Creation vs. Evolution

vendredi 19 mai 2023

Science and Scientific Method

Is this science?

LiveScience : 1.7 billion Tyrannosaurus rexes walked the Earth before going extinct, new study estimates
News, By Harry Baker, 17.V.2023
https://www.livescience.com/animals/dinosaurs/17-billion-tyrannosaurus-rexes-walked-the-earth-before-going-extinct-new-study-estimates

In April 2021, a study published in the journal Science estimated that up to 2.5 billion T. rex individuals lived between 68 and 65.5 million years ago, whenroamed Earth. But a new study, published April 18 this year in the journal Palaeontology, has challenged that number, suggesting the actual figure is probably closer to 1.7 billion.

Do you know how much actual observed remains we have of T. Rex?

30 complete skeleta, plus lots of stray smaller bones.

That is what I recall from the site Palaeocritti. Now, the story is, it once was a paid site, and I enjoyed it. I came to know, perhaps they announced it on their site, that they were no longer paying as per 2016, and the site would close down. I obtained from Nobu Tamura the right to make a salvage blog, but by the end of 2016, I thought the work was needed no more. See here:

Palaeocritti Blog : Good News!
https://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2016/11/good-news.html

Today, I wanted to go to the google site, remaining, unpaid, to verify the 30 skeleta, after writing above beginning of the essay mentioning them. I got a little shock:

Palaeocritti Blog : Bad News
https://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2023/05/bad-news.html

Now, it is true, Palaeofieldguide is still up, but it is less precise, saying about T. Rex only "several skeletons" ...

But I think, even with the skeleta being "several" instead of precisely 30, we are very far from the claim of 1.7 or the other claim of 2.5 billion. This kind of extrapolation is to my best estimate not actually science.

Now, some will pretend that at least we have it from the scientific method. Therefore we should trust it, as the scientific method is where we get useful things from. The people who think like this should really watch a video called "the Engineering Method" ... it overdoes the lack of science, notably geometrical, by Medieval Cathedral builders, but it will at least show "modern science" as per after the "Scientific Revolution" is far from necessary for actually getting things done, and done well:

Building a Cathedral without Science or Mathematics: The Engineering Method Explained
engineerguy, 9 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivqWN4L3zU

So, what were you saying again about us needing to trust science, because "scientific method" because that's the one and only thing providing useful knowledge? Nah, not really!/HGL

jeudi 18 mai 2023

Where Did Jesus Go?

Where Did Jesus Go? · "thy dwelling place" 3 Kings 8:30

I live a somewhat stressed life. I arrived to the Nanterre University Library a bit before 11, found it closed and realised, it is Ascension Day.

I had a little feast.

In the cyber, I am now ready to write the challenge to Heliocentrics that passed through my head when I realised it was Ascension.

Where did Jesus leave from? Mount of Olives.

Where did He arrive?

Here are some answers that do not really make much sense for a Catholic.

"Into a space ship": Makes perfect sense to a Raelian or a New Ager, but that is hardly the position of a Catholic.
"Nowhere, He was resumed into a mode of Godhood only, as before the Incarnation": This impugns the Incarnation. Christ did not cease to be human or cease to have a human, glorified, body, which is not a "spirit body" that's so "spiritual" it can be nowhere, when He rose or when He ascended.

The Incarnation doesn't get cancelled.
"Into another dimension": I actually quit Palmarian Church back in late 2002 over a quote from the Palmarian catechism, provided by a Sedevacantist friend.

"The Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Very Pure Virgin (Virgen Purísima) from the eighth dimension."

To St. Augustine, there are three dimensions of space. Not four, not eight. Just as there are Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity Who created space.
"Into another world": Like, Narnia or Charn being other universes, separate projects of creation, in CSL's very famous fiction.

This is less obnoxious, insofar as Bishop Tempier condemned the proposition that the First Cause (i e God) could not make more than one world.

VI:9 (34). Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere.

34 is the listing in Bishop Tempier's original condemnation on Laetare Sunday in early 1277 (or late 1276, as they put New Year at 25 March or April 1st back then), and in the English retake, it's in chapter VI errores de deo. It's proposition 9 of that chapter.

