth else, namely the conditions of a debate not having taken place since, but, logically, a future judgement.

However, this he does not even say.

He is (or was) - or so it would seem - very clear about the idea, which he very obstinately refused either to voice or to oppose, that the judgement had already been given by a canon of the Council of Trent.

Humani Generis
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts,

Hans Georg Lundahl
Oh, thank you!

But this also is NOT a judgement in favour of actually BELIEVING evolution. If anything it is a reproof (however without canonical consequences, that I see in immediate context!) precisely of actually believing as opposed to just philosophically and agnostically discussing evolution.

However, here again, we are in the kind of ambiguity which the present tense constitutes.

What the Church has taught between Christ and Trent is a very determinate space of time, especially if we allow the canon took force directly at that session.

But this mental judgement on how the proofs were at present in 1950 can have been radically changed.

If Trent were somehow wrong, they could have changed to proofs actually proving evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If Trent was - as it was - right, then they could have changed from "evolution not proven right" to "evolution proven wrong" in the meantime.

And if these conditions have so changed, then a man knowing that should not be hampered by the insistance on moderation and on being prepared to submit to a future judgement of the Church on the matter.

Humani Generis
and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Hans Georg Lundahl
What if the sources of divine revelation on the contrary demanded the greatest firmness and intrepidity in rejecting evolution?

Only if he was in some sense a budding evolutionist would the reaction the sources of revelation demanded from HIM be "greatest moderation and caution". At the very least.

Humani Generis
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Thanks again!

One evolutionist heresy, though not compulsory for each and every evolutionist according to his standards, recondemned.

But the Church had already condemned Isaac La Peyrère's theories that certain men do not descend from Adam.

Probably taken from his Jewish origins, since some Talmudists said that we Goyim are not men.

STILL no direct acceptance of a common faithful actually believing evolution.

Humani Generis
For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Yep, true men after Adam are Adamites.

What about "true men before Adam"? Or "anatomical, but not soulfilled men before Adam"? Or "men just seemingly such but not true ones even after Adam"?

The mainstay of - now this I do not have a document for, rather rumours from a Trad seminarian (now married layman) about what had been said back before Vatican II - the mainstay of Pius XII-era evolutionism as orthodoxly Catholic would have been saying "Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals were no true men, if they had been, they should have had agriculture and writing, not lived for tens of thousands of years without these!" They would therefore have said that even anatomically perfectly human bones, from Cro-Magnon, despite showing art, and as dated before Biblical Adam (who might have coincided with Neolithic Revolution) were just anatomically men, but ontologically really primates.

In the face of this, considering Reepicheep as a mouse made in the image of God is the lesser absurdity. If Narnia Creation account is not good theology per se, it is at least an excellent highlight of why this does not work.

Adam and Eve were not one couple among a several of "Cro Magnon humanoids" then chosen by God for the extra adventure of getting a soul. And even that would have been less evil to suppose, than saying that they descended from, each, a mother and a father whom they needed to look down on for philosophical and obvious communicational reasons.

This pre-Vatican II-option is madness. And it is clearly NOT the voice of Trent.

Humani Generis
Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Hear, hear. All he has to say is, it is in no way apparent HOW such an opinion can be reconciled. But still not totally excluding that in some future it can be so.

Or if we take this as litothesis - the gentler way on judging him - what about any clear indications on how evolution in more general terms than polygenism or emergent soul can be reconciled either with the Teaching Authority on Original Sin (among other items, not forgetting Trent and Biblical Inerrancy), or with this ban on polygenism and emergent souls.

Dave Armstrong
Note that belief in the theory of evolution is in no wise prohibited for Catholics in good standing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Oh yeah?

Where exactly was THAT in the quoted words?

Nowhere at all.

Dave Armstrong
The pope could have easily stated such a prohibition if indeed this was what the Church wished to teach.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Or he could have failed the Church.

Do you recall the episode on why he put an encyclical condemning Nazism in the cupboard?

It is told by Pasqualina Lehnert, a sister who was serving him, in her book "Ich durfte ihn dienen".

He was going to sign it.

He read in a newspaper, Netherland's episcopacy had already condemned the Nazi version of Antisemitism, which was by then Persecution. Hitler immediately ordered 20,000 Jews deported into camps. Pius XII said that if that is how he reacts even to just bishops condemning him, "a condemnation by the Pope would provoke 100,000 deportations".

It has been said over and over again, that this non-condemnation was a cowardly act.

If Pius XII was cowardly in 1942, or at least anything near "more discreet than obviously courageous", where would he have mustered the courage by 1950?

If not openly condemning Nazis gave him opportunity to save the bodies and lives of some more Jews, and even many, would not a similar discretion have been useful for saving the bodily lives of a few more Catholics in, for instance, Eastern Europe?

Dave Armstrong
But he did not.

Hans Georg Lundahl
As said ... but he pretended to be doing something while he was simply stalking for time.

Dave Armstrong
Good Catholics may believe in evolution in good conscience,

Hans Georg Lundahl
That is how the encyclical was received.

Dave Armstrong
provided that they do not accept it in a materialistic fashion,

Hans Georg Lundahl
In what other fashion, then?

Dave Armstrong
do not deny that each individual soul is a direct creation of God, or accept the false notion of polygenism

Hans Georg Lundahl
Yes, noted. But not noted that under this proviso believing evolution is actually licit. Not even according to the words of Pius XII in this encyclical.

Dave Armstrong
– which view adversely affects Original Sin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
As if evolution in general did not?

By the way, you mean adversely affects believing there is Original Sin. As for the thing itself, it SHOULD be adversely affected, by baptism, for one.

Dave Armstrong
And I say this as a creationist myself – one who has written much against evolution and debated the issue for 18 years now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Good for you, but I missed it. I did note the writings against Geocentrism - a somewhat similar issue, at least as far as Biblical Inerrancy is concerned.

Would you mind linking to an examply of your eighteen years of writing against evolution?

Dave Armstrong
So how is it that many RadCathRs speak so dogmatically of evolution, as if it were utterly impermissible for a Catholic to believe? By what authority do they do so? By what reasoning do they refer to the present Holy Father as an “evolutionist,” as if this were some terrible and scandalous epithet? And ho do they manage to blatantly disobey the above Encyclical from Pope Pius XII 1950, which itself is quite harsh on modernism in other sections? More internal contradiction and self-defeating arguments . . . Again, I personally believe that macroevolution has not occurred [actually, since 2000 I have moved a bit and have assumed a provisional agnostic attitude until I do further study, but in any event I deny as vehemently as ever that standard evolutionism can be explained solely through natural processes], but I will not pontificate about issues (as a matter of supposed Catholic dogma) which the Church in its magisterial authority has not settled. I actually think that Papal Encyclicals ought to be adhered to, just as Pius XII said!!!

