mercredi 14 juin 2017

Emmerde sur FB - ou sur l'ordi

Les notifications inaccessibles:

J'ai eu le temps de faire l'image, et les notifications, c'est encore comme ça! 24 notifications, mais inaccessibles./HGL

Assumptions involved in Carbon dating

Bill Ludlow

See that "National Center for Science Education" thing?

Status in group
I'm seeing a pattern in this group with the use of the word "assumptions." Whenever a creationist here can't explain something in accordance with their worldview they toss out that word as a kind of safety net or end all comment.

Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"

Sedimentary layers form in different environments? "Assumptions"

Millions of years? "Assumptions"

Transitional species? "Assumptions"

If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone with a scientific background you had better be prepared to list those assumptions and answer why the assumptions are invalid, otherwise you will be seen as someone who just brushes off solid evidence by repeating a catch phrase and hand waving. Sometimes what people call "assumptions" are actually inferences based on logical deductions. An assumption is an implicit or unstated premise. Assumptions don't stand on their own. When combined with facts, valid assumptions lead to valid inferences.

[Skipping image, for now.]

some, down to my answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Radiometric dating? "Assumptions"
With C14, once you date anything to 40 000 BP, you cannot calibrate that against historical texts dated historically to 40 000 year ago, you need to assume that the carbon 14 level throughout atmosphere and living things was much the same as it is today.

If it was in fact more like 1.5 percent of what it is today, you get instead ... that it took less than 5730 years to get from 1.5 percent to the 0.792 percent modern carbon we date as 40 000 BP.

The point is : some evolutionists think this is not an assumption at all, but a basical natural fact, that other evening i was hearing some guy call the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere and in still living things "a constant" which it is not.

NEXT question is which assumption is best warranted : a) constancy of carbon 14 level in atmosphere? or : b) reliability of the biblical chronology?

The first of these has as a consequence unreliability of biblical chronology and therefore of Bible as history.

The second of these has a consequence that carbon 14 level has risen (and that drastically, by faster additions than the ones we see now, since we are already in an equilibrial state in atmosphere).

So, to a normal, unbiassed philosopher, the discussion goes : which consequence is most unacceptable? or : which assumption is best warranted?

To one such who is agnostic, there is a really good test : first ears of cultivated wheat found 19 000 BP, first systematic trace of what about 10 000 BP. Right, man cultivated some ears of wheat for fun, didn't find it tasty, went back to hunting and gathering, and ten thousand years later only started going farmer?

Or the carbon chronology is messed up due to rising carbon levels? In that case there may have been a few generations or a century or two between oldest ancient wheat and second oldest wheat we have today. This sounds reasonable.

"Un administrateur
a désactivé les commentaires pour cette publication."

[No more comments possible on this status! It was an admin who did it.]

BUT before this happened, Bill Ludlow had given some answers, and so has Ken Hansen, which I will need to adress on blog:

Bill Ludlow
Scientific Laws backed by mathematical calculations are not assumptions, sorry.

Radioactive decay and exponential laws
By Ian Garbett

Answered here
There is no scientific law which states that the carbon 14 level in atmosphere needs to remain all eternity around 100 percent modern carbon [or pmc for short].

That is the ONE divergence between me and conventional carbon dating, and it involves NO divergence about what radioactive decay nor of what exponential laws of mathematics are.

In fact, it very totally builds on them.

You see, suppose the level were rising from 90 pmc to 100 pmc. The beginning of the period of rise would have only* 870 extra years, the end of it none. So, the period is only lengthened by 870 years.

Suppose instead we were looking at the rise from 20 to 30 pmc.

Beginning the period we get the extra years* at 13 300 and ending it we get 9950


The period is now lengthened by 3350 years. More than half of a halflife, not just 870 years.

If instead we were looking at the change from 10 to 20 pmc, we get a doubling. Can you guess what the period will be lengthened by?

I would say a halflife.

Shall we test?

Beginning the period, we have* 19050 extra years and ending it we have 13300 of them.


