1 Creationism vs. Evolution, considering Thomism, Bi... 1 b Good and bad news 2 Chromosome numbers (first published on Communities... 3 Ancient Sea Scorpion ... (news with comment) 4 Old News, New News, Good News (link) 5 Update on chromosome numbers 6 Speciations observed - but not in mammals. 7 Citing, again, Ian Johnston 8 Non-replies 9 Chromosome numbers
mardi 5 juin 2012
mercredi 23 mai 2012
I found a good link on Creation Ministries International
The main gist of the article deals with supposed impossibility of a recent flood with 8 human survivors as argued from "how could we be so many" and argues, as I had done myself in my high-school days (I was unlike Dr Don Batten a Creationist well before University and even before my Catholic Conversion), that the population growth implied is quite believable if you reason mathematically.
But he actually goes on from there to make an argument against the evolutionist scenario. I leave it to your own reading, since I link to the article (see below).
And - here is a point too, but one which I have been making much more recently - he says modern welfare society produces smaller families than rural societies. Here is where I will quote, since he makes a point and still does not get all of it:
Now, the problem with this latter approach is also, it will only work for so many generations. In Europe indigenous women (excluding immigrant and few immigrations after immigration) are below reproduction rate. That is: either welfare system will break down when there are too many old among the young, or it will be kept up for a time by immigration. But if ever immigrants of a non-European culture - or of a few non-European cultures combined - become the majority, they will hardly keep on paying to a welfare system which ruined the majority position of the previous majority population, us. Not because they are monsters with no sense of solidarity or brutal hatred of white men (some few at least are a bit like that too, but that is not my main point), but simply because they are not stupid.
If you inherited a house because previous owner ruined himself by opium abuse - would you want to keep the opium pipe smoking any longer than when you could stop it? The welfare system is the opium of the people, specifically of women. Solidarity naturally spells: couples raise children, grown children provide for aged parents. Aged people without children capable of looking after them are looked after by neighbours. And that is not an incentive for women to stay away from childbed and go to work, but the reverse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU-UPJV, Beauvais
23-V-2012
Article cited:
Where are all the people?
by Don Batten
creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
Even if he is not a Catholic, he did provide an argument for Catholic sexual and family morality. Thank you!
But he actually goes on from there to make an argument against the evolutionist scenario. I leave it to your own reading, since I link to the article (see below).
And - here is a point too, but one which I have been making much more recently - he says modern welfare society produces smaller families than rural societies. Here is where I will quote, since he makes a point and still does not get all of it:
What causes population growth?
The population grows when more people are born than die. The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.2 In other words, for every 100 million people, 1.7 million are added every year; i.e. births net of deaths.
Many assume that modern medicine accounts for the world’s population growth. However, ‘third world’ countries contribute most of the population growth, suggesting that modern medicine is not as important as many think.
Population growth in a number of South American and African countries exceeds 3% per year. In many industrialized countries with modern medical facilities, the population growth is less than 0.5%. Some relatively wealthy countries are actually declining in population.
The move from agriculture to manufacturing/technology has been a big factor in slowing population growth in industrialized countries. Farmers needed to have sons to help with the farm work. This was particularly necessary before mechanization. My own family records show that in the early- to mid-1800s in Australia, couples commonly had 8–10 surviving children. One couple had 16! And this was before the discovery of the germ basis of disease,3 aseptic surgery,4 vaccines3 and antibiotics. Opportunity to expand, combined with biology, saw growth in population of 4% or more, plus increases due to immigration. High rates of population growth were also seen in Quebec, Canada, from 1760 to 1790, following the British conquest of Canada in 1759,5 and well before the impact of modern medical knowledge.
In industrialized countries, the advent of social security pensions and retirement plans (superannuation) has probably been another major factor in the decline of population growth. These schemes mean that people do not see the need to have children for security in their old age. Furthermore, people can now easily choose how many children they have because of modern birth control methods, such as the contraceptive pill.
Now, the problem with this latter approach is also, it will only work for so many generations. In Europe indigenous women (excluding immigrant and few immigrations after immigration) are below reproduction rate. That is: either welfare system will break down when there are too many old among the young, or it will be kept up for a time by immigration. But if ever immigrants of a non-European culture - or of a few non-European cultures combined - become the majority, they will hardly keep on paying to a welfare system which ruined the majority position of the previous majority population, us. Not because they are monsters with no sense of solidarity or brutal hatred of white men (some few at least are a bit like that too, but that is not my main point), but simply because they are not stupid.
