Creation vs. Evolution: avril 2019

mercredi 24 avril 2019

Göbekli Tepe Among Hunter Gatherers

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Does my Interpretation of Mahabharata and Ramayana Offend Hindoos? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower? · If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Sin of Babel - Two Views · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica again: In case anyone missed this · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Mackey on Haman and on Babel · Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · How My View of Babel Ties in with "Defending Biblical Inerrancy" · Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket · Does Roger Pearlman Have a Wrong Take on Göbekli Tepe? · Göbekli Tepe Among Hunter Gatherers

Graham Hancock is wrong on dates and a few more things, but he is right on one thing.

A society of hunter gatherers with no even theoretic skills beyond that did not wake up one morning and decide first to build a great structure and then to invent agriculture, because they found out that the structure was too laborious without it.

Here is his argument:

THE MYSTERY OF GÖBEKLI TEPE - Graham Hancock on London Real
London Real | 19.IX.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5NvCiYGEI

So, we actually have people living as hunter-gatherers in the area before this happens. We also have - on uniformitarian dates and even more so obviously with my reduction of carbon dates - an explosion of activity. Even without it, the transition is gigantic and very sudden.

So, his explanation is, people from Atlantis came there.

Mine is, the hunter gatherers there and elsewhere were survivors of a global Flood. I am not excluding Atlantis sinking then too, but my main idea is, they survived a Flood and knew of the things that had gone on before the Flood, before they had (Genesis 9:2) been obliged to live as hunter gatherers.

I would say agriculture would already have started at least on some small scale before this, since I think Noah's vineyard was before this. But this was a major project already well past the Flood, genetically speaking the hunter gatherers who were around before them were also on the modern post-Flood range of human genetics (within still extant haplogroups of Y-chromosomes or mitochondriae and things, no one left purebred Neanderthal or Denisovan), so this major project cannot have been the first thing Noah and his sons did after the Ark, but on the other hand, any tower of Babel project does presuppose agriculture sooner or later as basis, meaning that it's less than feasible to have a Tower of Babel before the palaeolithic "dispersion" of mankind.

If we accept (as Postilla in Libros Geneseos does at least as one possibility) that there was a geographic spread of mankind, and it was the élites who gathered in Babel, this is a fairly possible match.

The reason why Habermehl and CMI are proposing a Babel well before Göbekli Tepe, despite no big agricultural basis found earlier (though archaeology may still hold a surprise or two, I'm waiting for bricks with bitumen for mortar from Göbekli Tepe or the plain around Harran (the plain of which Göbekli Tepe is just outside the NW corner, as I recall the map, unless it was a bit West of the middle of the North side)), their reason is that "all mankind" was present at Babel, and they interpret it as all mankind in the demographical sense and as fulltime geographic presence for every member of the human family.

I think Babel functioned quite a bit like New York or Paris do to many these days, with people residing there for a few years in their lives and then walking back home to whereever they were from.

I calculated, with very moderate walking speed (my own) that you could start walking from Hamburg to Moscow or Shanghai on August 1st 2016, you would arrive in Moscow if that was your trip, on December 18th, and you would arrive in Shanghai, if that was your trip, on February 19th 2018.

Much of the world, including Americas if one could still walk across Atlantis with very little sea voyage, would have been accessible on foot from Göbekli Tepe within two or three years. And if, just after Noah died, they stopped meeting at the base of the Ark at presumably Mount Judi and instead removed from that eastern place nearly due west to Göbekli Tepe, you suddenly had somewhat better terrain for big projects.

I suppose before Nimrod organised people at Göbekli Tepe, he had organised quite a few mammoth hunts. And, since we have no written records from there of a long continuous history spanning several centuries, this short view of what happened definitely could have happened with no proof to the contrary. Carbon dates are no problem if they are inflated due to lower carbon 14 content than now, and if the rising of the carbon 14 content means later dates are less inflated than earlier ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
IV day of Easter
24.IV.2019

mardi 16 avril 2019

John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science

Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

Like in, any piece of so called "science" that is not "historic science" is operational, right?

It's a bit like saying "all science which isn't natural science is social science" ... where does that put grammar, all the field of abstract mathematics, history? And then say "oh, it isn't social science, therefore it is natural science" ... this figure in logic is called dichotomy and here is an abusive one.

What science can not safely be called operational?

Science of the past, as past, of the future as future, but also of the hidden and of the distant.

It's corresponding to the Thomistic definition of "quorum non est scientia".

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has resolved the event horizon of a supermassive black hole
by John Hartnett | Published: 16 April 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/first-black-hole-image

On 10 April the globally coordinated announcement was made of the first ever image of the event horizon of the supermassive black hole at the centre of the distant galaxy Messier 87 (M87) (figure 1). The galaxy is 55 million light-years away and the supermassive black hole was confirmed to have a mass of 6.5 billion suns.

What if it's something else?

Above all, what of it is neither as far away, nor as big?

From the biblical creationist perspective this is, yet again, good operational science. There is nothing new here that refutes the biblical timeline of about 6,000 years because that is subject to historical science considerations. It is not an operational science question. (Modern science in creationist thinking)

Well, John Hartnett linked there.

Modern science in creationist thinking
by John Hartnett | This article is from
Journal of Creation 25(3):46–47, December 2011
https://creation.com/creationism-modern-science

As six-day creationists, can we know what God did when he created this vast universe? If we agree that God created the universe, and it was created in a form that is essentially like we observe today—a mature creation—very large, tens of billions of light-years across—very old in appearance, in terms of processes we observe—then we have two possibilities within the creationist worldview:

God created everything 6,000 years ago and we cannot know how He did it in Creation Week but somehow we can see the whole visible universe, including “ … events which lie entirely beyond our limited understanding of nature”1; or,
God created everything 6,000 years ago and we can (in principle) know how He did it in Creation Week as much as we are able to see the whole visible universe.

What God did when He created this vast universe?

What if it isn't as vast as calculated (by the way, a 6 or 7 millennia old world is not very young and a universe one light day or one light year in radius around earth is not exactly small - it's just younger and smaller than uniformitarian scientists want to tell us).

John never questions the "tens of billions of light-years across" part.

His wording should be reformulated:

As six day creationists and heliocentrics holding a vast universe, tens of billions of light-years across, ... we have two alternatives.

