mercredi 22 février 2017

Appendix on Aether


1) Debating with Antonio Antranik on Aether · 1b) Appendix on Aether · 2) With Antonio Antranik on Scope of Biblical Inerrance and Patristic Collective Infallibility · 3) More on Biblical Inerrance - Featuring Apocalypse

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Linking to part 1]

Antonio Antranik, Alex Naszados, Stefan Schwarz

Antonio Antranik
Soooo, since you postulate the existence of "ether", tell me what this "ether" is composed of!

Heath Wilson
I think it is a state of water. It is a Planck particle superfluid. The Michelson/Morely, Michelson/Gale and Sagnac experiments prove its existence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Antonio Antranik I don't think ether is composed, I think it is simple.

Between nucleus of one gold atom and nucleus of next gold atom, some posit "shells of electrons + void", I think the shells of electrons are states in the aether in which the nuclei also are.

If aether were composed of atoms, it would most certainly block anything as fine as light waves.

Here is by the way the next post of our debate:

[Linking to part 2]

Heath Wilson, as you are already in this thread, I am glad you see the link already.

And here is part 3:

[Linking to it]

And here is this:[Linking here]

More on Biblical Inerrance - Featuring Apocalypse


1) Debating with Antonio Antranik on Aether · 1b) Appendix on Aether · 2) With Antonio Antranik on Scope of Biblical Inerrance and Patristic Collective Infallibility · 3) More on Biblical Inerrance - Featuring Apocalypse

Heath Wilson
Papal Condemnation may not be its official title, but it was by the command of the pope, it therefore carries the weight of his office. It is therefore a matter of faith and a part of the ordinary Magisterium. We are bound by it under pain of sin.

"by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. "


I've personally wondered if the Woman Clothed with the Sun could also be the Church herself, who was shamed by the Galileo affair (and therefore metaphorically naked), and and if Her being "clothed by the Sun" could mean the Church being vindicated by science proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that the Earth IS motionless in the center and the Sun revolves around it. That is simply my private interpretation though.

"and anyone claiming that natural science is a part of FAITH is exceeding their authority."

Since the matter is one of how to interpret the Scriptures (and Scripture's inerrancy), arguing with the pope and the Inquisition about it isn't a very safe bet. The Church has SOLE authority is how Scripture is to be interpreted. Arguing against Her interpretation is heresy.

Antonio Antranik
Totally false. It was a matter of GOVERNMENT that was justified on the phony pretext of Faith.

Stefan Schwarz
Antonio Antranik do you believe the Church is infallible? Do you believe that Scripture as interpreted by the Church is inerrant?

Antonio Antranik
The Church is infallible ONLY in matters of FAITH and MORALS, as defined by the Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Heath Wilson
" It was a matter of GOVERNMENT that was justified on the phony pretext of Faith."

That directly contradicts the text of the above magisterial document. The Magisterium has determined that the Scripture insists that the immobility of the Earth is a matter of FAITH. You have no grounds to reject that teaching.

I also wanted to add that concerning the fantastical creatures such as a horse with a lions head, just give them a few years. They will exist.

Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9
McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pp17E4E-O8


Stefan Schwarz
From the 1st Vatican Council:

"If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema."


Does this mean that God inspired error? That would be blasphemy.

Antonio Antranik
The earth has no power source or rocket engines to change its course, but it can be moved by outside powers. To say that the earth is immobile would mean that even God Himself cannot move it. But God can do anything. Thus to say that the earth is immobile is HERESY.

Stefan Schwarz
Huh? God can make the earth mobile or immobile. He has revealed to us that it is immobile. It has nothing to do with God's power, it is about what God has revealed about what He has already done.

Heath Wilson
Science backs up our claim, too. Try to find a single scientific experiment that proves that the earth moves.

I would like to clarify that immobile does not mean that the Earth does not shake. Earthquakes don't count. It means that it does not move from it's place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Antonio Antranik It would seem the Vatican Council defined the Church as being infallible in the matter of Faith and Morals.

It would not seem the Church also stated the word "only" on the occasion.

Your exegesis is an excuse for Luther's when saying his translation was right because St Paul obviously MEANT that Abraham was justified ONLY by faith.

Antonio Antranik "It was a matter of GOVERNMENT that was justified on the phony pretext of Faith."

