tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post5717486356285786934..comments2024-03-19T00:07:15.498-07:00Comments on Creation vs. Evolution: Creation Ministries International are peer reviewed ... a bit too muchHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-27726063826582300972013-11-25T10:35:25.867-08:002013-11-25T10:35:25.867-08:00date : 25/11/13 à 18h21
objet : Your response to &...<br />date : 25/11/13 à 18h21<br />objet : Your response to 'God’s days vs man’s days?' <br /><br /><i>Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,<br /> Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled God’s days vs man’s days?.<br /> <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Your original comment:<br /> This link is for Dr Jonathan Sarfati personally - to publish or not, as he likes:<br /> <br />http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/11/creation-ministries-international-are.html <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Or not ... ;) </i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-61902694859282828662013-11-25T09:04:24.863-08:002013-11-25T09:04:24.863-08:00And look at this blooper:
Joshua’s command to the...And look at this blooper:<br /><br /><i><b>Joshua’s command</b> to the sun to stand still does not support geocentrism, i.e. the idea that the sun moves around the Earth. <b>The Bible uses the language</b> of appearance and observation.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://creation.com/joshuas-long-day" rel="nofollow">Apart from that this is a good article, supporting the historicity of Joshua Chapter 10:<br />http://creation.com/joshuas-long-day</a><br /><br />The thing is that the writer as narrator can use a merely conventional language, but we should be very wary of letting someone working a miracle formulate what shall miraculously happen in merely conventional language.<br /><br />Liberal Lutherans in Sweden have been saying basically <i>"since Joshua could use language appropriate to his hearers, though inexact, so could Jesus, and we need not assume from Jesus telling demons to get out of people that God wants us to belive in the existence of demons".</i><br /><br />One reason why I dislike Liberal Lutherans.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-80517434277021029182013-11-25T08:54:19.755-08:002013-11-25T08:54:19.755-08:00Now, he sent me his essay Galileo Quadricentennial...Now, he sent me his essay Galileo Quadricentennial, and I quote a few of its bloopers:<br /><br /><i>Not science vs religion, but science vs science<br /> <br />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—an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the centre of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a pagan philosophical system.</i><br /><br />1) The Church was not contradicting the Bible due to agreement with Aristotle and Ptolemy.<br /><br />2) The Church did not defend Ptolemy as such, only Geocentrism against Galileo.<br /><br />3) Unlike Ptolemaic theories contradicted by Galileo's discoveries of moons around Jupiter or spots on the sun, Geocentrism is an observation (by eyes and inner ears), it is Biblical (Joshua adressed sun and moon telling them to stop, not Earth).<br /><br />4) The Church in 1633 ultimately upheld exactly and only what was observational and Biblical against Galileo.<br /><br />Dr. Sarfati avoids the implication of Joshua's words. And in Psalm 92 he makes exactly the same blunders as already answered Faulkner in my article above.<br /><br />His conclusion is that of Schirrmacher:<br /><br /><i>Dr Thomas Schirrmacher summarized in an excellent article in our Journal of Creation:<br /> <br />“Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.”</i><br /><br />He was convicted of contradicting what the Bible in fact said. He was not sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life merely for disobeying the Pope, we Catholics do place the Bible above the Papacy.<br /><br />Cardinal John Torquemada (uncle of the Inquisitor), said so, and Urban VIII applied it, he was born 100 years after that Spanish Cardinal's passing away.<br /><br />Note also that Urban VIII refused to be among the judges, since he had been personally insulted. He did not want that to influence the judgement to the detriment of the Church.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-48268870814570090542013-11-25T08:39:13.057-08:002013-11-25T08:39:13.057-08:00Another article where they miss out due to their p...Another article where they miss out due to their peer reviewed ideological stance in advance:<br /><br /><a href="http://creation.com/gods-days" rel="nofollow">God’s days vs man’s days?<br />Published: 24 November 2013<br />http://creation.com/gods-days</a><br /><br />I try to comment (without linking to anything):<br /><br />The biggest two parallaxes are negative.<br /> <br />If they are really parallactic and just appear negative, and if so it is because zero parallax is positive parallax but perceived as zero because standard and measured positive parallaxes are at least 0.9 archseconds larger than measured.<br /> <br />Heliocentric case for small universe, does away with distant starlight very neatly.<br /> <br />If they are not parallactic in nature, but own movements of the stars, moved by angelic beings, then the negative parallaxes are yet a sign of this.<br /> <br />And angelic beings being or moving stars is taught in the Bible, like Job 38 or Baruch 3.<br /> <br />Then the measured positive parallaxes are also stars moved by angels, probably.<br /> <br />And then there is no case for "parallax proving heliocentrism" = Geocentric case for small universe.<br /> <br />Twenty years ago I was fine with "light created in transit", but was not aware of "distant" supernovas.<br /><br /><b>Not published but answered:</b><br /><br /><br />date : 25/11/13 à 16h57<br />objet : Your response to 'God’s days vs man’s days?' <br /><br /><i>Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,<br /> Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled God’s days vs man’s days?.<br /> <br />I'm not sure what you're asking. It would be useful to check our Creation Answers Book chapter on distant starlight along with the free study guide, from this page. We disagree with both "light created in transit", and with absolute geocentrism for reasons explained in <a href="http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial" rel="nofollow">http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial</a>.<br /> <br />Regards<br /> <br />Jonathan Sarfati</i><br /><br />I understand if he is "not sure what" I am asking, because I was not asking anything. I was proposing a solution which he was obstinately refusing to consider in the past and which by refusing to publish my comment he was again obstinately refusing.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3179072227484380121.post-17485267557104359232013-11-11T00:18:58.877-08:002013-11-11T00:18:58.877-08:00I got feedback from Shaun Doyle for this:
Dear HG...I got feedback from Shaun Doyle for this:<br /><br />Dear HG L,<br />Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled Do I have to believe in a historical Genesis to be saved?.<br /><br />We do not publish every comment we receive, which is a prerogative we reserve for our website (as no doubt you would on your own blog). In the case of your first comment, it was off topic; the article is about the requirements of salvation in relation to the origins debate, not about geocentrism. As for this comment, we do not generally respond to blog posts. All of this is evident on our article feedback form.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />Shaun Doyle<br />Creation Ministries International<br /><br />Off topic - granted. However, I do not prereview comments on my blogs. I reserve the right to delete ones.<br /><br />I think Young Earth and Geocentrism are similarily required for consistency but not for salvation, which is where I thought the comment on topic.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com