However, this is still not what Christians have traditionally held.
"The Eucharist shows ...": that Christ can be miraculously and in a sense exceptionally present in a place through the dimensions of another thing, transsubstantiated into His body or blood, but it presupposes there is some other place where Christ is under His own dimensions. If He's king of Heaven, arguably the foot measure in heaven is 1/6 of His body length, so where six heavenly feet of His body touch six heavenly feet of the surrounding space in Heaven.
"But where is that?": According to St. Thomas, the Empyraean Heaven is a place, same three dimensions as ours, placed above the fix stars. I would, due to its Biblical name "heavenly Jerusalem" venture it is past whatever star thats just above Jerusalem, neither North or South and neither East or West of it, at a specific time.

The Heliocentrics obviously have a problem with that, as Heliocentrism makes the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri (analysed apart from the c. 20 arc seconds considered "aberration of starlight") into parallax, same star in same place observed from slightly different angles. How slight? 0.76 arc seconds = 0.000 000 586 42 of a full circle. This along with the supposition that Earth is what annually twice over moves twice the Astronomical Unit* to opposite sides of the Sun, rather than Sun doing it to opposite places in the Zodiac or Ecliptic plane, makes α Centauri c. 4 light years away, that kind of "info" about fairly many "close" stars leads to a correlation between apparent star size and distance and this leads (with some further assumptions, not necessarily inherent in Heliocentrism, but accepted by Heliocentric astronomers) to a "Milky Way galaxy" c. 88 000 light years across and this being only one of several galaxies. With Geocentrism, by contrast, we can have stars in the relevant sense, i e fix stars, 1 light day up, and that would be then slightly lower than the height of Heavenly Jerusalem above earth. That's where Christ went, that's where He is, that's where He will return from./HGL

* 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) or 8.3 light-minutes according to the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

vendredi 12 mai 2023

Quick One on CMI

Jesuit accommodation in relation to biblical chronology and Chinese history
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(1):53–56, April 2022
https://creation.com/jesuit-accommodation-and-biblical-chronology

The Jesuit missionaries developed a policy of accommodation in relation to Chinese religious and cultural practices in the 17th century. The Order further received permission in AD 1637 to use the Septuagint, instead of the Latin Vulgate, to try and harmonize the biblical chronology with Chinese history.

The Roman Martyrology (for Dec 25) actually has a Septuagint based chronology, since Creation to Flood is 2242 years LXX for Genesis 5, and Flood to birth of Abraham is 942 years, LXX without the Second Cainan, for Genesis 11./HGL

PS, next day, two more quotes. With comments. First:

Without getting into a discussion over whether the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint provide the better chronology, the Jesuit motivation for preferring the Septuagint was not entirely pure, being based upon an accommodation to non-Christian beliefs.

We are dealing with:

non-Christian beliefs about history and chronology;
which unlike Egyptian and Sumerian king lists do not flatly contradict the Bible.

We do not deal with:

non-Christian beliefs about the universe;
which (unlike spirit beings moving stars) contradict Christian beliefs about the universe.

Why is the distinction an important one? Because for one, anything contradicting the Bible, as such, all text versions and therefore the original autograph of the hagiographer, is clearly in and of itself by that fact alone false. For another, history and chronology tend to be pretty easy to verify, even by non-Christians (and so are some of the items of cosmology, geocentrism being true and spirits moving celestial bodies, or the soul being immaterial and therefore immortal).

Second:

The China missionaries had gained permission from the Vatican in AD 1637 to use the longer chronology of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), instead of the Latin Vulgate that is based upon the Rabbinical Masoretic Text.

Actually, the Masoretic text is from AD 1000 and the Vulgate from AD c. 400. It is a matter of opinian whether St. Jerome had access to the Hebrew text as in being able to read it, or whether he was using Aquila of Sinope. However, it is very clear that the two earliest translations into Greek are the Septuagint and Aquila. The Septuagint was made by people who were waiting for Christ. Aquila made himself a disciple of rabbi Akiba who represented a Judaism which had already rejected the true promised one.

Now, two or three more things, without quotes.