5750 is not far from the expected 5730. So the period is lengthened by a halflife. So is the period going from 5 to 10 or from 2.5 to 5 pmc : 24750 to 19050 gets a 5700 years lengthening, 30500 to 24750 is lengthened by 5750.



Due to the exponential laws precisely, at the beginning of a rise of carbon 14 levels - and no natural law cited as such precludes this - the small changes (compared to at present) of carbon 14 levels will give big lengthenings of time scales.

Also, due to exponentiality working same fashion of decay at same times whatever value one starts with, the extra years at the beginning - what would be detected as the age by scientists getting back in a time machine and dating recently felled trees or recently fallen twigs - remains an extra to whatever age supervenes in real years with lower carbon levels in object due to decay rather than due to timing in a theoretically possible carbon 14 rise.

* In all examples I am using the same "carbon 14 dating calculator" which I have used so often before and which is put online by evolutionists :

Your turn now : you test for the rise from 1.25 to 2.5 pmc. Try to guess how much the period will be lengthened? You have fewer extra years at the end and you subtract these from the more extra years at the beginning.

Ken Hansen
The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere.

Bill Ludlow
"since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

Nope, only for about the last 55,000 years since that is all the method is good for using standard counting techniques, and there are known fluctuations figured in. How far off would the assumptions have to be to make something that dates to 50,000 years fit into the YEC timeline?

Answered here
I have been working on that exact question for more than a year, since 2015 in october/november.

I have placed now the year of the Flood (2957 BC according to St Jerome and 3358 BC according to Syncellus) at carbon dated 40 000 BC. This means that sth dating 40 000 BP has 35026 extra years according to St Jerome.



35026 extra years means the carbon level was at 1.445 pmc. Which is about 69 times lower than the assumed c. 100 pmc.

Let's suppose the level was rising in the years between Creation and Flood too, this means the limit is this thing being dated to 5199 BC, but that is very unrealistic, we will still deal with it as a limit here:


42784 extra years

42784 extra years = a carbon level of 0.565 pmc, or c. 177 times lower carbon 14 level in atmosphere than expected by evolutionist assumptions.

Ken Hansen
That is an excerpt from the article you linked

Bill Ludlow
Okay, well "archaeological history" only goes back 2.5 million years with the discovery of the first tools, but we still are only talking about the atmospheric conditions within the last 55,000 years.

Answered here
Actually, the 2.5 million years are by a totally different dating method, namely mainly by K-Ar (potassium 40 to argon 40, reliability depends on there being no excess argon, which apparently sometimes there is, as said by evolutionists themselves about K-Ar datings of Mount St Helens)

We cannot say as per datings whether a K-Ar dated object from "2.5 million years ago" is less or more recent than a carbon dated one from "50 000 BP"

Ken Hansen
If C14 started being produced 6000 years ago, it would make a huge difference in the age calculations. From what I've read, the rate of decay and the rate of production of C14 is still out of equilibrium. This fits in with 6000 years but not 55000.

Bill Ludlow

How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if the rate of decay only fits a 6,000 year old earth?

Answered here
Ken, you are wrong, if the equilibrium were not already reached, we could not get a consistent half life for otherwise very well attested and very consistent last 2500 years.

Bill, you are wrong because you think we are talkuing about a different rate of decay, we are talking about a different level of initial C14.

Neither of you could probably have guessed that the buildup in order to fit an equilibrium reached 2500 years ago needs to involve an initially way faster production of C14 than now. One of my tables gave 20 times as fast as now, this means that the cosmic radiation would have been 20 times as great (supposing proportionality is direct and a "linear graph" between levels of the two).

A cosmic radiation 20 times higher in the year of the Flood as to now sounds much, but it is still not very much higher than the present total background radiation at Princeton. It's like going from 6 to 8 milliSieverts per year or less.

Ken Hansen
Because the rates should equalize within 30000 years

If there was little or no C14 6000 years ago, it would look pretty old if equilibrium is assumed.

Bill Ludlow
What evidence do you have there was no C 14 6000 years ago?