If you inherited a house because previous owner ruined himself by opium abuse - would you want to keep the opium pipe smoking any longer than when you could stop it? The welfare system is the opium of the people, specifically of women. Solidarity naturally spells: couples raise children, grown children provide for aged parents. Aged people without children capable of looking after them are looked after by neighbours. And that is not an incentive for women to stay away from childbed and go to work, but the reverse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU-UPJV, Beauvais
23-V-2012
Article cited:
Where are all the people?
by Don Batten
creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
Even if he is not a Catholic, he did provide an argument for Catholic sexual and family morality. Thank you!
jeudi 26 avril 2012
To an Atheist Teenager called Autumn Lauber
On your FB page there are roses on the picture on the wall. My guess is some person with good taste put them there because they are beautiful. Like - you?
In the "general picture" of the universe too there are roses. Someone maybe put them there, for similar reasons, and maybe did so with you too.
Now, when it comes to hypotheses, they do not prove themselves even in sciences. Experiments are arranged because this or that person already believes a thing and wants to prove it. Digging for fossilised skeletons has been very much more done since Darwinism came to be an issue. So having a thesis and looking for confirmation (if at least in principle ready to accept the inverse too) is not a fault.
Now, when it comes to the creationist thesis, someone putting roses and you in the general picture for similar reasons you put roses on your wall photo, I have so far found nothing to invalidate it. And I did start out with an opposite one, that all of us came from one-celled organisms that evolved without any kind of divine internvention. I find that thesis very much harder to believe than there being elves behind the garden - or angels for that matter. Feel welcome to ask for details./HGL
In the "general picture" of the universe too there are roses. Someone maybe put them there, for similar reasons, and maybe did so with you too.
Now, when it comes to hypotheses, they do not prove themselves even in sciences. Experiments are arranged because this or that person already believes a thing and wants to prove it. Digging for fossilised skeletons has been very much more done since Darwinism came to be an issue. So having a thesis and looking for confirmation (if at least in principle ready to accept the inverse too) is not a fault.
Now, when it comes to the creationist thesis, someone putting roses and you in the general picture for similar reasons you put roses on your wall photo, I have so far found nothing to invalidate it. And I did start out with an opposite one, that all of us came from one-celled organisms that evolved without any kind of divine internvention. I find that thesis very much harder to believe than there being elves behind the garden - or angels for that matter. Feel welcome to ask for details./HGL
Debating again with Patristics Debater
Hans-Georg Lundahl > J. U. :
April 18 at 1:10pm
Evolution: Fact or Belief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWDZe8ZtneE
J. U. :
after the first two minutes, i think i can see where this is going. life does not come from non-life. but God is alive, and life comes from Him.
if we really knew of what life consisted, this would be clear.
April 19 at 12:53am
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Well, that resumes the first five or ten minutes - then there are a lot of other subjects (including two dating related)
April 19 at 12:02pm
J. U. :
finished. interesting.
April 20 at 12:05am
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
OK, special creation of each species is not better than evolution? How?
April 20 at 11:01am
J. U. :
Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?
Yesterday at 7:59am
J. A. · Friends with J. U. :
When you refer to dating methods not available to Darwin, would that include "speed dating?"
Yesterday at 8:02am
J. U. :
Much of evolution is speed dating.
Yesterday at 9:34am · Likes: 1.
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
"Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?" - No. Obviously not. Why would a Christian require such? Or are you not into "God almighty, creator of heaven and of earth of all things visible and invisible" at all? I thought you were a Catholic. God is not an observed natural process.
20 hours ago
J. U. :
Are you not into "Primum Movens"? We see God's action through nature.
14 hours ago
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
We do. That does not mean that there are infinite in-betweens between our seing and his doing: there are definite points at which he moves immediately the result without any intervening second cause. In time one of them is creation. If Geocentrism is true there is a similar "point" about primum mobile being moved directly by God, even if lower things closer to earth are moved through it. And there are miracles.
And between God and us, the number of secondary causes is always finite (quia infinita pertransire impossibile). You also asked if there were a natural process causing special creation of each species to take place. No, but there is one keeping each kind within its place, it was discovered by Mendel and by Microscopes - it is called chromosome numbers. They do not vary at random as do the genes. Nor are they totally fixed - but the laws of their variations do rule out placental mammals having a common ancestor.
Considering where you studied, you ought to have a better grasp on St Thomas Aquinas than you do! Really!