And this would reformulate neatly like:

As six day creationists, we have at least three alternatives ....

God created everything 6,000 years ago and we cannot know how He did it in Creation Week but somehow we can see the whole visible universe, including “ … events which lie entirely beyond our limited understanding of nature”; or,
God created everything 6,000 years ago and we can (in principle) know how He did it in Creation Week as much as we are able to see the whole visible universe.
God created everything 6000 years ago, and no distance is equal or even comparable to that in the observed universe, even if this might take Geocentrism.

Now, these improved formulations were not Mr. Hartnett's, here are, once again, his own exact words:

As six-day creationists, can we know what God did when he created this vast universe? If we agree that God created the universe, and it was created in a form that is essentially like we observe today—a mature creation—very large, tens of billions of light-years across—very old in appearance, in terms of processes we observe—then we have two possibilities within the creationist worldview:

God created everything 6,000 years ago and we cannot know how He did it in Creation Week but somehow we can see the whole visible universe, including “ … events which lie entirely beyond our limited understanding of nature”1; or,
God created everything 6,000 years ago and we can (in principle) know how He did it in Creation Week as much as we are able to see the whole visible universe.

What John Hartnett did was deftly forget there was any kind of question about how vast the universe is.

And in the exact same article, he has a rubric stating "Operational or historical science" - as if all parading as science were either one or the other.

If we are to make the assumption that we cannot know, or that the laws of nature we test in the laboratory are not the same as those we observe elsewhere in the cosmos (excluding the idea that what we do know is incomplete), then we have no basis to test any hypothesis about the universe. Taking that idea further, since we cannot travel to the nearest star, why not suppose that the laws of nature and the structure of the universe are such that all stars lie within a four-light-year radius of Earth? That idea could never be disproved because it is always possible to say the laws and structure of the universe are consistent with this notion. And we would not have a light-travel-time problem.

This does not even depend on any "we cannot know" nor on any "not the same as elsewhere" hypothesis.

We can test in a lab that bodies are moved by gravitation (actually, space travel is required to illustrate that the gravitation is definitely of the near Newtonian more precisely Einsteinian type, observations on earth only could be interpreted as Aristotelic gravity : heavy matter tends to the centre of the universe). We can test in a lab that inertia plays a role. We can absolutely not test in any kind of lab that voluntarily moving an object cannot possibly play any kind of role. On Atheistic views, planets and stars are too big for any possible voluntary mover. On Christian views, involving existence of God and of angels, they are not. Pleading that "angelic movers" are tantamount to "natural laws work differently elsewhere, so we cannot really know them" is bait and switch tactics.

If position number 2) above is taken, a straight-forward reading of Genesis as true history, we would not need to say that everything in the universe must be 6,000 years old, as measured by processes in their own frame of reference. That is not contradictory of the creation timeline. But those processes measured by Earth clocks must have taken less than 6,000 years to happen. God’s creation is knowable and understandable (at least those aspects limited to the physics we know today) to us as humans. He made the universe in a way that is rational and reasonable, and the efforts since the development of modern science, say, over the last thousand years, have revealed a lot of truth. (Of course along the way we have had to throw out a lot of error.)

Well, what if this view of relativity, that starlight travelled billions of years in its timeframe, but less than 6000 years in ours, is one of the errors to thrown out?

Modern physics, by and large, is reliable; we can test relativity with GPS satellites and even with Earth-bound modern atomic clocks.

1) What aspects are we testing?
2) On what premisses is it (apart from observations as such) that relativity is tested? Is rejection of absolute geocentrism one of the premisses?
3) In the case of atomic clocks, are we testing a dilation of time, or a disruption of the working of the clock?

If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention, and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer. Or if Earth clocks ran slow during Creation Week compared to all other clocks in the cosmos, there would be billions of years of process going on out there, and plenty of time for light to get here in the past 6,000 years. This is a relativistic effect and relates to both Humphreys’ model and mine. In all cases the universe is large, and normal, testable physics applies.

By large presumably meaning billions of light years, and where do you obtain that "knowledge" from, if not from untested assumption of relative Heliocentrism in the "Solar System"?

Back to today's article:

The data was taken from the different telescopes and was assembled and processed over a period of about a year, but those initial observations were taken over a period of 7 days in April of 2017. Over those days the supermassive black hole was ‘observed’. In the same way over the 24-hour period Day 4 of Creation Week about 6,000 years ago all the stars and galaxies (with supermassive black holes) were ’observed’ at the earth as God created them (Genesis 1:16–19). God spoke and “it was so.”

In other words, instead of God creating stars on day 4, God created stars so their light arrived at Earth on day 4.

And elsewhere in the universe, it may be billions of years old.

But God sees all time. And God is truthful.

What would this make of Mark 10:6?

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Other problem, why would there be an observer on earth on day 4? Angels would be there all through the universe, not limited to earth.

Men were not created to day 6, indeed biological life was not created to day 5, unless stars also have a biology of sorts.

Is John Hartnett arguing Moses was time machined back to the creation days and so Moses was present as observer?

So, the "for an observer on earth" part doesn't make much sense.

Back when I was a 6000 year and Heliocentric creationist also believing billions of light years, I believed in star light created in transit. Novas destroy that theory, unless we accept God as creating images of stars that never existed. Basically - feel free to suggest something else.

Now I am a 7200 year and absolute Geocentric creationist and I do not believe the distances called billions of light years exist. Indeed, I don't believe one can prove 4 light years, since proving alpha Centauri to be that far away involves taking "Earth to Earth" as the known distance in three trigonometric quantities.*

No, claiming billions of light years is very far from operational science. And just because I am in fact somewhat out of my depth with a statement like "we can test relativity with GPS satellites" (the atomic clocks are more like "what if the clocks change speed?") does not mean I am wrong. If John Hartnett wants to prove me wrong, let him try. The statement as it stands is an allegation, not proof.

Note, as I am a Roman Catholic and as my theory has a very clear connection to the Roman Catholic position of 1633 (and to RC astronomer Riccioli, who believed in angelic movers), John Hartnett could have a problem with me. And with my position.

I had a memory he was 7th Day Adventist, turns out I misremembered, probably and at least could not find it, and definitely those who are have an even greater problem than he, then.

He thinks one separate commandment begins in Exodus 20:4, rather than this continuing the previous, that is first commandment.