More assumptions?

Ken Hansen
Yep. You have yours, I have mine.

Answered here
Here I must agree with Ken : we are differing from Bill on what assumptions are MOST reasonable and what consequences of an assumption are LEAST acceptable.

The problem is, Bill and his fellows have been taught as if their case did not even need untested and untestable assumptions. It does.

Other problem, there seems to be some recent conspiracy around to "read" or "understand" creationists arguing about this, as if they were arguing about the rate of radioactive decay. Some few are, most of us are arguing about some kind of buildup of carbon 14 levels in the atmosphere. And this is being constantly ignored, despite this explanation having been around for decades, since Henry Morris, since Edgar Andrews and it has been restated recently by Kent Hovind as well.

I have a hard time seeing how intelligent atheists (and other evolutionists whom I consider syncretistic with the religious system called atheism, most times the word is used) could so systematically miss this without conspiring in some way to ignore the obvious.

If Bill Ludlow had taken the time to actually read what I wrote (the first thing I wrote, marked Hans-Georg Lundahl, not the rest marked "Answered here"), he would have known I was not challenging the exponential mathematics, I was not challenging the decay rate of C14 either, because I was instead challenging something else. Namely stability of carbon 14 level.

Then Ken Hansen brings it up again:

"The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide molecules is about 1.3×10-12, and this value is ASSUMED constant for the main part of archaeological history since the formation of the earth's atmosphere."

And Bill Ludlow again gasses on, after a few takes about

"How could we possibly date something at 40,000 years if THE RATE OF DECAY only fits a 6,000 year old earth?"

I don't think he is generally retarded, I think he is acting on this particular matter!

Signing my answers and for quotes from Bill and Ken being by copy-paste:

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Basil's inthronisation
as bishop of Neo-Caesaraea

It seems I misunderstood him, he was blocking me. I tested on the other profile I have./HGL

dimanche 11 juin 2017

Some guys tried to make her ridiculous instead of responding intelligently

Here is a FB publication on FreakOutNation:

Christian woman explains why Dinosaurs are fake. Lol!
FreakOutNation 24 mai, 00:14 ·

It was shared on a group with Kent Hovind affiliation that I am in, and this with the following comment:

What YEC here thinks that she's right??

some and going to my own responses:

Q at -1:54
Was about whether fossils weren't just come up with after the concept of dinosaurs was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Q at -1:54, no, the first fossil classified as such was come up with by Steno:

"In 1667 Nicholas Steno wrote a paper about a shark head he had dissected. He compared the teeth of the shark with the common fossil objects known as tongue stones. He concluded that the fossils must have been shark teeth."

He was a Young Earth Creationist like most other guys back then in Christendom:

"Steno who, like almost all 17th century natural philosophers, believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, resorted to the Biblical flood as a possible explanation for fossils of marine organisms that were far from the sea."

He also converted from Lutheran to Catholic and died in the service of the Lord, ministering to diaspora Catholics in Lutheran territories like Hamburg (less totalitarian Lutheran than Denmark and Sweden, I guess).

More fossils before dinosaurs:

"In his 1778 work Epochs of Nature Georges Buffon referred to fossils, in particular the discovery of fossils of tropical species such as elephants and rhinoceros in northern Europe, as evidence for the theory that the earth had started out much warmer than it currently was and had been gradually cooling.

"In 1796 Georges Cuvier presented a paper on living and fossil elephants comparing skeletal remains of Indian and African elephants to fossils of mammoths and of an animal he would later name mastodon utilizing comparative anatomy. He established for the first time that Indian and African elephants were different species, and that mammoths differed from both and must be extinct. He further concluded that the mastodon was another extinct species that also differed from Indian or African elephants, more so than mammoths."

THEN come the dinosaurs :

"In 1808, Cuvier identified a fossil found in Maastricht as a giant marine reptile that would later be named Mosasaurus. He also identified, from a drawing, another fossil found in Bavaria as a flying reptile and named it Pterodactylus. He speculated, based on the strata in which these fossils were found, that large reptiles had lived prior to what he was calling "the age of mammals"."