Hans Georg Lundahl
But if the Church already DID settle it, in Trent?

Dave Armstrong
What a novel concept!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Evolution indeed is.


So was, especially after this recommendation of caution, the new stance of Pius XII in 22:nd of November 1951, though that was just an allocution, not an encyclical. It was given to scientists.

As such, it was much less noted than the encyclical. On the other hand, all bishops around the world more or less had to note it, if they could. This they might then take as the "[future] judgement of the Church" and as obliging them to accept at least Old-Earthism.

And this is the game that has been played over and over again, Communion in the Hand, Women as Readers or as Ministrants ... and so on.

Now, a layman making his own syllabus of errors may seem to be a novelty too. But perhaps Dave Armstrong had permission from his bishop.

I have not done so, though my arguments could be used as background and defense for one.

I have copied and commented the one given by Bishop Tempier in Laetare Sunday of 1276:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html


In the relevant diocese, there may be a rumour that this syllabus was revoked simpliciter 48 years later. That is not so, the revocation was a polite gesture to St Thomas Aquinas, and it seems it contained no direct items rehabvilitated in the form given as condemned in 1276.

Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste qui s'était amorcée suite à l'intervention de Tempier,


It is the opinion of Louis Valcke that St Thomas Aquinas was a progressist in relation to his age (stated previous paragraph) and that the St Bonaventura and John Duns Scotus attitude (which was adverse to parts of St Thomas "openness" and installed "after" - not necessarily because of, at least Valcke dared not say that - the condemnations by Tempier, was to John XXII a "fideist drifting", which he was countering by canonising St Thomas.

le pape Jean XXII allait réhabiliter la doctrine thomiste par la canonisation, en 1323, de Thomas d'Aquin, suivie, deux années plus tard, de la levée, par Etienne Bourret, de tout interdit que cette doctrine avait pu encourir de par la condamnation de 1277, comme il a été dit ci-dessus.


The lifting of every interdict which the Thomistic doctrine COULD have incurred by the condemnations 48 years earlier.

Not the lifting of a single interdict which any enumerated thesis per se actually did incur in itself, irrespective of what St Thomas (who was not mentioned in the letter introducing the syllabus!) might have felt about it. As long as it was not Thomistic, the condemnation stood.

That is why the list of these condemnations continued to be copied during the Middle Ages, when it was done by hand, and ontop of that, in University and similar contexts, only on order of a bishop, basically.

So, standing by Étienne or Stephen Tempier, I am not braving Stephen Bourret in any way.

This means that I have not done what I am asking Dave Armstrong about.

Now, his syllabus has also ##1 - 4:

1.That the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid or “objectively offensive to God.”

2. That the Second Vatican Council is qualitatively different from preceding Councils, or invalid, or intrinsically heretical (modernist), or shot-through with modernist “ambiguity,” or a corruption or “evolution” of received Catholic dogma – as opposed to a consistent (Newmanian and Vincentian and Thomistic) development – so that it is not binding on Catholics, and may be routinely opposed, and not obeyed.

3.That Vatican II is the root and central cause of the present modernist crisis (as opposed to the machinations of theological liberals and heterodox, who “hijacked” or “co-opted,” distorted and twisted the orthodox, papally-approved Council for their own wicked ends).

4. That the pontificates of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are qualitatively different from those preceding them, or that they have knowingly (or even unknowingly, as dupes) presided over the destruction of the traditional Catholic Faith, passed down from the Apostles, or that they are material or formal heretics


I think the problem started earlier.

I also think that the hijacking took place through complacency of Pius XII, before his eyes, with his concurring to it, like this thing in 1950 or next thing in 1951.

One who took the name of Clement XV claimed that already Pius XII was no longer a Pope. And before he is written off as predecessor of John-Gregory XVII (Gaston Tremblay) in Canada (who ordains women), it would seem, I have it from Pope Michael (or possibly just Bishop Bawden) that he was forced to resign. Now, a forced resignation is not valid, as we know from canonical discussions about the Siri rumour.

He did not stay with this man, but returned to Clémory. I do not know if at present they have another Pope or not. But they are more likely to be the Church or part of the Church or a strayed part of the Church at worst than the people with whom Ecumenism is presently done.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St John of Matha
17-XII-2015

* Footnote on title: On December 9th this year, he wrote: quoted from earlier:

DA in article:
"Again, I personally believe that macroevolution has not occurred [actually, since 2000 I have moved a bit and have assumed a provisional agnostic attitude until I do further study, but in any event I deny as vehemently as ever that standard evolutionism can be explained solely through natural processes], but I will not pontificate about issues (as a matter of supposed Catholic dogma) which the Church in its magisterial authority has not settled. ... And I say this as a creationist myself – one who has written much against evolution and debated the issue for 18 years now."

Events:
The day after writing above, I find his mail as he tells me:

Dave Armstrong:
I'm not properly classified as a creationist (or an evolutionist), but rather, as an anti-materialist. I'm not sure which method God used to create.

Comment:
I think thought, see explanation later this might mean either that he has evolved since the day he wrote this, or that he was already back then not a creationist, but misspoke when saying "I say this as a creationist myself".

My answer to him was:
Are you sure which method God used to inspire the Bible?

A notification
was also given.

Dave Armstrong:
Your asterisked footnote about me is inaccurate as well. The non-bracketed quotation of mine is from the year 2000, not nine days ago. See the date in parentheses at the top of the paper you got it from. The bracketed addition (in green) is of a later unknown date, but it's still not from nine days ago. That was merely when I re-posted the old paper onto Patheos. Being 15 years off and mislabeling me are the least of your problems . . .

HGL
OK, this will be added to footnote. Shall title spell "No Longer Creationist"?

vendredi 11 décembre 2015

Correcting CMI on Aristotle


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Hans Küng is Lousy in Ecclesiology. · 2) What Utter Stupidity in Exegesis, This Modernism! · 3) Stacy Trasancos Gets Condemation of 219 Theses Wrong · 4) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 5) Creation vs. Evolution : Dominic Statham and Reijer Hooykaas Wrong on Christian - Pagan Divide · 6) Correcting CMI on Aristotle

Both the Greeks and Hindus also could have obtained their evolution-of-life ideas from even more ancient peoples. Aristotle (384–322 BC) claimed that humans are the highest point of one long, continuous ‘ascent with modification’ of life.