@J. A. - speed dating is as for radioactive dependent on guesses concerning how much (how much C14 to start, how much lead was there to start, how much Uranium salt has been washed out) and as for sediment dating it is very dependent on how fast, since that varies considerably (which is not the only factor making for several billions of years of error, but one important of them). The video - have you seen it - gives a take on sediments I did not already view, watch it!
2 seconds ago
April 18 at 1:10pm
Evolution: Fact or Belief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWDZe8ZtneE
J. U. :
after the first two minutes, i think i can see where this is going. life does not come from non-life. but God is alive, and life comes from Him.
if we really knew of what life consisted, this would be clear.
April 19 at 12:53am
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
Well, that resumes the first five or ten minutes - then there are a lot of other subjects (including two dating related)
April 19 at 12:02pm
J. U. :
finished. interesting.
- 1) this brings doubt upon the conclusions of dating methods.
- 2) Darwin had none of these dating methods.
- 3) we still have no theory better than evolution.
April 20 at 12:05am
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
OK, special creation of each species is not better than evolution? How?
April 20 at 11:01am
J. U. :
Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?
Yesterday at 7:59am
J. A. · Friends with J. U. :
When you refer to dating methods not available to Darwin, would that include "speed dating?"
Yesterday at 8:02am
J. U. :
Much of evolution is speed dating.
Yesterday at 9:34am · Likes: 1.
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
"Are there observed natural processes which cause special creation of species?" - No. Obviously not. Why would a Christian require such? Or are you not into "God almighty, creator of heaven and of earth of all things visible and invisible" at all? I thought you were a Catholic. God is not an observed natural process.
20 hours ago
J. U. :
Are you not into "Primum Movens"? We see God's action through nature.
14 hours ago
Hans-Georg Lundahl:
We do. That does not mean that there are infinite in-betweens between our seing and his doing: there are definite points at which he moves immediately the result without any intervening second cause. In time one of them is creation. If Geocentrism is true there is a similar "point" about primum mobile being moved directly by God, even if lower things closer to earth are moved through it. And there are miracles.
And between God and us, the number of secondary causes is always finite (quia infinita pertransire impossibile). You also asked if there were a natural process causing special creation of each species to take place. No, but there is one keeping each kind within its place, it was discovered by Mendel and by Microscopes - it is called chromosome numbers. They do not vary at random as do the genes. Nor are they totally fixed - but the laws of their variations do rule out placental mammals having a common ancestor.
Considering where you studied, you ought to have a better grasp on St Thomas Aquinas than you do! Really!
@J. A. - speed dating is as for radioactive dependent on guesses concerning how much (how much C14 to start, how much lead was there to start, how much Uranium salt has been washed out) and as for sediment dating it is very dependent on how fast, since that varies considerably (which is not the only factor making for several billions of years of error, but one important of them). The video - have you seen it - gives a take on sediments I did not already view, watch it!
2 seconds ago
dimanche 11 mars 2012
An Atheist too angry at Creationism to read what a creationist is actually writing?
You judge. He claimed I had taken some pin hole in the evidence and basically clung to it as a drowning man to a straw. That is not my impression of what I wrote.
@24arimar But evolution is not supported by thousands of pieces of good evidence, and then there is evidence that is not good evidence for evolution.
I am saying there is a real evidence AGAINST evolution, plus the fact that none of your "good" evidence, except for non-speciation variation in mammals or for speciation by polyploidy inplants and similar "microevolutionary events" is evidence for evolution to the exclusion of other alternatives. o-x . fr / 30jp - enjoy if you can read!
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=mHLRDwylAEI
@24arimar But evolution is not supported by thousands of pieces of good evidence, and then there is evidence that is not good evidence for evolution.
I am saying there is a real evidence AGAINST evolution, plus the fact that none of your "good" evidence, except for non-speciation variation in mammals or for speciation by polyploidy inplants and similar "microevolutionary events" is evidence for evolution to the exclusion of other alternatives. o-x . fr / 30jp - enjoy if you can read!
- Could not be posted:
- "Vous avez été bloqué par le propriétaire de cette vidéo."
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=mHLRDwylAEI
mercredi 7 mars 2012
Verifiable Does Not Equal Material and Natural
It was like that science used to function. It cannot be shown it was less fertile in technological applications then - goggles were invented by pretty certainly Catholic optic students and electric battery was invented by Volta, who was a Catholic. Pascal was a Jansenist and as such got freewill wrong, but he got creation right. And he gave us the wheelbarrow.