While the words I saw from internet do not tie her words on astronomic vision to rejecting heliocentrism, it is probable she did, and most 7th Day Adventist would clearly interpret her vision so. Similar to Swedenborg, there are "people" on other planets, which implies kind of human observers who would not experience absolute Geocentrism, which would imply their view of things were as good as ours. This of course is what Enlightenment promotion of Heliocentrism (relative Heliocentrism and multiplication of Solar Systems) was often enough** about. I thought Hartnett's background was reason to bring this up, well, if it isn't, perhaps I was meant to bring it up anyway.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Tuesday of Holy Week
16.IV.2019

* Source, own drawing originally scanned here:

hglwrites : Geo vs Helio
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

** See Euler, of whom I wrote here:

Auf Deutsch (auf Antimodernism und später) : Euler als "Astronom"
https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html

vendredi 12 avril 2019

Does Roger Pearlman Have a Wrong Take on Göbekli Tepe?

Göbekli Tepe -founded by Noach and sons. Gobekli-Tepe in modern day Turkey, was founded shortly after our 27 of Cheshvan, 1657 anno-mundideparture from the Ark of Noach. Perhaps the site of Noach built the Mizbech-alter as all the offerings were at hand.

How many hours, days, months or years, after, may relate to how far from from that spot the ark came to rest. If Gobekli-Tepe (GBT) was active for hundreds of years, until near the end of The ice ages, and that The ice ages lasted only about 340 years (not the 25M inflated consensus), assuming G/T was active 300 years and ended by the 1996 anno-mundi the approx. end of The ice ages, means it was founded w/in 40 years of our departure from the ark. Do not be surprised if it was the first pace off the ark we set up camp, w/in days or a year of departing the ark. If it lasted at least 300 years it was certainly activewhen Abraham was born in 1948, - 1656 = 292 years after the 1656 Mabul mass extinction event impacts year aka global flood by Noa(c)h. Sanliurfa aka Urfa aka Edessa aka Adma, just 7 miles to the SE, has a tradition of being the birthplace of Abraham. So not only was G/T active during the (at least early) lifetime of Abraham, but he would have certainly gone up to G/T from town, or perhaps Abraham was actually born in G/T and Urfa was established later.

This is from an upload on Academia, which he very gently provided, an extract from a book of his:

Gobekli Tepe founded by Noah and sons Torah Discovery Chronology, 2019
on Academia by Roger M Pearlman
https://www.academia.edu/38664571/Gobekli_Tepe_founded_by_Noah_and_sons

In the following, I will refer to his terminology, just reminding you first, referring to the Deluge as Mabul or using his Anno Mundi values is not what I usually do. I think Judaism is wrong.

Here are anyway a few calculations on this.

Abraham was about 80 at the events of Genesis 14.

However, reed mats used to carry away gold and jewels from the Chalcolithic temple in Azazon Tamar (En Geddi) are carbon dated to 3500 BC.

2019 AD
3500 dated BC
5519 dated age

1948 AM
0080 life age 80
2028 AM

5779 AM
2028 AM
3751 real age

5519 dated age
3751 real age
1768 extra years

How do we translate extra years to percent modern Carbon 14?

We can go 0.5^1768/5730 or we can use this device:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

[Please note, this online resource is not a Creationist one. I use it to interpret carbon dates in terms of pmC or predict carbon dates from pmC otherwise calculated and so on.]

80.745 pmC in AM 2028.

GT established 40 years after Mabul ...

02019 AD
09600 dated BC
11619 dated age

1657 AM
0040 years after Ark
1697 AM

5779 AM
1697 AM
4082 real age

11619 dated age
04082 real age
07537 extra years

40.183 pmC in AM 1697

GT ended 340 years after Mabul

02019 AD
08600 dated BC
10619 dated age

1697 AM
0300
1997 AM

5779 AM
1997 AM
3782 real age

10619 dated age
03782 real age
06837 extra years

43.733 pmC in AM 1997

How do we get from 43.733 pmC in 1997 to 80.745 pmC in AM 2028?

2028
1997
0033

99.602 % * 43.733 pmC = 43.559 pmC
0,99602 * 0,43733 = 0,4355894266

[I'm showing how I translated to what a French calculator can process, note that decimal points are decimal commas in Europe.]

How many pmC points would be normally produced in 33 years?

100 - 99.602 pmC = 0.398 pmC
1 - 0,99602 = 0,00398

Now, how much faster would the proposed lift be?

80.745 pmC - 43.559 pmC = 37.186 pmC
0,80745 - 0,43559 = 0,37186

37.186 pmC / 0.398 pmC = 0,37186 / 0,00398 = 93.432 times faster.

But how would the carbon level have risen during the 40 years previous to beginning of GT after Ark?

1656 AM (year of Deluge impact, not of exit from Ark) is dated as?

5779 AM
1656 AM
4123 real age

I'll be very gentle to Roger Pearlman. Let's go by the youngest dinosaur carbon dated for Mabul ...

22000 BP/dated age (reference mislaid, will try to supply it later, and I would consider it post flood)

22000 BP/dated age
04123 real age
17877 extra years

11.503 pmC.

41 years - 99.505 pmC

99.505 % * 11.503 pmC = 11.446 pmC
0,99505 * 0,11503 = 0,1144606015

43.733 pmC - 11.446 pmC = 32.287 pmC
0,43733 - 0,11446 = 0,32287

How much would normally be produced in 41 years?

100 - 99.505 pmC = 0.495 pmC
1 - 0,99505 = 0,00495

32.287 pmC / 0.495 pmC = 0,32287 / 0,00495 = 65.22626 times faster.

How does this translate to radiation, supposing as is not actually true, that radiation dose and production of Carbon 14 are directly proportional by a given constant?

The part of the radiation that comes from the cosmos is 0.34 milliSievert / year.

0.34 * 65.22626 = 22.177 milliSievert
0.34 * 93.432 = 31.767 milliSievert.

Japanese authorities in Fukushima area warn about 20 milliSievert per year being critical.

So, I think this scenario is fairly debunked, I also think some have known this for a few years, and this is why there is a sudden interest in "total" debunking, not just of inflated carbon dates, but of carbon dating as a method.