Under the phony pretext?

OK, you believe Pope Urban VIII was that corrupt?

I don't, you see.

He gave a new monument to Saint Bibiana - patron saint of one of my sisters.

Also, he stepped out of the way and let Inquisitors decide without his presence, because he was personally concerned as insulted or suspected of being so by the character Simplicio in Galileo's dialogue.

Therefore, I am very much against your vile accusations against Pope Urban VIII.

Heath Wilson Apocalypse 9 speaks not of horses with lions' heads, but of locusts shaped like horses for war with lions' teeth.

I think this already exists, not as biology, but as technology : or may soon exist, if the exact model of chopper is another than those yet seen.

On another note, I was wondering if there was any beast associated with "the number of the beast".

In ASCII "the cat" and "the dog" are 665 and 667. What beast is then 666? Well, "the cog". It is technology, not biology, but serves as a beast of burden. It is also emblem of Rotarians, of which Bergoglio is a member, and in Swedish KGB can be pronounced (at least in Scanian dialect) so as to make the English phrase "cog gay bey" - a Bey as in non-Christian magistrate who is cog gay as in happier with cogs and cogwheels than with free people.

Putin and Kirill are "former" KGB. I am checking of COGGAYBEY does not add up to 666, I think it does.

Here is the check:

C 67 060 7
O 79 130 16
G 71 200 17
G 71 270 18
A 65 330 23
Y 89 410 32
B 66 470 38
E 69 530 47
Y 89 610 56

Yes, was right about that one.

Point with beast of Apocalypse 9, if beast of Apocalypse 13 can be "the cog", the beast species of Apocalypse 9 can also be technology, as in choppers.

"The earth has no power source or rocket engines to change its course,"

Or to put it in one if it is still.

"but it can be moved by outside powers."

As, for instance by God and angels - by God should He so chose, by angels if God allows.

Now, this would totally preclude saying "Earth is immobile" in the sense of preventing God from moving it, but it does not preclude saying the Earth is immobile by God's own decree.

"To say that the earth is immobile would mean that even God Himself cannot move it."

In the former, not the latter sense.

"But God can do anything. Thus to say that the earth is immobile is HERESY."

Not in the latter sense, as implying "by God's decree".

So - as to heresy - it is to say that God could not have created the Universe with Earth immobile - by His decree - in the Middle. Pope Urban's argument from back in his days of Cardinal Barberini, as well as Simplicio's was: God was free to create the Universe any way He wanted it, and God was also free to make it appear to us any way He wanted it.

One can gather from this that God was free to make it appear as he created it, or to make it appear the reverse of how He created it. But God is truthful and the universe appears to us as having the Earth as immobile centre. Therefore we should presume from His truthfulness, that that is also how He created it.

The last was of course back to Antonio Antranik.

What is the Greek about "shape"?

Nestlé Ahland text for NT GRaece Apocalypse 9:7 Καὶ τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια ἵπποις ἡτοιμασμένοις εἰς πόλεμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν ὡς στέφανοι ὅμοιοι χρυσῷ, καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὡς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων,

It is "τὰ ὁμοιώματα". Anyone know Greek well enough to decide whether this can mean sth like function rather than geometric shape?

mardi 21 février 2017

With Antonio Antranik on Scope of Biblical Inerrance and Patristic Collective Infallibility


1) Debating with Antonio Antranik on Aether · 1b) Appendix on Aether · 2) With Antonio Antranik on Scope of Biblical Inerrance and Patristic Collective Infallibility · 3) More on Biblical Inerrance - Featuring Apocalypse

Antonio Antranik
Where does it say that the stars and other planets in the solar system stood still? All that would be necessary for God to freeze the sun and the moon (and everything else) be to suspend the laws of physics and freeze time for the closed volume system of the earth and the moon. That does not prove the sun and/or stars revolve around the earth. As for what the Church Fathers may have said, none of them are infallible in anything and not even the Pope is infallible in matters of natural science, but only in FAITH and MORALS.

Heath Wilson
According to the Papal Condemnation of Galileo's errors, the immobility of the Earth and the mobility of the Sun ARE matters of faith.

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:

This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. "


Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
By Professor Douglas O. Linder
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html


[Note, the site which labels this condemnation as papal is not a Catholic one.]