Mendel - whose discoveries were deliberately ignored by Evolutionists for some 50 years - and who gave us laws of heredity quite certainly thought of them only as secondary causes, and of God as the first cause of heredity. He was a monk cultivating and crossbreeding pea varieties for the monastic kitchen, as well as for studies on tied and non tied variables.
Well, seems AronRa still has some kind of issue with non-material causes and their supposed lack of verifiability.
When explaining the scientific method, he even says, at least on one video against the "Texas Board of Indoctrination" that enquiry has been limited to "verifiable, natural, material causes" as if those were synonyms.
Now, funny thing is, neither are all material causes verifiable, nor are all verifiable causes material.
Photons and electrons may be verifiable in the end, but they are not verifiable as a piece of blunt lead is verifiable when fitting with the dent in the head of the corpse. Or as a pistol is verifiable when shooting bullets of same size and scratch pattern as those found in the wall behind the corpse shot to death.
Now, how would you verify something immaterial, such as God?
- - Enumerating all possibilities and eliminating all material and non-divine ones.
- - Enumerating necessary characteristics of a certain cause for a certain effect, and seeing the characteristics lead to non-material conclusions.
- - God choses to make himself material and so be verified materially, we Christians claim that happened 2000 years ago.
- - God repeats his works of upholding and creating the universe in miniature to comply with the repeatability criterium of scientific method.
Enumerating all possibilities and eliminating all material and non-divine ones. - Anything that seems to be (seems to be substance in Aristotle's sense), either it is an illusion, or it really subsists. Anything that exists, either it exists from eternity or it came to existance. Anything that came to existance, it either was created by some intelligent designer, or came to being and that either by change from within, according to possibilities unfolding or by chance from without. So if illusion and eternity and pure chance and evolution can all be ruled out for say life or human intelligence, we have proven an inteklligent creator.
Enumerating necessary characteristics of a certain cause for a certain effect, and seeing the characteristics lead to non-material conclusions. - Acts of mind and of will reveal on introspection immaterial characteristics, which means that mind itself, giving rise to them, is immaterial.
God choses to make himself material and so be verified materially, we Christians claim that happened 2000 years ago. - Only problem: did Jesus exist and did he show himself to be God. We say yes, to both. But that is what I am arguing about on quite another blog, dedicated to vindicating Gospels rather than Genesis, so I had better link there. In the main, the showing himself to be God part coincides with the next part: God repeats his works of upholding and creating the universe in miniature to comply with the repeatability criterium of scientific method.
- Checklist:
- God created man? Then he could once again create someone without parents or without one of the parents. Virgin Birth.
- God created life and health? Then he can restore it to the dead and to the sick. Raisings of dead (Jairus' daughter, the widow's son and Lazarus) and healing of innumerous blind, deaf-and-dumb, lepers, bent people, etc.
- God has defeated demons? Then they exist, can tamper with our lives and Christ could easily defeat them again, by exorcism. Check the possessed man at Gadara and quite a few others. Including the one which provoked the extremely dishonest incredulity of Pharisees in Matthew Ch. 12.
- God has created the vine and fermentation? He made water into wine over shorter time than usual in Cana.
- God has created other plants and also animals? He multiplied loaves and fishes, twice.
- God has created physical nature? He stilled the storm. The sun went dark when he died.
- God has created gravity? He walked on water and rose to the clowds before the eyes of his disciples.
But, as said, that is a matter for another blog, about veracity and historic verifiability of the Gospels.
It is called "somewhere else" since an atheist not buying the Jesus mythers asked me to "preach to atheists somewhere else" than under comments on that post.
Here is the url:
"somewhere else"
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com
A little challenge for you, AronRa: millions and billions of years of time are part of the causes evolutionism accepts. And it is as material as a dimension in which matter exists and material states take place can be material. But is that length of time verifiable?
Why so shy about creationist pov on C14?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-so-shy-about-creationist-pov-on-c14.html
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library of Paris
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas, 7-III-2012
lundi 5 mars 2012
My Motivation for Arguing Against FFoCr Series
Youtube User: AronRa
The Texas Board of Indoctrination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq4oA
Having sound off on this computer, I cannot quote his final tirade from it, but here is my comment on it:
I really like your final tirade!
Pupils are intelligent enough to accept Evolution if given the main facts - but too easily misled if given details that are hard for experts.
Might I suggest they are "hard" to experts because they do not want to relinquish evolution?
o-x . fr / hspi - Karyogrammata. (copy link, remove spaces).
hglundahl
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)