With all adaptations that Jesuits made to Chinese rituals, they kept the Catholic belief pure.
The main harm done by Chinese Rites was by people hearing the one describe it (as does Sibley) as a concession to Pagan and erroneous beliefs, and seeing the other, a Jesuit, as a better friend. People started adapting to, not what the Jesuits did, but what their accusers thought they did.
Their "adaptation" clearly allowed them to make all of Chinese history post-Flood, if not post-Babel (and "they" who "removed from the East" were arguably not all of mankind, but a global élite, keeping in touch with relatives ranging from Thogorma's to Regma's tribes and Jectan's too. The ones concluding against a global Flood were arguably more likely to come from people sharing the esteem for Chinese historiography and also not sharing the Septuagint solution.
The secular learned men who were here cited as deviating from Biblical history, namely Vossius, Isaac La Peyrère, Giordano Bruno, were none of them Catholics in good standing with their written works too:
- Vossius was a Protestant;
- Isaac La Peyrère was a Jew, who shilly-shallied about converting to Protestantism or Catholicism, and his book was condemned, even if he was saving his soul, dying among Oratorian fathers in Aubervilliers;
- Giordano Bruno was a Dominican lapsing from the faith who ended up on the stake in 1600, and Protestants and Freemasons have contributed much more than Catholics or specifically Jesuits to give him an undue influence.

PPS, as Sibley is attacking the fact of believing Pagan beliefs about their history, he is in fact attacking the basis for believing Christian history, including existence of Jesus or authorship of the Gospels or founding of a Church that recognised that authorship and the life of Her Founder, at once Divine and Human.

Because, beliefs about the public or otherwise accessible past is the bread and butter of how history is tested. I'll link to previous writings on diverse of the topics touched on in the comment or comments.
/HGL

mardi 9 mai 2023

You are Not Damned for Being Named Darwin

St. Paul had a friend who was called Apollo. And check out this:

Pope John II (Latin: Ioannes II; died 8 May 535), born Mercurius, was the bishop of Rome from 2 January 533 to his death. As a priest at St. Clement's Basilica, he endowed that church with gifts and commissioned stone carvings for it. Mercurius became the first pope to adopt a new Papal name upon his elevation to the office.

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

So, you can be named, as a child, Mercury or Apollo ir Satan or Darwin, you are not damned for it.

You can even have a gematria adding up to 6-hundred-6-ty-6 and not be damned for that. The Antichrist will have that gematria, when it becomes clear he is the Antichrist, I already have a canditate whos's probable, but he will be damned for his deeds, not for his gematria.

However, I think it would be a grave sin to name your children Satan, and it would also be a grave sin to name them Darwin. Or is. A certain Aussie family was mildly chastised on vacation.

Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu and their children Darwin and Lenny.

Carausu said the family was unaware the monkeys could be so aggressive while spending time at the picturesque Thai beach.

Parhaps she thought monkeys and apes would be fairly civilised creatures, since "our close relatives"? A belief perhaps encapsuled when she named her boy Darwin? Or more strongly in Whitelum, if he took the initiative.

"I'm not kidding babe, they went for Darwin," Whitelum tells Carausu.
"Lenny literally said 'is it going to get me' and I said 'no mate, no' and then they just went for Darwin.
"I'm really glad the boys didn't get bitten."

Whitelum actually had a bite. Now here is the link:

Aussie family attacked by monkeys at popular beach in Thailand
By Savannah Meacham • Associate Producer, 5:50pm Mar 21, 2023
https://www.9news.com.au/world/australian-family-sailing-monkey-attack-monkey-beach-thailand/

Glad it wasn't their boat they named so ominously ill! God speed their sailing trip./HGL

mercredi 3 mai 2023

Answering the "10 questions to ask a young earth creationist"

This post is pre-programmed for Inventio Crucis, May 3rd. I have given the link, and copied all of the ten questions by a "priest-in-charge at St Annes Woodplumpton" (who as Anglican isn't a priest), and am starting the answering today, the feast of St. Paul of the Cross (unlike Michael Roberts so far at least, he was a real priest in earthly life and is so for eternity). Each question is given the proper html only when answered - then it has a header in bold and is given as a blockquote./HGL

10 questions to ask a young earth creationist
13 November 2018, by Michael Roberts
https://www.premierunbelievable.com/topics/10-questions-to-ask-a-young-earth-creationist/12015.article

1. Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?

The centre of the Gospel is the crucified and risen Christ, and everything in the Old Testament leads up to that. Jesus, and not the age of my rock collection, is the heart of the Christian faith.

It's a Christological question whether He always spoke truly, or sometimes only subjectively truthfully, but deceived by a cultural wrong understanding.

The latter does not stand, if He came to witness to Truth.

2. Does the age of the earth – or its shape – matter to a Christian?

For a Christian, the earth could be 10,000, 10,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 years old and it does not matter which, as the Bible is not clear on the matter. But to go against the proven results of science is simply folly. For 250 years, geologists have only found evidence for an ancient earth and none for a young earth.