Oh, as to the aether, Michelson/Morley, Michelson/Gale and Sagnac prove it's existence, as well as disproving that the Earth is moving in the way necessary to be orbiting the Sun, but show that there is relative movement to show a diurnal rotation. That meets the requirements of the Neo-Tychonic geocentric model and falsifies the heliocentric one.

Stefan Schwarz
Scripture's Inerrancy is a matter of faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Antonio Antranik "Where does it say that the stars and other planets in the solar system stood still?"

It says Sun and Moon did so - after Joshua ordering Sun and Moon to stand still, not ordering Earth to stop turn.

"All that would be necessary for God to freeze the sun and the moon (and everything else) be to suspend the laws of physics and freeze time for the closed volume system of the earth and the moon."

Here you talk of Sun and Moon freezing - correctly.

BUT you are not dealing with the fact that it was Sun and Moon which stopped, not JUST phenomenologically, but also after THEY had been given a miraculous command.

Hence the attention to verse 12, which you neglected.

"That does not prove the sun and/or stars revolve around the earth."

If Earth is usually rotating, one of three:

  • Joshua should have told Earth to stop rotating;
  • OR Joshua's words should not be immediately followed by the miracle;
  • OR God is a deceiver.


Supposing Christopher Columbus had prayed "God, bring us to China now", and they had been miraculously brought to America, God would have been fooling Christopher Columbus that America was China.

As there was no miracle per se and he had prayed less specifically for "land", there was no deception on the Columbus case.

How do you as a Heliocentric (or at least Turning-Earthist) argue that God was not deceiving by Joshua's miracle?

Antonio Antranik "As for what the Church Fathers may have said, none of them"

Individually is ....

"are infallible in anything"

However, they are collectively so.

Bring up one Church Father on your side, a canonised saint, and the consensus for Geocentrism is broken, you are free to be Heliocentric.

"and not even the Pope is infallible in matters of natural science,"

Unless they are also matters of faith and morals, like being contained in the Bible.

"but only in FAITH and MORALS."

That does not exclude all matters of natural science, but only those that the Bible does not touch on and which have no moral implication.

Heath Wilson As to "Papal condemnation of 1633" that is a title given by the university, which is not a Catholic one.

Some Heliocentrics could argue it was only an Inquisitional condemnation.

However, I am not sure Pius VII signed the sentence in the Anfossi case either, so that could cut both ways.

Or my memory could be lousy. I remember there was SOMETHING about Pius VII's presence or absence, but not exactly what.

Antonio Antranik
You really are an idiot. What did the ancient Israelites know about astronomy? For all they knew the sun and everything else revolved around the earth and they had no concept of physics or chemistry or the masses and distances involved and there was no point in God trying to teach them about it. The only thing that mattered (and still matters) is that God created everything, heaven and earth and the whole universe. How He did it and how He made it work and how He maintains it and all the details of physics and chemistry etc. are not the subject of the Scriptures. Once in a while He did give them some engineering instructions like how to build the Ark and how to build the Temple, but He also didn't give them a lecture series on Statics or Mechanics of Materials or Civil Engineering, but just said "build it this way" and the builders knew they could trust in the Lord's design.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What did the ancient Israelites know about astronomy?"

They had been 40 years in the desert. Doing very little work with their hands, collecting manna was not a chore and their clothes were miraculously kept intact, so there was no mending clothes either.

God knew perfectly well that He was going to make that miracle and gave them no indication that geocentrism was not the rule.

"For all they knew the sun and everything else revolved around the earth"

Indeed, for all that mankind knows, most of it, for most of the time. You are putting modern science in a VERY privileged position, compared to the rest of mankind.

"and they had no concept of physics or chemistry"

Because they were not Heliocentrics?

"or the masses and distances involved"

As if these were very relevant to the point?

"and there was no point in God trying to teach them about it."

God very well knew He was going to make that miracle.

God also knew that Joshua's words were going to produce it.

God could either have given them some hint of Heliocentrism, or inspired Joshua to speak somewhat differently.

[Supposing Heliocentrism had been true, of course.]

Some would say that Joshua's words tell Sun and Moon to stay on relative positions, which is fulfilled even it if it is Earth which stops turning. I'd answer that even so, he directed the words to Sun and Moon, not to Earth.