CMI : Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea
by Jerry Bergman
http://creation.com/evolutionary-naturalism-an-ancient-idea


Their source: Osborn, H.F., From the Greeks to Darwin, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, p. 54, 1929.


Here is wiki's description of the author:

Henry Fairfield Osborn, Sr. ForMemRS (August 8, 1857 – November 6, 1935) was an American geologist, paleontologist, and eugenist, and the president of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years.


I'd say that trusting him is like trusting Haeckel. He was deeply involved, and therefore he overdid his parallels to back then more respected philosophers, like Aristotle.

Son of the prominent railroad tycoon William Henry and Virginia Reed Osborn, Henry Fairfield Osborn was born in Fairfield, Connecticut, 1857.


Oh, boy!

His daddy was a dishonest businessman, and THIS is where Protestant Creationists get the idea that Aristotle was an Evolutionist!

And his mentor was a Lamarckian, Edward Drinker Cope. And an uncle was the infamous Pierpoint Morgan.

And he was involved in Scopes trial, obviously on the wrong side.

A good authority on what Aristotle believed? Noooooooooooooo waaaaayyyy!

Aristotle believed his (Osbonr's) family's way of earning money was contrary to nature, because greed, like sodomy, is UN-natural vice. (Both were, by the way, typical of Corinth).

Now, what did Aristotle really believe?

Since his writings are extant, and his Greek is about intermediate between that of Xenophon and that of New Testament, closer to the latter, in matters like πρασσω rather than πραττω, finding it out would presumably not take evangelical scholars too long.

But even when they are opponents of Osborn, they will still cite him on Aristotle!

Now, their source seems to have claimed "Aristotle claimed", but their source does not seem to have given any source for this claim about what Aristotle claimed. What book? What chapter? What page number or what paragraph? These are questions one can ask about standard Ancient Classics, and Aristotle is one. It's like claiming Bible requires rape victims to marry perpetrators (it is actually the perpetrator who is required, the rape victim and her family have the choice), and then not even give relevant chapter and verse from Exodus or Deuteronomy so one can check.

I have not read THAT much of Aristotle that I can refute the claim in great detail. I do know this:

Aristotle divided "animalia" into two groups: "animal rationale" (man, perhaps some of the Greek gods as well) and "animal irrationale" (anything from horse to worm). He considered rationality as a very distinguishing feature in man, and would heartily have agreed with Chesterton that it is less impressive that an ape also has an opposoable thumb, and more impressive that the ape does not KNOW what to do with his thumb the way man does.

Perhaps Osborn was confusing Aristotle with Epicure. The latter believed that civilised man is the product of a long ascent from men anatomically like us, but mentally not distinguishable from the brute beasts, knowing neither language nor agriculture. Obviously, to Epicure rationality was just civilised veneer. Both horses and men have a mentality at all because a certain type of atoms do a certain type of movements in their brains, nothing more to it.

But to Aristotle, the difference between man and beast was fundamental. And even if he was wrong on many things (he believed in an eternal universe - which Epicure did too - and came at least close to believing in his later days what Averroës believed, that true rationality was monopsychic, and men only were rational because of participation in this one reason ... a Hindoo like thought, btw, and as bad as or worse than evolution), one cannot heap all the wrong ideas on him. Like one cannot reproach "Buddha" Siddharta Gautama of promoting a materialistic view of society like that of Marx and Engels.

Somewhat more surprising, Epicure and Democritus are not mentioned in Jerry Bergman's list of ancient precursors of Darwin. Their view of Civilisation was strictly evolutionist (as they believed an eternal universe, they also believed periodic disasters periodically obliterated human civilisation, and humans each time had to start all over from scratch, that scratch being a beast with human body but not yet any human language, and needing to develop it.

Perhaps this goes back to the reason why Karl Marx in his doctoral thesis was in denial about Epicurean philosophy being the one Saint Paul warned against in Colossians 2:8, 9.

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;

Videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam,

So far this could be any philosophy, but it is not followed by an "or", but by an "and", so it is a philosophy specified by what follows.

et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum,

According to empty deceit according to the tradition of men ... which philosophies were traditional and popular back then? Well, we are a century after Cicero, so the answer is likely still to be Stoics and Epicureans. Obviously Seneca and Epictetus were Stoics. As obviously the Magister Elegantiarum of Nero, who, if he had any philosophy, this Gaius Petronius, obviously had the Epicurean one. So, which of these?

secundum elementa mundi,

According to the "elements of the world". If it had been "the seeds of the world", or "the final fire", one could already be sure it was Stoics. As it is "elements of the world", one may think it is rather Epicurean philosophy, since the "atoms" of the universe and of biology were habitually compared to "elementa" or letters of words by these.

et non secundum Christum:

With this in mind, "and not according to Christ" does not mean in general that Greek philosophy isn't, but specifies one which is very un-Christlike. An obvious candidate is Epicurean philosophy. It encouraged rich men (and it was not meant for poor men!) to live lives in pleasure and self satisfaction. A bit like the Pharisaic "rich man" of the story of the rich man and Lazarus (whose brothers HAVE Moses and the Prophets - i e it was really a question of Jewish observation of Scriptures - but do not believe them - i e do not act accordingly).

Perhaps this preference is due to the Pharisaic family antecedents of Karl Marx?

quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter:

With Christ we have the Ultimate truth, this is a good reason for rejecting bad speculations on truth.

This could be taken as a very broad rejection of all philosophy, but equally of the kind of philosophy which is incompatible with this theology. Which is more the case with Stoics and Epicureans (especially) and less the case for Aristotle and Plato (especially).

Now, unlike Christian tradition (going back to Colossians 2), the Jewish tradition behind Marx and possibly also these Evangelicals, has not been rejecting Epicure. At least not totally.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Pope and Confessor St Damasus I
11-XII-2015

vendredi 27 novembre 2015

After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?


1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)

PIE = Proto-Indo-European = ancestral language from which ALL Indo-European languages are daughter languages, like Romance languages are from Latin.

Once again, polemics against the Proto-Indo-European "orthodoxy" on CMI, starting by a somewhat more complete version of the table in Towering Change by Carl Wieland.

Languages:
German Danish English Latin Spanish
Hungarian Russian Mn Gk Italian French
Hungarian will often be the odd one out. Therefore it is in bold where others are normal, and here above normal, while others are in bold.

Numerals
I
Ein En One Unus Uno
Eggy Odyin Ena Uno Un
Does the Russian combine the IE and the Hungarian form (ggy = dy)?