Three things to note.

Even 10 000 years old is iffy, how one avoids at once pre-Adamites (human beings dying before Adam's sin), large gaps in genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (when we find gaps in other genealogies, they are shorter than the genealogy as given, not longer) and non-historicity of Genesis 3 - so, yes, it does matter, even apart from the Christological point already made;
The Bible is clear on the matter that the earth is NOT 100 000 years old, and so were the Church Fathers - Khemetism and Zuism or Caldanism actually have longer religious chronologies, that were directly opposed as fabulous by Church Fathers noting them;
It is far from foolish to oppose what's wrongly presented as the "proven results of science" and the geologists finding evidence only for an ancient and none for a young earth are a selection that doesn't include Tas Walker.

3. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?

Young earth creationists will often argue there is science in the Bible because the biblical writers were inspired to teach that, contrary to the wisdom of their time, the earth was spherical.

Some claim Isaiah 40:22 points to the earth being spherical. But the translations rightly say a “circle” not a sphere. Neither is it possible to read a spherical earth into Genesis 1:6-8. This is because the Bible is not interested in science. Galileo said “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go.”

Here there are even five things to answer:

to the first audience, the Bible was neutral, precisely as the first audience of the NT didn't know its praise of Thessalonica and Beroea added up to a Bible with 72 or 73 books overall and 45 or 46 books in the OT - the distance is, as we know from modern measurements, 45 miles or 73 km - likewise, the first audience did not know that the four corners go better with maps on a globe than with the best known flat earth map, but we know it now
Isaiah 40:22 uses, in the LXX, a word meaning circuit or circumference - compatible with a round earth as well as with a flat earth - however, it is less easy to combine circuit and four corners on a flat earth than on a globe, where the continents have four main corners as they approach the sea
St. Augustine had no problem combining Genesis 1:6 - 8 with a round earth - it is very different to see what the text says from cross checking one term in the text with other cultures and concluding - perhaps too soon - that the other cultures in the Ancient Near East had a flat earth view, and than to conclude from that that the term chosen implies a Flat Earth view in Genesis 1 - too
there is therefore neither in Isaiah 40:22, nor in Genesis 1, nor in Apocalypse 7:1 any scientific clear counterfactual statement that proves "the Bible is not interested in science"
Galileo is a very bad rolemodel for Christian thinking. He's a heliocentric too.

4. How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?

Geologists gradually began to see that the earth was older than Ussher’s age of 4004BC after 1680. Looking at the rocks in Nant Peris in Snowdonia the Rev John Ray, a great botanist, began to wonder if the earth was older than Ussher had suggested. He was tentative and rather sceptical, but was asking the right questions. By 1800, most thought the age of the earth was in millions and that included most Christians.

In the 20th Century, radiometric age dating showed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That is based on the physics of radioactivity and has nothing to do with evolution. If the dates are wrong then so is all physics.

Four things. And a fifth. Here:

the radiometric date being wrong doesn't invalidate "all physics" but just two guesses - that the lead content in meteorites was originally uranium content, and that the meteorites arrived when earth was formed with no previous decay;

Biblical chronology was not invented by Ussher, and so 4004 BC isn't the only Biblical epoch of creation;

by 1800 the "most" that thought the earth was millions of years, and including "most Christians" are limited to Englishmen of a certain type of education - a Catholic in Germany or Italy would have disagreed;

grasping how one arrives at "geologic time" is not necessary to grasp the simply mathematical concept of millions of years. Year was expressable. Million could be expressed as "a thousand thousands" and 100 000 000 as "ten thousand ten thousands" as these numbers occur in the Bible.

And why pose the redaction of Genesis into 1000 BC? Moses arguably wrote it around the Exodus event, 1510 BC.

5. Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?

The biblical writers use language in many different ways. There’s narrative, poetry, simile, metaphor and more. At times narrative, even when historical, may contain poetry. Thus Genesis 1 appears to be narrative at first sight but then each day is written in a poetic-like form; “Then God said, ‘Let there be…” followed by “And God saw that …. Was good” with a refrain “And there was evening and morning…” Just because poetry is used does not mean it is “untrue”. Psalm 23 is pure poetry using great imagery to bring out the love of God.