OK, some of that may have been already there, but I think those who would deny the scenario of build up of Carbon 14 in atmosphere would normally, previous to my work, have been supporting Setterfield - who thinks both speed of light and half lives were radically faster in the past.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Zenon of Verona
12.IV.2019

Veronae passio sancti Zenonis Episcopi, qui inter persecutionis procellas eam Ecclesiam mira constantia gubernavit, et, Gallieni tempore, martyrio coronatus est.

mercredi 10 avril 2019

Part III : On Bradley and Bessel

In fact, James Bradley figured out the speed of light (to a high degree of accuracy) by simply looking at two stars every night in a telescope that was strapped to his chimney so that it could not move. He could, however, tilt the eyepiece a little and he took careful notes on the position of the eyepiece through the seasons. He did this for 20 years and published his result in 1729. Did you get that? We knew the speed of light nearly 300 years ago and this was done with extremely simple tools. The tilting changed over time, and he reasoned that this was due to the earth moving with respect to the stars. We can explain it in this way: If someone threw you a ball and you were trying to catch it in a pipe in such a way that it did not hit the walls of the pipe, you would have to angle the pipe toward the direction of the throw. In the same way, a telescope must be angled ever so slightly in order for the light coming from a star to not hit the side of the telescope, because as the earth revolves around the sun it is sometimes moving toward the star and sometimes moving away from the star. But the angle also depends on how far away the star is from the North or South Celestial Pole.

If the earth is assumed to orbit sun, Bradley's interpretation of what he saw will jump to mind.

However, it is also possible to account for it by assuming angels are wiggling stars (individual angels for individual stars).

And Friedrich Bessel made the first measurements of stellar parallax (the little wiggle close-in stars make as the earth goes about the sun each year) in 1838. He determined that the star 61 Cygni is only about 10 light years away. The ‘wiggle’ was less than 0.00009 degrees! But he was able to measure this with good critical thinking and a telescope that is comparable to something you can order out of a catalogue today.

I'd disagree on the quality of his thinking and on what he actually used.

He did not figure out that stellar movements could be due to angelic movers, despite this explanation being available well before him, he just went on to ignore that one, so his thinking was not quite as good as claimed.

Also, the parallaxes are in fact not determined directly, by observation, but against the background of other stars with less parallax, by presuming their movement to be equal to "aberration" movement.

I used to be a fan of trigonometry back in high school, not very good, but I got the basics of it.

To figure out the lengths of one triangle, you need three magnitudes at least one of which is a length.

If Earth is orbitting Sun we have one length and two angles, which is the requirement. Length being Earth position A to to Earth position B. Angles being between Earth position A and star at Earth position B, and, at Earth position A, you have angle between Earth position B and star.

If Earth is standing still in the middle of the Universe, we have no length and only one angle.

Do the maths, the trig, the soh-cah-toa. Yes, it absolutely means the Bessel phenomenon is not telling you anything about how far away the star is.

Other things perhaps are.

Supposing Voyager I and II are not frauds, we can tell they are c. 18 light hours away, and that means that stars which they have not yet reached must be further away than that.

Even so, they would be travelling faster than the speed of light. Locally. If they were 1 light day away (as I think they were* on day 4), they would be doing a circle each day of approximately 6.28 light days. And 6.28 light days in one day = faster than the speed of light.

I am right now not yet started with transscribing a comment on that one, related to Lorentz transformations, from notebook to blog.

But on the other hand, Carter and Cosner have so far not argued that speed of light through vacuum coincides with absolute cosmic speed limit of any movement of any type whatsoever.

If we get to more acceptance of modern sceince, my point is, the speed limit applies to movement through the aether, and aether being the fabric of space time, the medium of vectors, adding no vector and without mass.

But Carter and Cosner have not yet even argued that one.

Here is one further comment, related to the topic:

Methodological naturalism applied to astronomy will lead to the idea that the universe is billions of years old, because some stars are much further away than 6,000 light years.

Only with the medium of denying absolute Geocentrism, as you cannot even measure 4 light years to alpha Centauri without that assumption.

Likewise, there will always be some who argue for non-real alternative theories (like the modern ‘flat earth’ theorists).

I am a wee bit tired, as a globe earth believing Geocentric, to being compared to flat earthers.

Also, it is not so much about "non-real" theories as about some of them being disproven.

How many have heard the argument from curvature of earth being such and such to "things that far away should not even be seen"? Well, they forget that this applies if you try to watch Chicago's skyline from across Lake Michigan, not from a building, but from eyes at foot level and feet at water line of where you are. Lie down flat not much higher than the waters, on opposite side of Lake Michigan, you will NOT see Chicago. But if you don't, it depends on how high you are watching from. Their "observation" means ignoring every level of altitude above your feet at sea level.

But a good dose of science from a biblical foundation should help us to avoid those pitfalls. There is no reason to dive head-first down the rabbit hole. The world is real, understandable, and physically non-contradictory. If we trust the Bible, we will be able to rebuild science. And when we do, we will be bringing glory to the Creator, the God of the Bible.

That's what I am doing and what CMI is giving me no credit for, as I am a Geocentric.

In so doing, we will be following in the footsteps of the founders of modern science, who almost unanimously believed in the Scriptures and used it as a basis for their thinking.

First portrait given by Sarfati in that article is Isaac Newton.

He was horrible on Bible prophecy (behind the awful idea that 1260 days are 1260 years of "papal" persecution against "the saints").

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Ezechiel
10.IV.2019

Apud Babylonem sancti Ezechielis Prophetae, qui, a Judice populi Israel, quod eum de cultu idolorum argueret, interfectus, in sepulcro Sem et Arphaxad, Abrahae progenitorum, sepultus est; ad quod sepulcrum, orationis causa, multi confluere consueverunt.

Update, the article I was working on is now on the blog:

New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/04/do-lorentz-transformations-prove.html

* Supposing Voyager I and II to be real, it might be that stars need to be further away than one light day, I contacted one Carl Hostetter I knew from Tolkien contexts whom I recall seeing as employee of NASA and he refused to answer me, but here are my own preliminary conclusions on that one:

New blog on the kid : A threat to my "one light day up" view?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-threat-to-my-one-light-day-up-view.html

New blog on the kid : Apparent Size depends on Tangent, Right?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/apparent-size-depends-on-tangent-right.html

Update:

The very next day, an article published by CMI passes their vetting while containing this disinformation:

In the first place, the geocentric view was not rooted in Scripture at all but in Aristotelianism.8 According to Jonathan Sarfati, “Many historians of science have documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the church. The prevailing ‘scientific’ wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory” [emphasis in original].