II
Zwei To Two Duo Dos
Kettö Dva Dhyo Due Deux

III
Drei Tre ThreeTres Tres
Három Tri Tris Tre Trois

IV
Vier Fire Four Quattuor Cuatro
Négy Chyetirye Tessera Quattro Quatre

V
Fünf Fem Five Quinque Cinco
Öt Pyat Pente Cinque Cinq

Family members
1
Mutter Mor Mother Mater Madre
Anya Mat’ Metera Madre Mère

2
Vater Fa(de)r Father Pater Padre
Apa, Atya Otyetz Pateras Padre Père
Note that one of the Hungarian words = Russian (which adds an ending to it). If the Russian were akin to Pater word, I have not yet seen an explanation as to how. Also, Atya in Hungarian and Ata in Turkish are the same word as Gothic Atta (in Gothic Fadar means basically daddy, it is used to translate "abba" in a certain Biblical context).

3
Sohn Son Son Filius Hijo
Fiam Syn Iyos Figlio Fils
Hungarian and Latin, odd ones out (in Latin I here will include Romance, except when explicitly contrasting them).

4
Tochter Datter Daughter Filia Hija
Lánya Dot' Thighatera Figlia Fille
Hungarian and Latin, odd ones out

5
Bruder Bro(de)r Brother Frater Hermano
Testvér Brat' Adhelfos Fratello Frère
Hungarian, Greek, Spanish, three odd ones out

6
Schwester Syster Sister Soror Hermana
Nővére Syostr Adhelfi Sorella Sœur
Hungarian, Greek, Spanish, three odd ones out

To be honest, both for "filius/filia" gloss, and for the glosses "adelphos/adelphé" and "hermano/hermana" there are Indo-European etymologies, meaning the current explanation among linguists is that IE words originally used were disused and replaced by IE derivatives or compounds from other concepts.

Pronouns Personal
i a
Ich Jeg I Ego Yo
Én Ya Egho Io Je

i b
Mich Mig Me Me Me
Én Menya Me/Mou Mi Me

ij a
Du Du Thou Tu Tu
Te Si Tu Tu
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y

ij b
Dich Deg Thee Te Te
Ön Tebya SouTi Te

iij a
Wir Vi We Nos Nosotros
Mi Emís Noi Nous
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
Germanic, Russo-Greek-Hungarian (!), Latin

iij b
Uns Oss Us Nos Nos
Nekünk Nas Mas Ci Nous
Germanic (=) Russo-Latin, Greek

iu a
Ihr I Ye Vos Vosotros
Neki Esís Voi Vous
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
Germanic, Russo-Latin, Greek

iu b
Euch Je(de)r You Vos Os
Ön Vas Sas Vi Vous
Germanic, Russo-Latin, Greek

House and City
A
Haus Hus House Domus Casa
Ház Dom Spiti Casa Maison
Germanico-Hungarian, Russo-Latin, Italo-Spanish, Greek, French
B
Stadt By City Civitas/Urbs Ciudad
Város Gorod Poli Città Cité/Ville
German, Danish, Hungarian, Russian, Greek, Anglo-Latin, Latin, French
In this case we know the most common word is not original PIE for concept, but a derivative for the Latin word for citizen.

Animals
a
Hund Hund Dog Canis Perro
Kutya Sobaka Skilos Cane Chien
Germano-Latin, English, Spanish, Hungarian, Russian, Greek

b
Kater/Katze Kat Cat Feles Gato
Macska Koshka Gata Gatto Chat
Germano-Romance-Greek-Russian, Latin, Hungarian
Another case where the common word is probably not the original one.

c
Löwe Løve Lion Leo León
Oroszlán Lyev Leontari Leone Lion

d
Affe Abe Monkey/Ape Simius Mono
Majom Obiez’yana Maimouda Scimmia Singe
Germanic, Latin, English, Spanish, Hungaro-Greek (probably Turkish?), Russian

e
Bär Bjørn Bear Ursus Oso
Medve Myedvyed’ Arkoudha Orso Ours
Greco-Latin, Russo-Hungarian (probably Slavic), Germanic

f
Pferd Hest Horse Equus Caballo
Loshad’ Alogo Cavallo Cheval
Romance, German, Danish, English, Latin, Russo-Hungarian (probably Tatar), Greek

Note that Russian is the only Slavic language which has this word. Polish, Bielorussian and Ukrainean all have Kon'. A Slavic, but not obviously PIE word. (Yes, Croatian and Bulgarian also use the same word as Polish).

g
Kuh Ko Cow Vacca Vaca
Tehén Korova Vodi Vacca Vache
Germano-Latino-Greek, Hungarian, Russian

h
Vogel Fugl Foul/Bird Avis Pájaro
Madár Ptitsa Pouli Uccello Oiseau
Germano-Greek (plus other Greek word, possibly akin to Russian), Latin, Spanish, Hungarian, Russian

i
Fisch Fisk Fish Piscis Pez
Hal Rîba Psari/Ikhtís Pesce Poisson
Russian "î" = Roumanian î, Polish y
"IE", Hungarian, Russian, Greek, Greek

k
Schlange Slange Snake/Serpent Serpens Serpiente
Kigyó Zmyeya Fidhi Serpente Serpent
German (from whence Danish), English (with Swedish "snok" of other meaning), English with Latin, Hungarian, Russian, Greek

l
Spinne Edderkop Spider Aranea Araña
Pók Pauk Arakhni Ragno Araignée
Germanic, Greco-Latin, Danish, Russo-Hungarian

m
Skorpion Skorpion Scorpion Scorpio Escorpión
Skorpió Skorpion Skorpiós Scorpione Scorpion
"IE"+Hungarian? Actually Greco-Latin, borrowed into the non-Greek and non-Romance languages.


Now, no one is opposed to accepting that Scorpion was not an originally IE word. Why should "one" necessarily be from a mother language rather than loaned?

Now, you may reply, pronouns and numerals are among the least loanable words. Not necessarily so, if the language borrowings are very intelligent.

You see, in a far past, when languages were far more fragmented than now, but closer to the Flood, closer to the wisdom of Noah, very probably one realised, soon after Babel, that useful vocabulary in nouns and even verbs could be learnt very easily even between strangers - you point to a scorpion, one says "scorpion" and another says "nge" (swahili for scorpion) "dabaqallooc" (somali for scorpion) and you know what scorpion is in the other language - whereas pronouns and relatives and numerals are things you could too easily make a mistake about and one would try to construct a common vocabulary for those (extending to common verb conjugations, whereof the personal endings are largely common to Finnish as well, while preterite formations are not, and a common set of case endings. Function in phrase being also one of the categories where mistakes are easy.