BBL.

Antonio Antranik
Christ did not come down from heaven to teach astrophysics or any kind of natural science, so anyone trying to claim that the Church is infalible in matters of anything other than FAITH and MORALS is a heretic, and anyone claiming that natural science is a part of FAITH is exceeding their authority. Where are the huge horse-shaped locusts with women's hair and lion's teeth and scorpion's tails that St. John spoke about in the Apocalypse? Where is the sea of glass? Have you seen any lion-headed horses? Have you ever seen a woman clothed in the sun? Where in Scripture does it say that the woman clothed in the sun is revolving around the earth? Do you not understand that these are all metaphors? Since the Woman clothed in the sun is the Blessed Virgin Mary, how is it that she could appear to St. Bernadette and the Famita children etc. without her solar clothes vaporizing the whole earth?

Modern science and engineering allows man to know more about the physical nature of the universe, just like modern optometry allows people with myopia and astigmatism to see.

Adam and Eve were naked, so God sacrificed a couple animals and took their skins to clothe Adam and Eve. He did not teach them mechanical and electrical engineering so they could build sewing machines to make garments for themselves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Christ did not come down from heaven to teach astrophysics or any kind of natural science, so anyone trying to claim that the Church is infalible in matters of anything other than FAITH and MORALS is a heretic,"

False, unless by "anything other" you mean anything other *and unrelated.*

Astronomy, including horoscopes, was also not a thing He came down to teach.

Even so, we must believe Jacob was holding the heel of Esau when both came out of the womb, and therefore had the same horoscope. As St Augustine specifies.

This is not inerrant truth because horoscopes are one subject on which God inspired the Bible, per se, but because the birth of Jacob and Esau is an inerrant part of the Biblical story and therefore related to the "qui locutus est per prophetas" which includes Moses.

God also wanted to shed a light on the fact that horoscopes, no matter how well documented they are by astronomic observation, have little to do with character and nothing to do with ultimate fate.

" and anyone claiming that natural science is a part of FAITH is exceeding their authority."

Natural science systematically is not part of the faith.

Things which pertain for one reason to natural science may however for another reason pertain to the faith, this is NOT heretical.

In such cases, the supernatural aspect takes precedence over the natural one, precisely as in what in politics are called "materiae mixtae".

"Where are the huge horse-shaped locusts with women's hair and lion's teeth and scorpion's tails that St. John spoke about in the Apocalypse?"

Possibly seen in recent wars. A chopper looks like a locust with a scorpion tail.

If not, there may well be upcoming monsters too.

"Where is the sea of glass?"

In the future after Doomsday, unless the aether should have been so described.

"Have you seen any lion-headed horses?"

Don't know exactly what you are talking about.

[Unless he was again talking of horseshaped locusts, rather than horses properly speaking.]

"Have you ever seen a woman clothed in the sun?"

That horoscope will however be upcoming this year, I think 22 September. Also, due to modern technology, it will be able to be observed, even if otherwise the Sun would be hiding the stars of Virgo.

"Where in Scripture does it say that the woman clothed in the sun is revolving around the earth?"

No need, if other passages, such as Joshua DO indicate it. Once again, if verse 13 could be narrator adressing things as they were seen (phenomenological language), this does not cover Joshua's words in verse 12.

"Do you not understand that these are all metaphors?"

Not just, they are descriptions of symbolic objects. And constellation Virgo will be showing forth symbolically a constellation (with nine fix stars of Leo together with three planets making a crown this year) which will honour Our Lady a little before 100th anniversary of Fatima.

Besides, Joshua is a historic book and not a prophetic one.

"Since the Woman clothed in the sun is the Blessed Virgin Mary, how is it that she could appear to St. Bernadette and the Famita children etc. without her solar clothes vaporizing the whole earth?"

The constellation Virgo as she will appear later this year was not so approaching the children. Virgo's being clothed in the Sun represents Our Lady being clothed in the Justice of Her Son, who is the Sun of Justice.

"Modern science and engineering allows man to know more about the physical nature of the universe, just like modern optometry allows people with myopia and astigmatism to see."

Correct for engineering and instruments of observation, as also for observations.