Note, Cuvier, who remained a Lutheran, was not loyal to Biblical timeline, but still a catastrophist.

Enter two Anglicans [I was wrong, Mantell was a Methodist], still well before Darwin:

"In 1824, Buckland found and described a lower jaw from Jurassic deposits from Stonesfield. He determined that the bone belonged to a carnivorous land-dwelling reptile he called Megalosaurus. That same year Gideon Mantell realized that some large teeth he had found in 1822, in Cretaceous rocks from Tilgate, belonged to a giant herbivorous land-dwelling reptile. He called it Iguanodon, because the teeth resembled those of an iguana. All of this led Mantell to publish an influential paper in 1831 entitled "The Age of Reptiles" in which he summarized the evidence for there having been an extended time during which the earth had teemed with large reptiles, and he divided that era, based in what rock strata different types of reptiles first appeared, into three intervals that anticipated the modern periods of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous"

And a little more about Buckland:

"Buckland was a proponent of the Gap Theory that interpreted the biblical account of Genesis as referring to two separate episodes of creation separated by a lengthy period; it emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a way to reconcile the scriptural account with discoveries in geology that suggested the earth was very old. Early in his career he believed that he had found geological evidence of the biblical flood, but later became convinced that the glaciation theory of Louis Agassiz provided a better explanation, and he played an important role in promoting that theory in Great Britain."

And about Mantell:

"The Mantell children could not study at local grammar schools because the elder Mantell was a follower of the Methodist church and the 12 free schools were reserved for children who had been brought up in the Anglican faith."

which I missed to credit in above response:

I now added it in an extra comment.

A[t] - 1:11
she gives a lot of crumbled flakes of plaster and asks us to reconstitute it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A[t] - 1:11 There are indeed fossils which are found in that state ("turn it into what it is supposed to be").

Some fossil species are known only from a skull, or worse, from a hip bone, which could perhaps as easily come from a nephelim giant.

But other ones are also found in a fairly complete state.

[as cited below:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
-0:30 "If you want to keep your job, you come up with a brachiosaurus skull."

Sure, there are some fossils which are found in such a state. NOT all.

Brachiosaurus altithorax
Holotype (FMNH P25107): postcranial skeleton
Referred specimens: Partial skeletons

Brachiosaurus altithorax
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

"Most images and reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the specimen displayed in the Berlin Natural History Museum. The specimen was originally identified as an african species of Brachiosaurus however the specimen has now been identified as the dinosaur Giraffatitan."

"Giraffatitan was originally described as Brachiosaurus brancai in 1914 based from a partial skeleton discovered in Tanzania, until a revaluation of the specimen in 1988 by Greg Paul determined the specimen differed from other Brachiosaurus material and warranted a separate genus. The specimen in question is on display in the Berlin Naturkundemuseum (Museum of Natural History). As this specimen was once considered the most complete Brachiosaurus known, most artist reconstructions of Brachiosaurus are based on the Berlin specimen thus they are actually Giraffatitan!"

Partial skeletons and complete & partial skulls

So, you do have complete skulls of Giraffatitan, a k a Brachiosaurus brancai.

on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

However, they have a supposed relative, which is described here:

Uberabatitan ribeiroi
on Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals

Three specimina, no skull, only fragments. In my view it could be remains of a human like giant.

Now, if the guys on FreakOutNation had really heard of these facts, they might have given a similar intelligent response (minus the gigantic nephelistic suspicion on Uberabatitan ribeiroi) instead of just gaping and laughing at the idea of anyone being stupid enough to challenge scientists. They seem to be in a cult.

mercredi 31 mai 2017

Dishonesty on part of Creationist Group Run by a Protestant? + Discussion of Apollo the Delphic

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, here is one of the Biblical indications that Apollo is for real - as in a real demon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think I posted another comment here, on back when I read Latin, Aeneid VI, for a Dozent who is also a Catholic priest, and he brought up above after the description of the Cumaean sibyl had been read (a description of her being acutely possessed by Apollo, inspired by real scenes Virgil must have seen), and noting the above passage.