This, and the fact that Indo-European languages are talked by peoples descending from different grandsons and greatgrandsons of Noah and therefore starting out with different languages after Babel makes at least the Proto-Indo-European Theory of Indo-European "by-and-large-unity" a clearly doubtful theory and mutual borrowings a clearly worthwhile pursuit of study.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Virgil of Salzburg
27-XI-2015

mardi 24 novembre 2015

The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism


1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

Sunday on youtube and yesterday on my blog copying my comments, I described this blog this way*:

"I nearly only mention the Bible when defining what I am defending."

And today I have to mention the Bible in it - because there are people who think they know I have misdefined what I should defend. So, here I must defend my reading of the Bible. I cite both Jim Stump** and his opponent on CMI Paul Price.***

Stump
If “plain reading” means “what the words clearly mean in my language and culture”,

My comment
Yes and no. As formulated it seems to narrow down the exegetic requirements so as to exclude using exact knowledge of earlier cultural contexts, even if applicable.

But that would not be the plain meaning of the definition, it would be an overly literalistic one. Not to say a simplistic one.

We have slightly varied languages (businessmen and people unilaterally engaged in sciences often think my English is bad in grammar, when it simply has a different style) and obviously my culture is much more different from theirs than my language.

I feel like Kent Hovind (I think it was) is "one of them" when he can utter such frogs as Grendel being the dragon of Beowulf poem (the poem has more than one monster, the dragon is not named and the sea monsters are not named either : only the humanoid monsters are identified as "Grendel" and "Grendel's mother", whether they be very ill shapen men or very huge apes, however such came to Denmark). He has not the kind of clture in which it makes sense to actually read the poem through or at least read a summary through instead of thinking that is too geeky stuff to check out for oneself, let's rely on hearsay.

So, "my" language and culture would indeed be an apt guide in someone having a broad human learning. But not in a reader who was ... well, either a scientist or a businessman. As they typically are.

Stump
then I suppose Exodus 20:11 could be used to support six day Creationism.

My comment
Oh, you only SUPPOSE so? And only COULD be used?

You suppose pretty right it CAN be and IS used to do so.

Stump
But if that is really how we’re supposed to read Scripture, then 1 Samuel 2:8 means the earth is set on pillars,

Price
1 Samuel 2:8, a verse often cited by skeptics to attack the Bible, does not teach that the earth is suspended on pillars. An examination of the context shows that this passage is talking about people, not inanimate objects, and thus metaphorical language is clearly being used.

My comment
I checked the Catholic Bibles. Only second half of verse 8 deals with pillars or anything like it, but in the Vulgate and Douay Reims, it is not pillars exactly.

He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill: that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord' s, and upon them he hath set the world.

Suscitat de pulvere egenum, et de stercore elevat pauperem: ut sedeat cum principibus, et solium gloriae teneat. Domini enim sunt cardines terrae, et posuit super eos orbem.

Note that the first part is echoed in the Magnificat of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Speaking of which, is either Stump or Price among those "praising" her as "blessed"? If not, do they belong to "every generation" of the Church?

Now, to the second part.

No, Price, it is not a metaphor. The second half is really about cosmology. The point being made is that since God rules the cosmos including its close part Earth, he ALSO rules human events.

Now, the Latin has cardines and the English has Poles. A cardo is the kind of pin below and above a door which are set in a door and which the door swings on. Ambiguous as to whether Earth is doorway and cosmos is swinging around it each day (the orthodox interpretation as per from other contexts) or whether instead cosmos is the doorway and Earth is swinging (the modern interpretation, and probably one found in Galileo and Zuñiga). But "cardo" does not mean pillar. Either way, the N and S poles make sense as translations, and there are two of them (plural of cardo, cardines) which is only possible with a round earth. That might be why Masoretic text by now and why KJV has "pillars".

However, let us suppose pillars are the right meaning.

Even so there is nothing absurd in it: continental plates are set on a kind of pikes going downward into the magma. Hence the world - as surface of the globe - is really set on pillars. That the whole of Earth - that is the globe or whatever total three dimensional shape - should be set on pillars can not be the meaning, since of the whole we read elsewhere Earth is hanged on Nothing. Which fits a round Earth quite as well as "Domini enim sunt cardines terrae".

So, no reason NOT to take a plain reading of 1 Kings 2:8.

Stump
and Deuteronomy 21:21 means we should stone our rebellious sons,

Price
When it comes to Deuteronomy 21:21, Stump misses the point by confusing the meaning of a command with its applicability today. Various Christian denominations have different views of the latter. But most agree that since we are not signatories to the Sinaitic Covenant, the civil penalties don’t apply today. Similarly, most would agree that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic food (kosher) laws today. See Is eating shellfish still an abomination? and Are we allowed to eat all animals today?

My comment
The Catholic view is that the commands of civil justice given for Israel are not directly applicable per se under the new law.

They are not unjust, but they were a harsher justice.

However, Sweden under Charles IX (an usurper of Calvinist/Puritan bent, though Sweden was Lutheran, not Calvinist, and the father of Gustavus Adolphus - equally an usurper) did enact death penalty for rebellious children.

In Catholic justice, especially the Middle Ages, the punishment if the matter was grave enough for such, was milder, since taking into account the sweetness of the New Law replacing the harshness of the Old Law.

Stump
and John 15:5 means Jesus is a plant, and

Price
John 15:5 begins, “I am the vine … ” Not much needs to be said here. Jesus often spoke in figures of speech. Taking that verse literally is not even possible, so we have no record of anyone thinking that He had stems and leaves. Therefore by process of elimination (and common sense) we can see it was a metaphor. Jesus also spoke in parables, but they were intentionally designed to hide the truth from the unbelieving masses, while He spoke plainly to His disciples. See discussion in Biblical creation impedes evangelism?

My comment
If Stump is really so uncultured that the plain meaning of this obvious metaphor (which has been missed by no generation in the Church as being that!) is a literal meaning ignoring the words are metaphoric ... sigh. Well, if he is that uncultured, he has no business educating other people on how to read the Bible.

As said above, a culture even in our day should mean things like knowing Grendel was the humanoid and not the dragon or like knowing older manners were more profuse in metaphor than modern ones.

Stump
Roman 16:16 means we should kiss everyone we meet.

Price
Romans 16:16 asks believers to greet one another with a ‘holy kiss’. It’s true that most churches don’t abide by this, at least in my country. But why? Is it because Paul was being non-literal here? I see nothing in the context to suggest this was supposed to be poetic language. Paul wrote a lot of letters to people in the churches. Among those letters, there is much heavy doctrinal teaching, but there are also some side comments of a personal, non-doctrinal nature, like “bring me my cloak” (2 Timothy 4:13). I’d say most if not all interpreters would consider this statement about kissing to be in that latter category. In Paul’s time and place, kissing people as a greeting was a normal and acceptable thing to do, just as it remains to this day in parts of Europe—Paul wasn’t asking people to rebel against their cultural norms about personal space. For many modern-day Christians, a suitable equivalent would be a pat on the back or a handshake. That is, Paul was expressing the trans-cultural principle of greeting each other warmly with the cultural application of his day.