[At least if medieval counts as modern : glasses were invented then. By, you have guessed it, some geocentric.]

NOT correct for all its modes of concluding.

"Adam and Eve were naked, so God sacrificed a couple animals and took their skins to clothe Adam and Eve. He did not teach them mechanical and electrical engineering so they could build sewing machines to make garments for themselves."

Nor does the science of sewing machines constitute any matter of dispute between Literalists and Antiliteralists.

Catching up where I left off before:

"The only thing that mattered (and still matters) is that God created everything, heaven and earth and the whole universe. How He did it and how He made it work and how He maintains it and all the details of physics and chemistry etc. are not the subject of the Scriptures."

Check out the distinction in St Thomas between primary and secondary objects of faith.

"Once in a while He did give them some engineering instructions like how to build the Ark and how to build the Temple, but He also didn't give them a lecture series on Statics or Mechanics of Materials or Civil Engineering, but just said "build it this way" and the builders knew they could trust in the Lord's design."

AND they were good enough at physics and chemistry to actually be able to use the instructions.

lundi 20 février 2017

Debating with Antonio Antranik on Aether


1) Debating with Antonio Antranik on Aether · 1b) Appendix on Aether · 2) With Antonio Antranik on Scope of Biblical Inerrance and Patristic Collective Infallibility · 3) More on Biblical Inerrance - Featuring Apocalypse

Subthread
under another thread.

Antonio Antranik
Why don't you just take a rocket trip up into outer space and gaze down at the earth and report what you see, whether the earth is revolving around the sun or the other way around?

Alex Naszados
Because you can only see relative motion. There is no way to determine if the observer is at rest or moving relative to one or both of the bodies. For example, if the universe is revolving around Earth (and the Sun with it), an observer within that space would feel he is observing a spinning Earth.

Antonio Antranik
All you need to do is go up to a fixed location half way between the earth and the sun and where the stars don't revolve around your spaceship and your position is fixed relative to all the stars 360° in all planes and just observe what the sun and the earth do. If the sun changes its position and ends up on the other side of the earth in 12 hours. Simple.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Unless your fixed location is moving with the same aether which is also moving the Sun Westward, as God turns the Universe around us.

Antonio Antranik
If such objects that far away had that much angular velocity they would fly off far away to the point where they would not be seen anymore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Angular velocity is calculated in relation to aether not empty space, could that be a solution?

Antonio Antranik
Wrong. It would be observed in relation to the earth. 360°/24hrs = 15°/hr

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is observed as universe rotating around us.

Antonio Antranik
That's exactly what I said, for you mathematically illiterate morons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you got me wrong.

Angular velocity of objects would be that of 15°/h, except that it is aether which has that angular velocity and the objects are next to still in relation to this aether.

We do see the universe revolving around us by 15°/h, and we also know there is no physical strain on the objects from that (as well as geostationary satellites functioning), ergo, there is an aether moving westward.

How is that mathematically illiterate?

Antonio Antranik
Ether? Have you ever seen ether? Have you touched it with your hands? Have you breathed it in?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have just concluded it from two observations:

  • we see objects moving spatially:
  • we know they are not moving physically in relation to whatever is physically relevant at that speed:


ERGO there is aether.

Antonio Antranik
hahahaha you concluded it. Well I concluded that you are as stupid as those who believe in evolutionism.

Antonio Antranik
Without obtaining the necessary evidence you make conclusions. Rash judgement by any other name.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
At least I differ from them in not believing evolutionism.

I differ from you in taking Joshua 10:12-13 as Church Fathers took it.

Pay special attention to verse 12, please!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't know what you mean by "necessary evidence", I am using the available data to their best.

Stefan Schwarz
How would you know if you are staying still Antonio Antranik?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Stefan Schwarz - I presume he would conclude it from absence of aether and from objects otherwise flying apart?

vendredi 20 janvier 2017

Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[gave link to previous]

Roger M Pearlman
Nice Hans.
we are not that far apart.
what is a couple hundred years among friends? :)
I will post the links to my books below.
so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?
whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim
in Abraham until the Exodus I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii

'The Moshe Emes' Torah and Science alignment series:

The Torah Discovery Chronology: 'Abraham until the Exodus'
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1537302922
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L2T0LGK

'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'
Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205
Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0181C4Q1W

SPIRAL vs SCM cosmology model comparison free infographic
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312519866_SPIRAL_vs_SCM_cosmology_model_comparison_free_infographic


'The Recent Complex Creation Framework' six principles for science in maximum available context::
Paperback: http://amzn.com/1518640508
Kindle: http://amzn.com/B01CX9DMLE

Roger M. Pearlman
Torah Discovery Institute
20681 W. Valley Blvd.
Tehachapi CA. 93561

661-221-8588
rmp@torahdiscovery.org
www.torahdiscovery.org

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Roger M Pearlman "so you hold pain of Shinar is in modern day Turkey? or Syria?"