Was I misplacing this comment under another thread, or was some moderator deleting it?

Mark Jonczy
I fail to see the relevance. Scripture says what it says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"possessed with a spirit of divination" = St Luke's words.

Aeneid VI shows a person in a similar position, getting possessed (while Virgil hadn't been in Cumae in Aeneas' time, he had seen sibyls) and Aeneid VI tells us the name of THE generic spirit of divination : Apollo.

In other words, this is one of the places where the Bible identifies the false god Apollo as a demon.

jeudi 18 mai 2017

What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against

HGL's F.B. writings : What St Basil Was and What he Was Not Against · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on St. Basil

Dave Bestul
13 mai, 21:47
"The philosophers of Greece have made much ado to explain nature, and not one of their systems has remained firm and unshaken, each being overturned by its successor. It is vain to refute them; they are sufficient in themselves to destroy one another. Those who were too ignorant to rise to a knowledge of a God, could not allow that an intelligent cause presided at the birth of the Universe; a primary error that involved them in sad consequences. Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; In the beginning God created. What a glorious order!"

St. Basil the Great
Homily on the Hexaemeron

Basil of Caesaria has the best homilies against evolution. Loved it 💙

Here is another:

‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

Dave Bestul
Excellent stuff, GB!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
St Basil is here of course referring not to ALL Greek philosophers, but to the pre-Socratics and Democritus.

As to Plato - some Church Fathers regarded him as a disciple of Moses.

I forget who said of Timaeus "Moses speaking Greek".

"Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish."

Pythagoras, still not Plato.

"‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures"

Note, he is here speaking against, not St Augustine, to whom BOTH letter AND allegory are holy, but against Origen, who was - reputedly at least - "allegory, yes, letter, no".

St Augustine was also against that idea.

"Basil of Caesaria has the best homilies against evolution."

Does he ever mention it?

Or, you meant "prefuting" it?

With Aristobule Adams

Difference between "sodomy" and "homosexuality" · With an Orthodox Priest on Lenin, Putin, KGB and the Orthodox I Met · With Aristobule Adams

Aristibule Adams
April 20 at 9:11pm
[my debate ended
April 24 at 4:00pm]·
Strange days - Catholics who believe what Catholics used to believe are now called 'Pelagians', and Orthodox who believe what Orthodox have always believed are called 'Bogomils'.

Some comments
lower ....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Orthodox have prayed for me to not have a wife, if Orthodox have considered it sinful of me to deal with my inchastity by seeking a wife, well, then Orthodox have acted like Bogomils.

Aristibule Adams
What's stopping you from getting a wife?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know what is stopping me each single time, why this girl stopped seeing me, why that girl stopped seeing me, why this other person would suddenly not look at my compositions, why yet another person had wanted to look at my writings in purpose of possible publication and gave it up - but these things happened.

So did things like being inconveniently in love with two girls at once, probably having sth to do with lack of sleep and loss of hope.

So did things like being interested in one girl, being a bit shy to ask in my situation, hoping for another girl and ONLY just giving her up when the first one was married or engaged to someone else.

If mother blessed me to do what I wanted, since I wanted to marry, unless something had interfered with my mother's blessing, I should be married now.

So, I guess some crook has abused Divine Liturgy to pray for me staying celibate.

Aristibule Adams
That's not how we use petitions in the Divine Liturgy anyway, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is nothing like specific intentions?

Aristibule Adams
Not in the Eastern rite. We still have the optional phrase in our Western rite texts where the priest can announce special prayer intentions immediately before the Orare Fratres (et Sorores). But even that is something publicly announced, not private, and would be very inappropriate to offer an intention for someone not to marry. I imagine any laity who heard such a thing would report it to the Dean or Bishop post-haste.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What if a priest were to think of me while praying for the monks (mistakenly beliving me to be a monk)?