My comment
Both Stump and Price seem to take it this is not done now.

However, in each Holy Mass, a Kiss of Peace is usually given, though Latin rite has tended to omit that.

During the Middle Ages, in order to avoid Kiss of Peace giving anyone butterflies, a gold plate was circled around which everyone kissed, and all those who kissed it were deemed to have kissed each other. But the application was literal enough.

Stump
The “plain reading” of Scripture leads to picking and choosing which verses we like and which we ignore. That is not a responsible way to read the Bible.

My comment
No, the plain reading leads to singling out only very few and very obvious cases as metaphor.

Stump
There are reasons we don’t take the plain meaning of those other verses as the best interpretation of Scripture; that makes us at least ask whether there might be reasons not to take Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1 in their plain sense.

My comment
I have never deviated from the PLAIN meaning, though in one precise case from the literal one.

Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 should probably be taken in the plain and literal meanings.

However, St Augustine for Genesis 1 departed from both plain and literal reading in favour of a literal rather than plain reading of a verse in Genesis 2.

This other reading is however ALSO totally at odds with Old Earth any shape or form.

Nearly all other Church Fathers (of those who at all mentioned subject) take the plain and literal meaning of Genesis 1 and a plain rather than extremely literal meaning of the said verse in Genesis 2.

The one exception, if you will call him a Church Father (he is not canonised) being Origen. Possibly the Stromatist too. And Origen takes same view as St Augustine, the Stromatist (Clement of Alexandria, earlier considered a Saint, no longer so since Photius pointed out a formulation which he found heterodox about the Sonship of God the Son) a "chronological agnosticism".

But even that one is hardly strong enough to swallow Old Earth.

Now, the problem is, some people feel they are cultured, knowing that metaphors were used, and think they are more cultured than others if they feel the others, if having their culture should just understand that Genesis "was never meant to be taken literally" (well, it was taken literally and we have no record of an age before our own in which men claiming to believe it were not taking it literally or close enough (see St Augustine, the Stromatist and Origen). But it is they whose level of culture is like the one who had heard of Grendel - and who thought it was the name of the un-named dragon in the Beowulf poem. There is a Grendel, there is a dragon, they are not identical. There are verses meant and from start understood to be metaphorical. There is Genesis 1. They are ALSO not identical.


I get an uncanny feeling some will have me say this over and over again. Like some will abuse their powers of prayer, mixing iniquity in their chalice if celebrating Mass even, in order to avoid exposing their own authority by replying me and finding out how much I know, while praying that I should find out this or that or the other thing they think they know and is applicable.

And if cabbalists are involved, how come they got power over me? Some priest refusing to absolve me from sins, or deeming me excommunicate, while he is the one making the trouble by not being a Creationist of the Young Earth type.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of the Cross
24-XI-2015

Notes:

* Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-several-matters-including-carbon.html


** Biologos : 10 Misconceptions about Evolution
September 28, 2015 | By Jim Stump on Faith and Science Seeking Understanding
http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/10-misconceptions-about-evolution


*** CMI : Stumped by biblical creation: BioLogos takes a cheap shot at biblical creation … and misses
by Paul Price | Published: 24 November 2015 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/response-jim-stump-theistic-evolution

vendredi 20 novembre 2015

Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?


1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

  • 1) Hasn't God [some of you may add "supposing he were behind the Bible", I do obviously not add that] used simplified and even misleading language if Earth is round but described as flat in the Bible?
  • 2) Hasn't the Sumerian King List first been invented and then mistaken for revelation? Sth I said that the six days could not have been?


Problem 1:
No where in all the Bible does God make it clear that Earth is flat. Not clear as in "clear, once you start asking the question".

Some of the things said are completely consistent with a flat earth, and indeed nothing or next to nothing is quite inconsistent with it.

But neither is anything inconsistent with a round earth.

  • Four corners passages imply sth rectangular-ish, not necessarily a real flat rectangle.

  • "Circle" of earth passage reads best as "circumference" and globes as well as flat circles have these. Also, any circumference of a globe is a circle, so even if the word is supposed to read "circle", it may refer to flat disc as well as to simply the circumference which it has on a globe.

  • Earth hanging on nothing and Earth standing on pillars contradict each other if taken about same thing, just as much as four corners and circular circumference contradict each other if taken about shape of same disc. But if we accept Earth is round:

    • Four corners as well as pillars refer to continental plates in their overall configuration on the globe and not sinking down into the sea;

    • while circular circumference and hanging on nothing refer to the globe as a whole and its place in space (note that "hung" seems to imply stability of its place, not quite easy to make it fit with orbits, but that is another question!).


I suggest as solution that God meant Israelites to be ignorant about shape of Earth, but ignorant in a very peculiar way, so that every word taken previously as "Earth is flat" must be able to be reinterpreted (on roughly the lines I suggested) as "we misunderstood". This gives two advantages for the Catholic Faith:

  • Its Hebrew beginnings stand out favourably from Near Eastern Ancient Religions among which they were set, since these other ones make a box shaped universe with Earth as a disc so much more clearly a prerequisite. Egyptians for instance worship Osiris and Horus as sun gods and say the Sun is, during the night, shining on the people in the Netherworld - a disc lower than that of Earth and between which two discs Sun is moving every night from West back to East;

  • The Round Earth solution however became known before the full unfolding of the Revelation in Christ. One can say that it is probably true that Hebrews were misunderstanding the OT passages (with Four Corners echoed in Apocalypse, in NT) during the OT times, certainly they were not teaching their neighbours about a Round Earth, but one cannot say that any of their prophets were actively promoting it, and once the Catholic Church was established, it has from the start included Hellenistic Jews who knew Earth was round and therefore the Tradition of the Church, as full and unadulterated revelation, has always been at least open to a Round Earth.


Problem 2:
The Sumerian King List was not first invented and accepted socially as an invention, like Tom Puss or Lord of the Rings and then later mistaken for Revelation. It was partly based on tradition - the eight preflood kings may have sth to do with the seven Cainite patriarchs before the Flood - and each invention was immediately added by some kind of bureaucratic decree to the transmission of tradition. One was deliberately careless and deliberately writing things one had not copied from something one had read, and one was deliberately bullying all relevant for transmitting tradition (writers being a privileged cast, but far below kings in social importance) to accept the changes - unless this caste in themselves, like certain teachers bent on teaching atheism back a century ago - initiated the changes.