BOTH. AND Iraq (with a few exceptions SW and SE)

Plain of Shinar = Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia = between Euphrates and Tigris.

Northern parts of Euphrates go in Turkey or even past.

"whereas I would hold closer to UR-Kasdim"

Both Urfa near Göbekli Tepe (Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe][2]) "Potbelly Hill"[3] in Turkish, is an archaeological site atop a mountain ridge in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of modern-day Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa, and Şanlıurfa = Şanlı Urfa, venerable Urfa) and Woolley's Ur, further south, obviously, have the name Ur (in some old language Urfa is actually Ur-Fa). Before Woolley discovered that other Ur, it was Urfa in Turkey, Edessa, which was considered as Ur-Kasdim by both Jewish and Muslim traditions - probably, but that I don't know, by some Oriental Christian ones too.

"I attribute another purpose for Gobkeii"

Someone has mentioned that the stone slabs look like a launching ramp.

That (but nothing in Woolley's Ur or its Ziggurat that I know of) fits in with a rocket interpretation of T o B.

Note that Catholic Church Fathers - my authority next to the Bible - have not settled that T o B was a skyscraper. In St Thomas' Postilla to the book of Genesis (a disputed work, I think it is early and he was still learning Latin, he is using "ille" like "il"="the", which is faulty with Classical standards) it seems the opinions were divided on whether the words refer to what we call a skyscraper or to what we call a skyline.

But note that rockets are towers of which only the top reaches into heaven.

Göbekli fits rocketry better than Ziggurat would do.

As for your books, I'll freely share the links, but to the second I will only add that my solution to "distant starlight" is that what we know call stars to exclusion of planets, meteors and comets, i e what used to be called fix stars, are one light day away.

Being geocentric, I can interpret the phenomenon of Bessel discovered in 1838 - the one which is famously 0.75 c. arc seconds for Proxima alphae Centauri - as NOT being parallactic, but a dance of angelic movers (in time with the sun, but not in pace with the sun's dance around the ecliptic each year) and therefore as not implying alpha Centauri is "4 lightyears away".

This reduces the distant starlight problem to a non-problem. And that means, the larger technicalities on dating game are concerned with purely terrestrial things, like dendro, stratigraphy, carbon 14 and other radiometric.

A.j. Kukoleck
I posted an article a while back that said gobkeii was far younger. Im no expert pn it though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Obviously, if carbon dates are 10 000 BP and around, GT is far younger than that.

But why do you call it "gobkeii"?

What you might have been thinking of is, CMI (and probably ICR too) consider that the Stone Age (including Palaeolithic) is not just post-Flood, but post-Babel too.

If so finding T o B would mean finding sth with carbon dates reaching back to between Flood and probable post-Flood stone age sites, which is delicate.

I'd say part of stone age sites may be pre-Flood. Mousterian by Neanderthals was probably pre-Flood, since post-Flood there is a clear Neanderthal shortage.

I also consider that the initial geographic spread of stone age was not the same as the scattering after Babel.

If on the other hand you consider the stone age spread of geography including even Neanderthal race in Mousterian culture as after Babel, then GT would indeed be too young for Babel. And so would the Ziggurat of Ur, if they found any carbon datable material linking it to start of culture in Ur.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi AJ and Hans I have founding of GBK 5777-1657 = 4120 YA and the main hub for a couple hundred years +/- until UR-Casdim became the Hub leading up to the dispersion from Bavel.
part of it's function was an animal conservation as we transitioned the animals from the ark to the wild.
reference
Torah Discovery Chronology
volume one being Abraham until the Exodus

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would not think G T was so beneficial.