Aristibule Adams
God answers the prayers of the righteous, and the righteous only pray righteous prayers. It isn't magic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What if x has made sure that y who is righteous thinks I am unrighteous and also made sure I stumble on sth so that I really will be so?

Aristibule Adams
God is all knowing. In any case, we should pray not our will, but His - as God's Will is perfect. Fiat voluntas tua. Yes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And no, for two reasons:

  • if I am not truly of my heart submitting to God's will, I am a hypocrite for saying it;
  • while a Christian in the state of Sanctifying Grace certainly is submitting to God's will, this does not automatically exclude his own will, except in cases of a perceived contradiction (Our Lord did not say we must act like He in Gethsemane each time we pray Our Father, more like we must have a general readiness for it).

The first of these is why, not having a wife and not seeing things go my way, I renounced the Rosary for long, not daring to pray the Our Fathers, content with three Hail Mary, if as much as that.

So, what if someone else's prayer is more righteous than mine, but not taking my real situation into account, seeing only the external obvious things, refusing to hear what else I have to say?

Aristibule Adams
God will not deliver on an prayer that asks amiss. He's not a trick pony who does what he's told. He says no if the request is wrong, sometimes because of sin, and sometimes for our own good.

Aristobule Adams

Aristibule Adams
I think for us, we still try to protect the faith of the weak. We don't take a Darwinist approach of 'the strong will survive' and try to help them all endure until the end. The strong should carry and protect those who are weak, rather than let them go. That's assuming they're not wolves - wolves we drive out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And how do you define "weak", "strong", "wolves" and, apart from excommunication, "drive out"?

Aristibule Adams
'Weak' - anyone whose faith is still growing and might be swayed by sophistry, hardship, scandal.

"Strong" - those who are established in their faith, and are not swayed.

"Wolves" - those who lead astray into heresy, schism, immorality.

"Drive out" - yes. Excommunication and not allowing to enter the churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"sophistry," "heresy, schism, immorality"

Would you consider Scholasticism or Creationism such?

Would you consider advocating marriage age lowered back to 14/12 limit such?

Would you consider going back to Roman Catholicism such, when one did not abjure it while becoming Orthodox?


Would you consider priests who forbid parishioners to read the works of a poor internet writer and composer and therefore contributing to his writings remaining off paper and his music remaining unplayed and his condition remaining poor, as a hardship?

There is more than faith, for instance hope and charity, which can suffer due to hardship.


Would you consider it scandalous of a parish priest to give a layman directives to say:

"you need to chose between marriage and monasticism"

and then completely IGNORE what the layman (not priest candidate!) answered and continue to work for the layman remaining in a pseudomonastic situation he had not chosen?

Aristibule Adams
That's kind of all over the place, and suggests personal issues? I don't know why Creationism would be an issue. It is the Patristic stance. The marriage age issue is Roman canon law - tell me when that age was established and why. Tell me if you know what the age is in Eastern canon law and why.

One cannot 'go back' into schism without abjuring Orthodoxy. That's an impossibility. I'm already a Western rite serving priest within the Orthodox Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Roman Canon law - inherited from Roman Empire, pre-Christian times. In Russia it had been 1 year higher per sex and was lifted to years more before Revolution, BUT in Russian (grammar of 1914, when there was still Yatch in locative and in Dyeva, the diminutive Dyevushka, meaning marriageable girl, still applied to non-married non-nuns from 12 to 30).

"One cannot 'go back' into schism without abjuring Orthodoxy."

I do not consider Roman Catholicism as schism.

You see, the issue in 1054 is so much less clear than that of 1517, so I wavered, but after some years among Romanian Orthodox, I considered Rome (as in Ancient Rome) had won the debate with me.

The WHY of marriage age : 14/12 is the medium age of puberty for men/women.

Aristibule Adams
Do you know when it became part of the Latin canon law, and what the Eastern canon law age is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am certain it has always been part of Latin canon law, since Roman Empire.

I don't think there is a unified Eastern canon law, since Russia untraditionally raised the age in 19th C.