I think that will round off what I had to say on this one, I will now refer to some essays or correspondences with more details (below my signature).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix of Valois
founder of Trinitarians
20-XI-2015

A series including the reference to Solar Worship and Flat Earth explicitation in this essay (but read all the series, links in top):

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Flat Earth theories - Common Sense or Solar Mythology?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/12/flat-earth-theories-common-sense-or.html


A series dealing with diverse context of Church and Bible, this one (a correspondence rather than an essay) dealing with whether Church Fathers were unscriptural in accepting a Round Earth:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html


Read all of the series, there too! And finally the second of two (but read both) on literary genre of Homer's epics and its implications for historical truth claims:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Legendary Men vs Mythical Gods
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/11/legendary-men-vs-mythical-gods.html

jeudi 19 novembre 2015

What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?


1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I will actually cite only the first ten Sumerian kings on it:

  • After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug (Eridu). In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. (Beginning of year 1 to 28,800)
  • Alalngar was said to have reigned for 36,000 years. (28,800 - 64,800)
  • En-men-lu-ana was also the longest-reigning king on the list, which said he ruled for 43,200 years. (68,800 - 108,000)
  • En-men-gal-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (108,000 - 136,800)
  • Dumuzid the Shepherd ruled for 36,000 years. (136,800 - 172,800)
  • En-sipad-zid-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (172,800 - 201,600)
  • En-men-dur-ana was said to have reigned for 43,200 years (201,600 - 244,800)
  • Ubara-tutu (or Ubartutu) of Shuruppak was the last antediluvian king of Sumer. He was said to have reigned for 18,600 years. (244,800 - 263,400)

  • Deluge

  • Jushur of Kish (After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish.) reigned in Sumer for 1,200 years as the first post-diluvian king. (263,400 - 264,600)
  • Kullassina-bel was the second king in the First Dynasty of Kish according to the Sumerian king list, which adds that he reigned for 960 years (or 900 in some copies). (264,600 - 265,560)


I came here by looking up Shuruppak, on wiki.

Now, some diverse lessons are intrinsically possible:

  • Sumerian Kinglist is the truth, and the pre-Flood time of Genesis is ridiculously short.

  • Or, Sumerian Kinglist is false, Genesis plagiarises it with some moderation for lifespans, but not nearly enough. The 930 years of Adam's overall life are as mythical as the 43 thousand 200 years of Enmerluana's reign alone.


These are not compatible. One of them at least is wrong. Could both be wrong?

Well, here is a third one:

  • The very inflated numerals in this list, dating back to very roughly same times as Genesis was written, if not true, were at least believed and conceived. In other words, the people whom God spoke to would have understood larger spans of time than "six days" or even "thousand years".


That is, if not very inferior intellectually to Babylonians, which I think was not the case.

Thus, of Biblical Timescale is not exactly right, it is certainly not either a reasonable simplification of the real one to make "very simple Hebrews" (comparable in Mike O'Neill's world to five year old boys) understand what happened without bringing on too much complexity.

The real alternatives for Genesis are:

  • revealed by a truthful and all knowing God, and thus true, including in timeline;
  • revealed by a being perhaps not all knowing and certainly not totally truthful, explaining a wrong timeline;
  • not revealed but somehow first invented and later treated as if not invented but revealed.


Those who know me know that I consider the last as being extremely unlikely.

And the first as the actual truth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Elisabeth of Marburg
19-XI-2015

mercredi 18 novembre 2015

Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong


1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I have already answered this point, but this one is stating it so ludicrously, I'll answer it again.

God’s perfection* and the truth of the Bible do not preclude statements that are not literally true. We must consider the facts of the time and place in which the Bible and its stories were being written.

Let us suppose that God communicated to his prophets and messengers “IN THE FIRST 29 BILLION, 369 MILLION, 859 THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND TWELVE YEARS, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH”. Would this message have been understood?

We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes. Counting into the hundreds or thousands would have been the province of intellectuals and scholars. The concept of Millions or Billions of years would have been incomprehensible. Could such a message have been comprehended, let alone accepted?

When my 5 year old asks how our television works, I do not attempt to explain radio waves, cathode ray tubes, transistors or satellites. I tell him that a machine at the TV station takes the pictures, sends them through the air and our TV catches them and turns them back into pictures.

Am I lying to my son? Am I misleading him? When he reaches college and learns the science behind semi-conductors, radio transmission and imaging technologies, should he accuse me of deceiving him. Should he dismiss everything that I’ve taught him as suspect? Of course not!


  • 1) Have you ever tried teaching your five year old son about radio waves? I started learning about this perhaps at six, seven, eight. At least before nine, when I became a Christian.

  • 2) "We are talking about a time in history when the average person could not count far beyond the number of his fingers and toes.

    No. We are not. Perhaps you were told this by some old earther when you were five years old, but since then you have grown up, and it's about time you start learning history for real.

    Moses who redacted Genesis, and on whose vision very probably the Six Days account is based (Adam was absent before day one and days one to beginning of day six, so it is not Adam's witness account), not only was himself a man with Egyptian élite education, well versed in geometry, but he had men who were able to count:

    Numbers 1:[20] Of Ruben the eldest son of Israel, by their generations and families and houses and names of every head, all that were of the male sex, from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war, [21] Were forty-six thousand five hundred.

    Some people of a purely "scientific" civilisation have this kind of preconception about "people in the past", but this is not due to their expertise in catodes and radio waves, it is due to their lack of expertise in history.

    • For one, in a century from which there is ABUNDANT evidence surviving, like 20th, you can decade by decade with very good confidence say what the average person either knew or thought he knew, depending on the subject matter and on your viewpoint of it. History cannot say whether Big Bang happened, but it can decade for decade tell you how probable it was for a 20th C. man to think he knew BB happened. If I had agreed with O'Neil, I would have said "who knew" etc, but I don't.

      We have very scarce evidence from the century of the Exodus.

    • For another, this science only oriented subculture has a great propensity to patronise Christianity, Philosophy, Creation account of Genesis, Long Day account in Joshua and so on, and therefore to tell tall tales of how "ignorant" people were in the past.