That note 8 cites "a creditable source" as Clark, G.H., Modern Philosophy, The Trinity Foundation, Unicoi, TN, pp. 32–35, 2008, does not mean it is a true one, and as to Sarfati's article (note 9 just after quote), I already refuted it.

samedi 6 avril 2019

Ten Keys to my Idea of Göbekli Tepe as Babel and its Tower as a Rocket

1) What the Bible says happened. No event is misunderstood by hagiographers, even if minor details may be so by unwary readers (note : the "private interpretation" problem belongs mainly to doctrinal issues, not to historical ones).
2) There may be occasions when the technology of the events is described in terms of a more simple or a more settled technology. The level which was the basis from "Neolithic Revolution" to "Industrial" and "IT Revolutions" was the one of the hagiographers, while the Biblical history and prophecy spans all times, including Palaeolithic prior to Neolithic Revolution, including modern times (as to prophecy). Why? Since the Bible spans all times from creation of Adam on day VI to Doomsday, and beyond in either direction.
3) Origin myths in diverse paganisms are entertaining, but do not teach us the real origins of the universe. "In the beginning there was Chaos, and from Chaos came Nyx, Erebos, Eros and Gaia" - "In the beginning there was Ginnungagap, and Niflheim North of it and Muspillheim South of it and sparks from Muspillheim flew across and made ice melt from Niflheim into the Gap" - "Annunaki from Nibiru came in a spaceship" - "In the beginning all matter of the universe was concentrated in less space than a sugar cube, and it exploded in a Big Bang" - all of these are misleading if believed, and this is an aside so next shall not be misunderstood.
4) Heroic legends are not like origin myths. Most of it has happened, though some of it may have been misunderstood or even deliberately distorted by authors.
5) If a pagan heroic legend gives two different indications of Uranium in action (both radioactive pollution and the brightness before a mushroom cloud), then Uranium has probably been in use at some point of history prior to World War II and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mahabharata (with the Gita) fulfils the criterium.
6) If we ask when Uranium was previous to XXth C. used in war, we can note that pre-Flood is more likely than between Flood and Babel and that less unlikely than after Babel. Because the later the occurrence, the more distinguished the memory would be, among diverse post-Babel nations. We only have one, India, basically. And even then very muddled.
7) Similarily, at least part of Palaeolithic conditions are more credible in the span of 350 years from Flood to death of Noah and beyond to Babel than in post-Babel conditions.

And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand.

Sound like a thing to say when people are going to hunt. And Nimrod, a mighty hunter, being second generation born after Flood, would have come at the end or middle of this period (Noah and Ham born pre-Flood, Kush born just after Flood to Ham, and Nimrod later born to Kush). That Nimrod later became a might hunter in spite against the Lord, by hunting men for slaves, is another matter, but his beginnings were probably innocent in this context of late Palaeolithic hunting.

And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.

Seems to be later on.
8) Since the idea of a rocket involves explosives propelling it and since Uranium in one use is an explosive, the inspiration (probably diabolical) behind a rocket driven by Uranium would not have been farfetched, if there was a memory of Uranium. If Nimrod thought he could get above the stars by rocketry, to where God lives and sent the Flood from, he may also have thought he was in this way avoiding the "next Flood" - since he did not trust God's promise.
9) The fact that such a rocket would not have worked is no objection. God stopped it (if I am right) before it could do real harm, and people do project things that are similar to things that work but which in themselves do not work. Prime examples are the flying machines and parachutes projected by Leonardo da Vinci. The big difference is, Leonardo air planes tried from moderate height over water will fail but need not kill you, a mushroom cloud would have killed all involved, and Leonardo did not draft thousands or millions or basically all or all but the lowliest farmers (and even them by taxation) into a harmful project, as one did for the "Nimrod rocket".
10) I can be wrong.

Bricks and bitumen have so far not been found in Göbekli Tepe, but they have been found in Babylonian contexts which are too late for Genesis 11.

If I can hope for some structure, even a lowly one (Genesis 11 was not openly claiming bricks and bitumen had been used for the building of the tower, whether it was a rocket or not) where bricks baked in ovens and bitumen are used, someone not agreeing with me, some adversary on this account, can obviously also hope a tower may be found later.

So far either of us could be wrong, either one right.

mercredi 3 avril 2019

Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters

But how do we know what the Word of God is? To answer that, we are going to have to apply our God-given abilities to think and study. But that also means using our God-given ability to consider information from previous generations who have also thought and studied about the Bible. Christians throughout Church history have studied the various candidates and accepted the 66 books of our Bible as inspired Scripture. We accept their authority, because we can’t go back and re-do every bit of studying that those thousands of people have already done for us.

Do we believe the thousands as thousand of different individuals? Or do we believe thousands as visibly acting together as a church, a few church leaders and a probable presumption that they are typically followed by their flocks?

Because in the first case, the individuals who reduced the Bible to 66 books are conspicuously few.

The Protestant canon is an illogical one, straddling uneasily between traditional Christian canon (varied, but ranging from Catholic 73 upward to I think Ethiopian over 80) one the one hand and on the other hand a Jewish canon which rejects the New Testament.

If they wanted any early authority for OT with only the Jewish Tanakh material, they would need to go to Laodicaea, 363-364. It would also give them an NT canon of 26 books, with Apocalypse lacking. It may be a hint that the relevant canon of that local council actually deals with what can locally be read from, and Laodicean Church may have had a motive for omitting a book basically in some verses damning it to Hell, where it is, and at best to "moving of the candlestick".

If you on the other hand want to trust the thousands on authority of a Church "representing them" (or including them as representatives of it) as a whole, the proponents of 66 book canon are curiously individual.

Luther is one of them, and he was attacking Maccabees II with an ulterior motive of doing away with masses for the dead.

He was arguably also attacking Tobit because it was in conflict with "sola fide" which he pretended to find in Romans 3.

One way to test an authority is to look for contradictions. You can also judge an authority, or claimed authority, based on an authority you’ve already deemed to be trustworthy. If a claimed authority is refuted by mathematics, it is wrong, according to the laws of basic logic. If a claimed authority contradicts what we know to be true in Scripture, it is wrong. If a claimed authority comes up with a new doctrine that no other Christian ever saw in the Bible, it is probably wrong. Likewise, if an authority challenges us to reject something that Christians have always taught and believed, we need to be extremely skeptical.