Aristibule Adams
Everything in the East that is the canons is part of the unified canons. We don't do revisions such as the 1917 or 1983. So it should be a simple question if it can be found in the Pedalion, the Apostle's, Father's, Councils of the Church?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not a great historian of Eastern canon law.

It was painstaking to get even this together - after my return to RC, btw:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Where Orthodox Canonists disagree with Catholic ones about Soldiers in War Communicating

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Added later.
" That's kind of all over the place, and suggests personal issues?"

I certainly do have some personal issues with clergy both sides of 1054, due to stopping me from earning money as a writer, due to stopping me in practise from marriage.

Aristibule Adams
What does canonical age have to do with stopping you from marriage?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As per directly now, nothing.

I was asking if YOU considered my view on canonical age as immoral.

I am fairly sure some of the Communist educated priests I was with between 2006 and 2009 did think that.

Never mind the fact I was interested in girls older than that, some seemed to assume if I wasn't ashamed of the times when it had been otherwise, I must be a great perv or sth.

Aristibule Adams
The canons are a guideline, but we don't use them as an excuse to flaunt civil law - to which we are obedient. The civil laws in most of what was Christendom are now that marriage can be contracted legally at 18, and 16 with parental and court permission when there is some great need. So, I don't think the canon law set that age as a recommended age *for* marriage, but as a limit beyond which the act would be null (irregular). It isn't meant to replace civil law either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was the guideline for civil laws.

Spain had 14/12 limit 100 years ago, now changed to 18, but 14 if younger asks permission of a judge.

Obviously, Papal States had 14/12 to 1870.

If Nettuno had been in Papal States in 1902, I imagine St Maria Goretti would have asked Alessandro Serenelli that day "come on, can't you wait a few months" or even better, he would have made a more decent proposal than he did.

Austria had 21, but 14 with parental consent, for girls.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Added next day]
You might want to read this series, the one starting on this link (links to other parts on article):

HGL's F.B. writings : Marital Age and Teen Abortions

general thread

M. D. M.
The same thing has happened in Russia for a very long time. Thankfully the government is restricting these nutters now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are you sure that is all there is to J-W in Russia?

If so, what does that say about Orthodox Christianity in Russia?

In Antioch, I can see how the Antiochene Christians can be marginalised enough to not be quite able to support all their poor.

But why would Orthodox in Russia be in a similar position?

M. D. M.
Orthodox Russia has been "under attack" from dozens of protestant cults mostly from the USA who sadly believe Russians "need" to be "saved". Also, for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has been at war with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Romans send missionaries well versed in Orthodox worship to Russia. They set up churches that look and sound like Russian Orthodox Churches. Illiterate Russians have been tricked into joining these false churches. I'm not making this up. It's historical fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In other words, you think Uniates should be restrained too?

Is that it?

M. D. M.
Absolutely! Uniats have no business in Russia!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, so, if Russian Church has nothing to do with shutting up of J-W, certainly laymen belonging to it have.

BUT you have still not answered in what way either Uniates or J-W would be in a position to give so much help to poor which Russian Orthodox themselves cannot give.

M. D. M.
I do not understand your position. Russian Orthodox Christians have never "needed" saving from outsiders. No one who is Orthodox, Russian or not, can be persuaded to leave the Orthodox church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was asking you what the Russian case could have to do with Souperism or Rice Christians, see further up the thread.

M. D. M.
I do not understand those terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Souperism : trying to convert poor peoples by alms. Rice Christians, people converted by alms.

In Antioch, which the thread is about, that is one thing, but in Russia?

M. D. M.
I think I understand now. I can only speak about Russian Orthodox. I am not as familiar with the Antiochians. I believe it is wrong for anyone to try to convert a person from their faith through "gifts". American protestants go to Russia and try to "save" Russian Orthodox Christians by giving them blankets and food. Those items are appreciated by anyone, of course, but if they are offered with the price of converting from the Russian Orthodox Church the price is too high. I would rather go hungry than lose my faith.