    • And, third, as I already mentioned, what we do know about this period and about humanity in general, very much suggests the opposite of what Mike O'Neil just stated.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Odo of Tours
18-XI-2015

* Taken from : Old Earth Creation Science
Discussion of Creation and Science
by Mike O'Neil
© Old Earth Ministries
First Published 15 July 2004
http://oldearth.org/discussion.htm

Henke has a Point on Sarfati - Who Has a Point on Henke

OldEarth : Creation Science Rebuttals
Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars and in the Sun's Interior
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
http://oldearth.org/photon.htm


Henke himself:
Because of their fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, young-Universe creationists (YUCs) believe that the Universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. However, since the 1840s, astronomers have known that interstellar distances easily exceed 10,000 light years (Brush, 1983, p. 305-306). If the Universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old as YUCs claim and if the speed of light has been constant over time, why do we see objects billions of light years away from Earth? ...

Gosse, referred to:
In the past, many YUCs (as examples: Morris, 1978, p. 61-62; Wysong, 1981, p. 156) have simply argued that God instantaneously created starlight (photons) between the Earth and stars. Therefore, "Adam" did not have to wait for the stars to appear "as signs" (Genesis 1:14-15) in the heavens (Morris, 1978, p. 61-62). YUCs that support this claim not only cite Genesis 1:14-15 as "evidence", but also argue that if "Adam" was miraculously created in a mature and complete state, so could starlight (for example, Wysong, 1981, p. 156). Of course, Morris' and Wysong's "response" is nothing more than the feeble and unscientific "Gosse" or Omphalos argument.

Sarfati referred to quoted as rejecting Gosse:
Some older creationist works [as examples: Morris, 1978; Wysong, 1981] proposed that God may have created the light in transit, and [old-Universe creationist Hugh] Ross harps on this as if it is still mainstream [young-Universe] creationist thinking... [Ross reference omitted]. But AiG [Answers in Genesis] long ago pointed out the problems with this idea. [new paragraph] It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don't really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

My own comment:
Actually, the Distant Starlight Paradox can be very simply dealt with if we can in any way suppose that astronomers have been wrong on stellar distances since 1840's.

And since FIRST step of "cosmic distance ladder" is parallax measures, this poses the question whether the annual motion of 63 Cygni and α Centauri, by which their distances are "measured" to 11 and 4 lightyears (assuming a speed of light I am not here questioning), not the one they have in common as "aberration of starlight", really IS an apparent motion only and the body actually moving is Earth.

If not, if "aberration" movement and its "at the edge variation" known as "parallax" is for each star its own movement, then neither gives us any indication of how far away the stars are.

Let us suppose Voyager 1 is not a fraud, it is even so about 6 light hours away from being 1 light day away from Earth. So, Voyager 1 has not even yet disproven my now favourite hypothesis that stars are 1 light day away.

Stars could be seen not just first evening by Adam and Eve in their lives, starting on day six, which gives a max distance of 2 light days, but even the evening before by the birds, which started chirping on day five, so they should be maximum 1 light day away.

Geocentric Wikia
http://geocentric.wikia.com/


The not so huge distances also give a solution to a problem specific to Geocentrism:

G. W. : How Fast the Stars are Spinning Around Earth Each Day
http://geocentric.wikia.com/wiki/How_Fast_the_Stars_are_Spinning_Around_Earth_Each_Day


And therefore to stellar sizes (supposing they were a problem) as well, this on New blog on the kid:

1) On Spirographs and Standard Candles - Cosmic Markers for Mark Shea, 2) How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report, 3) - But Parallax Guarentees the Distance of Kepler 452, Right? Right? Don't Tell Me It Doesn't!

Henke gets technical with Sarfati:

Henke on Young Sun Problem
Like other stars, nuclear fusion in the Sun's core produces photons, neutrinos and other radiation. In the past, some YECs have erroneously proclaimed that solar energy comes from a "shrinking Sun" (also see: Van Till et al., 1988, Chapter 3). However, Sarfati (2004, p. 170, 341-342) and AiG properly reject this nonsense and embrace the reality of nuclear fusion in stars.

Physicists have determined that photons produced in the Sun's core take much more than 10,000 years to migrate through reradiation to the Sun's surface. The shortest time estimate in the literature for this migration is approximately 17,000 years, which was derived by Mitalas and Sills (1992). However, Stix (2003) argues that the estimate in Mitalas and Sills (1992) is erroneous and that the actual value is closer to 30,000,000 years. Other estimates in the literature also greatly exceed 17,000 years (for example: Harrison, 2000, p. 94). So YUCs face yet another example of a natural phenomenon that refuses to comply with their "young" Sun. If the Sun is less than 10,000 years old, why do we detect photons and other radiation that could only form from the extremely high pressures and temperatures in its core?

Sarfati quoted by Henke
Also, some argue for long ages on the basis that the calculated time for a photon to travel from the [solar] core to the surface (actually by absorption and reradiation) exceeds the biblical time scale. But this is explained if the main purpose of fusion is STABILITY - producing enough energy to balance that lost from the surface, that is, the sun was created in a STEADY STATE CONDITION, with the outward pressure generated by fusion matching the inward gravitational pressure, maintaining a constant temperature profile. This means that it could immediately fulfill its function as the 'greater light,' [Genesis 1:16] and keep shining at a constant rate. It is no different from believing that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream in his extremities, even though it now takes some time for oxygen to diffuse through the alveoli in the lungs, then be transported by the blood. [Sarfati's emphasis]

Henke's comment:
Obviously, Sarfati (2004, p. 171) fails to see that he's invoking the same type of groundless Gosse miracles to "explain" how photons travel WITHIN stars as Morris, Wysong and other YUCs have used to "explain" how photons travel BETWEEN stars. Clearly, Sarfati's approach to the migration of photons within the Sun is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical.

My Comment on That One:
Well, no.

What Sarfati and I admit is not an absolute ban on any Gosse argument, for instance Adam and Eve were created adults, and were never toddlers.

What we admit is a ban on SUCH misapplied Gosse arguments which would make God a deceiver. Since sun as a sign is about its shining visibly, not about its photons having travalled from centre to surface, there is no deception in assuming there was sunlight from day four on, it would have been cruelty on His part for it not to, if He was going to create Adam and Eve two days later.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Dedication of the Basilicas
of Sts Peter and Paul*
18-XI-2015

* Romae Dedicatio Basilicarum sanctorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum. Earum primam, restitutam in ampliorem formam, Summus Pontifex Urbanus Octavus consecravit hac ipsa recurrente die; alteram vero, miserando incendio penitus consumptam, ac magnificentius reaedificatam, Pius, Nonus die decima Decembris solemni ritu consecravit, ejusque annuam commemorationem hodierna die agendam indixit.

A fitting day, since the dedication of St Peter's Basilica was made by same Pope whose Inquisitors also condemned Galileo in 1633.