This paragraph in itself would nearly have merited a response of its own. The principles are so good, the proposed application (or presumable such) of rejectying more than one of my positions does not follow. And I mean "my positions" as "positions I happen to hold", and the fact I am holding it is no extra weight, it just alerts me to why this paragraph could be misapplied. Here come my own observations and minor reservations on each sentence:

"One way to test an authority is to look for contradictions."

While you are, obviously, still weighing whether to accept it as an authority or not.

You don't look for contradictions in what you already do accept as an authority.

Sometimes you find them anyway.

For instance, I accepted Swedish state Church (back when I was 15) as at least equally Christian and about as authoritative as any other, including Catholic.

While I already believed Real Presence, Luther at least believed that. While I already in some sense believed papacy, I believed there were occasions when one could licitly part with a pope actually such - about in a way like SSPX teaches, and not surprisingly, I found their position more attractive than sedevacantism of acceptance of alternative popes for fairly long.
"You can also judge an authority, or claimed authority, based on an authority you’ve already deemed to be trustworthy."

Definitely. That is why I judged and found wanting the astronomy leading to Distant Starlight problem based on already finding Young Earth Creationism defended by God and defensible on all other sides. Becoming Geocentric was adding a side to an already fairly all round defense of Young Earth Creationism (and I am not omitting to read CMI to make it even more all round, which is why I am not boycotting CMI).

As a bonus, Heaven and Hell are possible as places. Which is going to be needed once Resurrection of the Body occurs.
"If a claimed authority is refuted by mathematics, it is wrong, according to the laws of basic logic."

Depends on what mathematics.

For instance, one can consider any proposed proof as a kind of impersonal authority, and there is a proof of God which involves the impossibility of infinite regress in causation.

However, there is a mathematics school which would challenge that based on 1 not being a real beginning, but an arbitrary point between -1 and 3.
"If a claimed authority contradicts what we know to be true in Scripture, it is wrong."

But not always if it contradicts what we think we know to be true in Scripture.

For instance, many think they know that stars are not persons, think they know a tower necessarily is architecture (rather than rocketry), think they know pagan myth is wrong as history and not just as theology, even when it touches of royal or other history of concerned peoples rather than ultimate and to men not directly obervable origins, think they know that Heaven and Hell are other dimensions, not so concerned with space.

None of this is accurate.
"If a claimed authority comes up with a new doctrine that no other Christian ever saw in the Bible, it is probably wrong."

Correct - but proving no other Christian saw it is proving a universal negative, which is difficult.

Also, what exactly does "doctrine" mean in the context?

Would considering Mahabharata as partly detailed information about Genesis 4 and 6, with garbling of the theology as a minus be a "new doctrine"? Is it a "doctrine" at all, or is it a position one can use in defense of more important stuff?

Similar with Tower of Babel as a rocket. IF one could consider this as a "doctrine" rather than as "information" of simple historic type and importance, if in defense of more important things, like Tower of Babel actually situated in Shinar (on my view = all of Mesopotamia, from Turkey to Shatt el Arab) between Flood (on my view carbon dated like 40 000 - 35 000 BP, Flood being démise of Neanderthals and Denisovans, except what was saved as inlaws of Noah) and Abraham (Chalcolithic of En-Gedi says he was around 80 at carbon date c. 3500 BC).

Confer things like models like water canopy or like mountains rising to previously unequalled heights after the Flood, or baraminology.

These are things which are taken as signs that Young Earth Creationism is venturing to new doctrines.

I prefer to think of new solutions to new objections. Similarily with my own work.

Obviously, Geocentrism and Angelic movers are nowhere near such a tentative status, Geocentrism was standard in all Church Fathers, and Angelic movers was at least one of two or three long standing views on celestial bodies.

But these facts can of course be successfully hidden to people who are ill read in letters.
"Likewise, if an authority challenges us to reject something that Christians have always taught and believed, we need to be extremely skeptical."

No, we actually need to reject it. The purported authority, not what Christians have always taught or believed.

That is my precise rationale for rejecting the Reformation.

This is also the rationale why I made sure there were at least some Christians before me not considering Tower of Babel as one very high building. Some where considering it as a skyline rather than as a skyscraper, see Postilla in Libros Geneseos, probably best attributed to St Thomas Aquinas as a youth work, before he came to Paris.

Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?

This does not mean that authorities always win. In fact, there are multiple times in Church history where an authority was tried and found wanting. Examples include the early debates on the Trinity, of which there were several important people holding to something most Christians today consider heresy. Another example is the challenge Martin Luther issued to the Catholic church that sparked what we call the Protestant Reformation. But there were other Christians making similar challenges in all the centuries leading up to Luther. This tells us that we should challenge authorities, but for the right reasons only.

"This does not mean that authorities always win. In fact, there are multiple times in Church history where an authority was tried and found wanting."

Possible, but the two examples given would not seem to back that up.
"Examples include the early debates on the Trinity, of which there were several important people holding to something most Christians today consider heresy."

Sabellianism is heretic. Look what happened:

"Sabellius' opposition to the emerging idea of the Trinity led to his excommunication as a heretic by Pope Callixtus I (Callistus) in AD 220."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellius

(And I don't give a cherry for the position of Wace and Bunsen, given in wiki after these quoted words, I was going to use a much ruder expression, but this should be readable for pre-teen children, not reserved.)

Arianism is heretic.

Pope Liberius was not for it, he had just signed an equivocal formula, and been presented (by lies) as having signed a clearly Arian one. He counted in Rome as a non-pope until he had cleared himself.

In both cases, papacy is vindicated.
"Another example is the challenge Martin Luther issued to the Catholic church that sparked what we call the Protestant Reformation."

Well - Luther was the heretic.
"But there were other Christians making similar challenges in all the centuries leading up to Luther."

This is a very vast claim about Church history, and it is not backed up by facts.

Montanus and Donatus were each making very different challenges to the one by Luther. Waldensians cannot be traced back all that many centuries prior to Luther.

If it is true they came into the area of Piemonte in the time of Claudius of Turin, they (or a less anti-Catholic version of them) were probably founded by him, who was in his turn subservient to Iconoclastic persecutors of Orthodox Christians.
"This tells us that we should challenge authorities, but for the right reasons only."