Aristibule Adams
Russia is still in recovery from the wild '90s after the fall of the Soviets.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
After 12 years of Putin in power?

Aristibule Adams
He's had a lot of work to do, and more still needs done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is why I don't think the ban on J-W in Russia is connected to Souperism, except if rumours from elsewhere - or Putin being incompetent or corrupt about economics.

M. D. M.
What is this "Souperism"? Is that something to do with soup?

Aristibule Adams
The ban on the J-Ws and other sects (Scientologists, Satanists, etc.) is related to criminality - they preying on people for money, abuse, breaking up families, etc.

M. D. M.
I don't think Mr. Putin has anything to do with the subject.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Preying on people for money" sounds like French legislations by atheists trying to stop people from giving donations to monasteries on death beds.

"Souperism" has to do with "soup" or "souper"/"supper".

M. D. M.
Thank you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
M. D. M., you are welcome!

Same thread
below previous:

The link is broken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I googled and found no online article outside FB.

There are two relief programs, but nothing else outside FB. And on the relief programs, I did not find the article.

Huh, odd.

Aristibule Adams
It's still on the Christian Post's main page, but the link is getting a 404 error now. I guess someone was unhappy with it.

That was my suspicion. Which disgusts me.

You know how fragile the emotions of evangelicals are

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wonder if it was emotions of Evangelicals - or Discretion of Orthodox?


Hans-Georg Lundahl
" Fr. Chehadeh said. 'So it is not a nice way, especially in this crisis, to come and to destroy the work of a church, which is for more than 2,000 years in the area."

Perhaps Orthodox got worried about Fr. Chehadeh's confusing "for nearly 2000 years" with "for more than 2000 years"?

I mean, presumably the Antiochene Church in Syria does not date back to AD 17 or earlier?

III In below, I suggested a certain hobby related to my economic issues to Fr. Aristobule Adams. Click to see larger version:

Still no reply on that offer, so far.

On Debating with Different Atheists in Different Situations

Evolution 2.0
17 février
After ten years of debating with atheists, would you still be a Christian?

[Linked to

what now redirects to ]

"After ten years of debating with atheists, would you still be a Christian?"

I have been debating atheists and other evolutionists + protestants for 16 years over internet.

I am still Catholic and YEC. I soon became and still am Geocentric.

Why exactly is the publication of Perry Marshall termed Evolution 2.0?

The internet is not the same because the written word lacks emotional wealth and you are often not invested in your connection with your interlocutor. I have atheist friends who hit me with every stereotypical talking point when we meet up and what's frustrating is that they not only believe that "absence of God" is simply a "default" belief (see the subthread of David Valentine's comment for a stunning example), but they also often go one further and extend this "default" "obvious" worldview to secular humanist "freethinking" altogether. So to even try to make a point I would have to express a view I hold that they consider so offensive and repugnant (wrongly in my view) that I fear losing the friendship, even though they do not hesitate to belittle everything I believe in and love in front of me without ever thinking they might be engaging in what they often claim to hate.

Why do you stay friends with such guys in the first place?

I am debating atheists over internet, but I am when confronted with that kind of type free not to engage in friendship.

(Slavic / Balkan*)
^what he said, if you really cant communicate with your friends no matter the reason then why be friends, i and my atheist best friend for example can have a meaningful conversation without pissing each other off

so basically you've shut yourself from reality, congratulations

NM It is perfectly possible to debate with serenity and kindness, without falling into rudeness and insults, even having very different positions.

MK - you mean engaging in friendship with atheists and giving up any resistance to their evolution memes is what it takes to not be shut off from reality?

St - you may be perfectly right, but MK just showed he was NOT the kind of atheist to do that, and you didn't notice, and how about telling that to the atheist friends of NM, instead of telling it to him?

* While I anonymised names behind acronyms, I thought it was interesting to note presumable heritage. For NM, some Jewish could be suspected, but not immediately, nor is it necessary. The ones I put in parentheses are linguistically certain, whether they live in respective parts of Europe or are American.