A historic narrative can contain inserted pieces of poetry. Adam makes a poem about Eve, Lamech makes a poem about revenge. Deborah and Barak sing poetry about Jael killing Sisera (part of the reason why Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42 are proof texts for the Immaculate conception - "blessed among women" is a military award for killing (or crushing the head of) an important enemy of Israel). But such pieces of poetry are usually identifiable.

Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos.

This does NOT seem to be (105 or 205 years, depending on text version, Enos or Enosh also) poetry. It's Genesis 5:6.

The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 put, depending on text versions, Abraham going to Egypt or Abraham born 1599 to 3434 (may be slightly incorrect) years after Adam was made. If anyone says "the genealogy in Matthew 1 is incomplete," it leaves out about 5 % - not 95 %. If we might extend it to just below 4000, we can't extend it to 5000 years, let alone 40 000 years.

If we limit ourselves to figurative or other not immediately intuitive usages within Genesis 1, combining millions of years before the first man with men only existing for c. 5000 - 6000 years prior to Christ is theologically a not too bad option, accepted as not heretical by the Catholic Church, defended, along Young Earth Creationism from 1830's to 1890's both in Gap Theory version and Day Age theory version. B U T, it is, at least since carbon dating, incompatible with the scientific evidence.

And apart from clear Sapiens type skeleta dated beyond 20 000 BP, we now have clear evidence Neanderthals too were men, like clear traces of human behaviour, things needing planning that only a rational mind created in God's image (and sometimes deviating from God's likeness) could do, plus the genetic fact that we have partly Neanderthal ancestry. This means all Neanderthals, none of whom have actual body parts dated to more recently than 40 000 BP, descend from Adam. If the atmosphere they breathed was still relatively young (1655 to 2262 years old, perhaps just 1306 years old when the Flood struck), this could be because the carbon 14 level had not yet reached anywhere near 100 pmC in the atmosphere.

The Flood would certainly leave lost of the things used to date "millions of years" and we can't put Noah on a time machine to BC times.

6. Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?

The theory goes that because no animals died before the fall, therefore the earth must be young. But Genesis 3 actually says nothing about animals and whether they only died after the fall. This has been read into Genesis. It comes from John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost and should not be part of Christian belief.

While I favour the view that animals with "the breath of life" didn't die before Adam sinned, as a patristically warranted but not compulsory reading of Romans 5, defended by early Church Fathers, but not all Church Fathers, we can definitely conclude that Adam didn't have parents that died before he sinned - or parents at all. If he had parents that could speak, they were created in God's image, and Adam isn't the first man. If they couldn't speak, this would have made Adam a feral child, which is a terrible condition, and which God could not have imposed on His image and likeness before He sinned.

7. Is young earth creationism the traditional Christian view?

The early Christians, right up to 1800, were not clear on the age of the earth as that depended on how literal they thought Genesis was and they had no geological evidence to guide them. Later, as geology began to show an old earth, most Christians accepted that as it did not affect Christian teaching. From 1850 onwards few Christians were young earth and it only came back in for some in the 1960s, with the coming of young earth creationism in Morris and Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood.

Wrong. I have already mentioned that Catholics from 1830's to 1890's were divided into YEC, Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, but the early Christians were only YEC. They may have taken different approaches to the literality of six days, but none took a non-literal approach to Genesis 5 and 11. The only lack of clarity was about what text version to best use, and some exegetical choices too.

8. Were early geologists opposed to Christianity and did they use their geology to undermine belief?

I once did a field trip with an atheist geologist and as we chatted he said that belief in an ancient earth leads to atheism. We argued and got nowhere! Yet when you read a history of geology you soon find many geologists were Christians, from Steno in 1680 up until today.

Steno was a Young Earth Creationist and a Flood Geologist.

Geology used to undermine Biblical chronology comes from clear un-Christians like James Hutton or semi-pseudo-Christians (liberal theologians) like Charles Lyell.

9. Did Christians oppose old earth geology in the past?

From my superficial reading of science books and on religion and science I thought Christians opposed geology. But I changed my mind as I did a historical study. Over several decades I have researched this question and read old theology books, journals, books by the hundred. I had to change my mind. I found that in the 17th Century Christians believed in a youngish earth as there was little geology to guide them. As geology was studied more in the 18th century more and more educated Christians realised the earth was ancient. Most Christians, often after study, concluded the earth was ancient. Very few Christians opposed geology for the last few centuries.