Obviously no one should challenge or do anything for the wrong reasons.

By stating this, someone is implying he or she can tell us exactly what the right reasons are.

I challenge that for the very good reason they recommend Luther and speak dark insinuations about things like Arian crisis.

We should all strive for consistency in the way we think. This unlocks another key in our quest to rebuild science. Does a certain theory require you to think inconsistently? Do the facts in front of you reflect the conclusions the person is drawing from them? Is the person drawing conclusions that contradict what is obviously true, or are they perhaps drawing conclusions beyond what is warranted by the facts? These are all warning signs that perhaps what is being discussed is actually false. But this does not mean we know everything.

Back to more innocent stuff, I will present how this would apply to Geocentrism.

"We should all strive for consistency in the way we think."

Sure.

And since one should try to make sure, one should also test one's consistency in debate.

I do that all the time.

Certain on CMI have avoided this when it comes to debating Geocentrics.
"This unlocks another key in our quest to rebuild science. Does a certain theory require you to think inconsistently?"

I am inviting anyone to help me test this by debate. Obviously in public over internet, unless I should lack time.

In which case you might want to look into why I lack time.
"Do the facts in front of you reflect the conclusions the person is drawing from them?"

Precisely my point against not only Galileo, but Bruno, but Copernicus, but Kepler. And Newton (who was also wrong about 1260 days in prophecy).

There are no facts in front of us that reflect the conclusion celestial bodies are moved by mechanistic causalities only, such as agency of mass via gravity and inertia.
"Is the person drawing conclusions that contradict what is obviously true, or are they perhaps drawing conclusions beyond what is warranted by the facts?"

Which can be abused, if you confuse what someone is concluding from with what he was just answering you on, perhaps on another but related topic.

A thorough debate is often better than mute scepticism.
"These are all warning signs that perhaps what is being discussed is actually false."

Not always.
"But this does not mean we know everything."

Obvious.

The paragraph as a whole is not bad, but is apt to be misleading due to lots of ingrained habits of thinking with a certain set of scientists. Will check if more needs to be said in a part C or not. Meanwhile, I just love the last paragraph:

In Part 3 (coming soon), we will attempt to outline how we can rebuild the foundations of modern science using very simple tools and very simple record keeping. We will be able to test the ‘authorities’ and we will be able to build on what we know. Our goal is to show you why the evidence is consistent with the earth being round, that the earth goes around the sun, and that controlled scientific experiments are better than opinion. But we will also attempt to show why evolution fails to explain origins.

Hoorrah! That's what I was looking forward to already in part 2.

But, in order to remain as sober as Puddleglum, instead of thinking of next thunderstorm or last unexpected death, perhaps I should add one quibble, about the title of part 2:

Conspiracy theories require a magical world

What's wrong with that?

Note, I am not speaking of a world in which sorcery is allowed, I firmly reject Harry Potter, which I mainly know from hearsay or from Pottermore, I have not read the works, I recommend reading The Magician's Nephew or The Satanic Mill to get morals straight (apart from HP involving at least some things not even demons could work for a sorcerer), I am also not speaking of a world in which things are inconsistent. They are not too inconsistent in Harry Potter (but partly simply wrong), and they are not inconsistent in St Thomas Aquinas. I am speaking of the fairly fuddled sentiment that such and such a cosmology or cosmological statement involves "magic" without defining what that means, and which in the last analysis simply may mean they conflict with methodological naturalism (even if on some items Carter and Cosner reject it, as well as to principle, they could still be victims of such thinking on other items).

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra in priori parte.

Update next day:

Today, a random person with a blog can get their message out there as easily as NASA can, and sometimes they can even seem more persuasive than the biggest authorities. Yes, people will cheat, because they are sinful, but cheaters eventually get caught, especially when what they are saying flies in the face of real facts.

This sometimes happens because of bloggers. I recall an example from last year, sorry for forgetting the details./HGL

Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A

Many people today hold to one or more conspiracy theories that, if they were to be consistent, require the world to be unreal, as we documented previously. For example, among these alternate scientific ideas is the thought that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around us. But that contradicts many, many experiments in basic science. It is not just that NASA must be a billion-dollar lie-generating machine, but scientists all the way back to Newton (who gave us modern physics) must be wrong.

Demonising, is what I would call this. Also known as poisoning the well.

I suspect, while the authorship is joint between Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, it is Carter who is responsible for this strawman.

Speaking of strawmen, was Christ predicting his disciples would be strawmanned?

No, I was probably just misrecalling Luke 23:31, it was about wood, not grass.

For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?
[Luke 23:31]

Conflated with something about saying evil things.

Anyway, a strawman it is.

Let's pick it apart.

"Many people today hold to one or more conspiracy theories that, if they were to be consistent, require the world to be unreal, as we documented previously. For example"

So, Geocentrism is presented as a conspiracy theory.

Double standard, since many will likewise call Young Earth Creationism a conspiracy theory, which CMI very rightly reject the charge of, saying a conspiracy is not needed where there is such confirmation bias.
"But that contradicts many, many experiments in basic science."

None are given.

Confer this, from a later paragraph:

"Natural selection is what we call “non-discriminating information”."

Yes, I would consider the "many experiments in basic science" as non-discriminating on this account. You name them, I show how.

Robert Carter has already debated with or at least tried to refute (I might misrecall the details) one Robert Sungenis, and knows that Robert Sungenis is in contact with Croatian physicist Luka Popov and that any "experiment in basic science" Carter would dare to name, Robert Sungenis has an explanation why the experiment works out in Geocentric Universe.

AND for that matter, would already know that Sungenis invoke the two experiments Michelson Morley with Sagnac to prove impossibility or near such of an Earth moving through space, since Sagnac shows that speeds are indeed added to and detracted from the speed of light.
"It is not just that NASA must be a billion-dollar lie-generating machine"

What is your own take on Smithsonian and on National Geographic?

Are they never dishonest? Even on the minutiae of debating critics like you?

Is there no such thing as fooling oneself, quasi bona fide?
"but scientists all the way back to Newton (who gave us modern physics) must be wrong."

Supposing of course the explanations of planetary orbits are reducible to the Newtonian couple of gravitattional force and inertial force, determined by masses and positions.