How much does your reading include French, German, Italian Catholic priests? Not very much, it seems. In the 1860's Paris and Louvain are still holding out against Old Earth Geology. In the 1890's, this region is indeed "Old Earth" territary, but Germany, Italy and Austria aren't.

Ottaviani at the wake of Vatican II (whether you accept the council as legitimate or not) was preparing a text to dogmatise God created heaven and earth and everything in them literally as

10. Why do you claim that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?

I don’t know how many geologists have studied rocks and the strata in the last 350 years. Today there are 12,000 fellows of the Geological society of London and so there must be over 100,000 qualified geologists in the world. And all except for 20-30 “young earth” geologists accept the vast age of the earth.

Undoubtedly geologists make mistakes today and did so in the past. I can give a dozen examples from Charles Darwin alone. But his and other geologists’ mistakes are minor. So far no young earther has given an argument against geological time which has any validity.

Simple math. 2018 - 350 = 1668. EVERY Geologist back then we Young Earth Creationist. AND Flood Geologist. Hutton produced his work 1788, 120 years later, and didn't get an immediate yes from all geologists.

Christians - even conservative Catholics - abandoned Flood geology for the whole Earth in response to two arguments:

the Linnean species known from different localities all around the Earth are too many for the Ark;
one cannot argue that the waters were adequate to cover all mountains by saying those higher than the waters of the Oceans and the ice would cover rose after the Flood, because the Pyrenees are geologically so much older than for instance the Alps.

Whatever the theological incompleteness of CMI or AiG, they are definitely adequate to answer that, and their answer can be resumed as:

the kinds are not Linnean species, all present hedgehogs (a subfamily) have evolved from the hedgehog couple on the Ark;
one can argue that the waters were adequate to cover all mountains by saying those higher than the waters of the Oceans and the ice would cover rose after the Flood, because the Pyrenees don't look less pointed because they are older and more worn than the Alps, but because they rose after the Flood by another process.

There is another aspect to this question.

Steno, Hutton and Lyell, Young Earth and Old Earth alike, were all of them what one may term "hobby scientists" or at least people dedicating a life work or parts of a life work (Steno died as bishop in partibus infidelium, Denmark or North Germany, among Lutherans) to something that there was no available professional formation for.

Once science becomes effectively professionalised or "expertisised" (well after Lyell, who was by training a lawyer and a botanist) most geologists have been old earth. Most, not all. Why? Because those who professionalised geology were themselves studying it in a non-professional way, in a pioneering way, among the Old Earth school, and those who weren't were marginalised by the end of the 19th C. which was by any previous standards a highly Antichristian era.

The "problem" Michael Roberts proposes is presented like parallel to "why do all Mathematicians since Pythagoras say the square of the hypothenuse is the sum of the squares of the sides adjacent to the right angle?" when it's more like a question of successive paradigm, a k a intellectual fashion, like the last centuries have seen professional astronomy monopolised (basically) by heliocentrics, while a much longer time was seeing them defending geocentrism (including, famously, Father Riccioli's Almagestum Novum).

Please Note:

I had already written a reply to the ten questions and forgotten about it: Ten Answers (a bit more than 4 years ago, seen 298 times separately, plus the times it was seen when on the front page of the blog)
I have made very sure than Michael Roberts knows of my answers, in advance. As per 2.V.2023, 6 pm, no answer arrived to the mail I sent from.

mardi 2 mai 2023

I Hope Karlo Broussard and Tim Staples Believe Genesis 3 is Strictly Speaking History

If they don't, this doesn't make sense, on their part:

Why Does Jesus Always Call Mary "Woman"?
Catholic Answers, 3 April 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqg68jsoeEg

It still makes sense* objectively, since Genesis 3 is history. But it would not make sense on their part.

If they do, it makes sense on their part, as it does objectively.

But if so, they have to clarify why they are accepting as Pope a man who seems to be pretty certainly believing Genesis 1 - 11 is some other genre than history proper, and are even in Communion with people who prefer to take that stance when they are debating the Creation versus Evolution issue./HGL

* They don't stick to the "ipsa conteret" - but St. Gabriel and St. Elizabeth Cohen do. "Blessed among women" is, as Patrick Madrid pointed out, a military award to women having crushed or severed the head of a very important enemy of Israel, namely previously given by prophets, i e by the Holy Ghost, to Jael and to Judith.

vendredi 21 avril 2023

What Project?