That is, supposing no wills are in any way shape or form influencing the orbit that celestial bodies take.

Sungenis does not even agree on this one, he is dead set on explaining diurnal movement, not by God's ongoing action, but by some kind of conservation of angular momentum, as well as explaining planetary orbits by Machian equivalence.

This said, the common presupposition of Sungenis and Carter that celestial bodies are only influenced as to position by physics is not traditional and also not Biblical.

I think, as I have mentioned the Bible, I should better provide arguments on both issues, the geometric one on Geocentrism and the issue of why Celestial Bodies move, on angelic movers.

First, I think the clincher for Joshua X implying Geocentrism is double, Habacuc 3:11 implies that Son and Moon were both objectively standing still, not just phenomenally (and Habacuc being a prophet was in a position to know), but also in Joshua X the verse 12, Joshua adressing the miraculous command not to Earth and its axis, but to Sun and Moon:

Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)

Just under the title, I have a field of links to earlier parts of a post series, which includes many parts of a debate held on FB.

Second, the angelic movers, here is a little "Bible study" on that one, in response to John MacArthur (whom I also am refuting on his attacks against the Catholic Church):

John MacArthur Confusing Sunworship with Sun as a Person

I not only state (as title implies), that taking Sun as a person (whether angelic mover behind the non-living body, or as a living body of some superhuman and near angelic creature) does not imply giving him any worship of adoration, but also give a series of Biblical reasons for that stance.

We can test authority. We can see if it should be trusted. And we can reject authorities when needed. But we need to do so cautiously; if we are to do so, we need a good reason. We also need to understand that, if we do so, we are likely not going without any authority, but trading one authority for another. For instance, perhaps ‘Big Pharma’ is only peddling vaccines because they want to make lots of money. But is the person claiming this acting purely out of pure benevolence with no monetary incentives? Often, they also selling or supporting an alternative therapy. Likewise, it’s fine to be skeptical of NASA, but we should be just as skeptical of the random person with a blog. Big corporations have sometimes-sinister motives, but so do individuals. In the end, applying good science and sound reasoning can tell us that, in fact, NASA is not lying about the shape of the earth or the nature of gravity. When they get into exobiology, however, we can disagree with them and still remain on a sound footing.

Now, Carter (or Lita) has completely left the scenario proposed in part I, now we are having access to NASA.

And we are having access to blogs.

I'll get into some problems with the paragraph:

"And we can reject authorities when needed. ... We also need to understand that, if we do so, we are likely not going without any authority, but trading one authority for another."

If I give an argument and you believe that argument, do I become an authority?

I'd say, if you don't believe relative heliocentrism as presented by NASA because they say so and can be trusted, but because you went through their actual argumentation and found it good, you are not treating NASA as an authority in a very strong sense.
"But is the person claiming this acting purely out of pure benevolence with no monetary incentives? Often, they also selling or supporting an alternative therapy."

Supporting an alternative does not mean one is making money out of it.

Precisely as to antivaccers, I don't know any one of them even supporting, let alone selling an alternative. I don't think they believe there is one, except having a good immune system. It's about preferring the risk of dying from infections not intended over the risk of dying from sth introduced into the body deliberately.
"Likewise, it’s fine to be skeptical of NASA, but we should be just as skeptical of the random person with a blog."

Here we have a little "let's pretend" game.

Let's pretend that NASA and the blogger have equal prior platform.

Let's pretend that being sceptic of both means trying both.

Let's then pretend very tacitly that scepticism of the blogger (in that noble way) leads to trusting NASA (but it wouldn't be called that way, it would be called not trusting a random blogger, which is supposed to be good sense).

In fact, NASA has a vastly superior prior platform, and being sceptic of the random blogger in practise means not even reading him or allowing others to read him (especially others who are younger than oneself).

And that means being "equally" sceptic of the random blogger is in reality being much less likely to even read his arguments.

How about skipping scepticism of persons and doing - what the original scenario in part I purported to do?

Namely, test if such and such an aspect of science as presently presented can be supported by arguments from known empiric observations, namely test it by logic.

Me vs NASA? I know who's "heavy weight" as long as you make it about persons.

My arguments vs NASA's arguments? Now, that is another matter. Oh, by the way, BOTH arguments based on observed facts as reported by NASA.
"Big corporations have sometimes-sinister motives, but so do individuals."

My "sinister motive" is, being a writer, I want to make a living of it. I want to sell books, including to people disagreeing with me, "precisely" as CMI is selling Creation - with the difference, I don't have a paper or the groundwork network to start getting things sold on a large or even moderate scale. Being a layman, I also don't present it as a ministry.
"In the end, applying good science and sound reasoning can tell us that, in fact, NASA is not lying about the shape of the earth or the nature of gravity."

The fact is, I have heard a bit too many, I think also from NASA, dismiss "my" angelic movers theory (which I didn't invent, just adher to) as an alternative explanation of gravity, when most definitely it is not, but an agency in addition to gravity and inertia.

This means, I have seen a bit too much evidence for a definite will to actually misrepresent the argument I make. A bit like how CMI (of whom Robert Carter and Lita Cosner are representatives) already would be knowing people who accuse them of denying basics of radioactive decay. Also without actually looking into the actual words of the opponent.

I have suspected them of staging moon landing in order to support Newtonian gravitation model (an explanation of gravitation which cannot be tested by observations conducted only on or not very far above the surface of Earth.

But suspecting and accusing are two different things. And my main motive for challenging the Newtonian model was to preserve a polar distinction as opposed to presence absence opposition of heavy and light, as Aristotle had it, and I think now, this can be done without challenging Newton's model for how heavy objects are drawn to each other.

While I insist the fraud if such is not impossible, I am not accusing them of a fraud on that account.

I think the two paragraphs I anwered here are the most important ones as to Helio vs Geo debate. BUT there are a few more which are more into theology and where in fact they pose a few snares (let's hope for their sakes unwittingly) to the unwary. Those will require a separate part, namely part II, my answer part B. Here I conclude part A of my answer.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Xystus I
3.IV.2019

Romae natalis beati Xysti Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, temporibus Hadriani Imperatoris, summa cum laude rexit Ecclesiam, ac demum, sub Antonino Pio, ut sibi Christum lucrifaceret, libenter mortem sustinuit temporalem.

Creation vs. Evolution

Pages