Carbon dated history from 30 000 (c.) BP to 10 000 BP would be sufficient time for the animals to go back to wildlife before GT.

The purpose you give GT, I give cave arts like Altamira or Lascaux.

Also, it seems remnants of human sacrifice were found in GT, or at very best cremation, sth which Noah would not do.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans, if Human sacrifice it could be from 400 +/- years after it's founding , so post dispersion from Bavel, which is already just post ice age, when some people came back and perhaps used the site for a while before moving on again.
So if carbon dates younger that first half of the ice age that may be why as
It would have still been an important place known to most or all even after we shifted to Ur Kasdim. mid ice age until early post ice age by the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It seems all of GT was post ice age or when it retired.

You would probably need them to dig deeper and find sth dated to 20 000 BC, but I think you won't.

I think ice age was up to T o B and dispersal, stone age men were partly expeditions (among others) trying to provide Nimrod with Uranium and failing and failing due to ice age.

In my redating, all of GT takes only 45 years.

Creation vs. Evolution : Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2016/10/graham-hancock-had-sth-to-say-on.html


Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans-Georg Lundahl carbon dating only extrapolates back 70k +/- asserted years,
so if GT founded early ice age, it would no carbon date at all if deep time was true.
as the ice age started no more than 4120 years ago some items might carbon date
RCCF factors considered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If ice age was post flood, all of ice age would carbon date.

Flood dates range 20 000 - 50 000 BP.

So, all of ice age carbon dates.

Roger M Pearlman
based on this GT would be 3780 years old
but I think that is dating the resettlement of same by the end of the ice age after the dispersion from Bavel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here are my dates, longer chronology, as you know:

9600 BC - 8600 BC - Carbon dates, I presume? I'll use my Fibonacci table*.

2778 av. J.-Chr.
40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.
2599 av. J.-Chr.
62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

2778
2599
0179 real years appear as

10328
06449
03879 carbon dated years

3879:1000 = c. 4.

179:x = 4?

179 = 4x
179:4 = 4x:4
45 = x

So, was GT perhaps on stage for 45 years? Or were earliest times of it not recorded by any organic remains from them? Strictly non-organic ones can't be carbon dated.


Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl you say 'all of ice age carbon dates'
RCCF: n it does not,
not after considering RCCF scientific factor calibration.
there is a reason things that carbon date that are over 3500 years have inflated results assuming a steady decay rate. as explained in

Torah and Science: Torah and Science Reconciled (Moshe Emes) Paperback – October 15, 2015
by Roger M Pearlman (Author)
http://amzn.com/1518640508


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am indeed assuming a steady decay rate, but it poses no problem for Christian chronology.

10328
06449
16777
08388 BC - just after GT, carbon dated.

2778
2599
5377
2688 BC - just after GT, Biblical (Roman Martyrology, my recalibration)

As to your book, there is not much preview, if you are no Amazon member. I am using this and similar programs available online which do presume a constant decay rate, and from than calculating how many extra years per how many % of modern carbon in atmosphere:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Roger M Pearlman
if you use a steady decay rate, and not RCCF calibration factors, what is the max years age of something that can carbon date for you?
current conventional 70k
with RCCF 4,120

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"current conventional 70k" = c. 68-74k

I just used that number for the skeleton La Ferrassie 2, a lady whom we might descend from, if she is in the inlaws of Japheth.

I take that as pre-Flood. If in Flood the carbon level was 3.9% of present level ... (midway between 20 000 and 50 000 dates, since 26 800 years ... I should have done lower, perhaps? ... no, see following)
If furthermore 4974 years ago (year of Flood) is leaving us 54.788 % from back then (which leaves 2,136732 % now from Flood year, which dates 31 800 BP) ...
Then carbon content lower than 2,136732 % may be pre-Flood.

70 000 BP = 0,021 %, and since oldest Flood remains are c. 50 000 BP, this means they are pre-Flood.

I have not gone over details of initial rise from perhaps no carbon 14 at all at Creation to Flood, except, contrary to rise after Flood, this rise must have involved much lower carbon 14 content being produced per year, proportionally to all carbon.

Therefore dates earlier than Flood carbon dating, I just consider "pre-Flood".

Update
After giving link to this as text above.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hi Hans, in RCCF we start 1AM with the initial, very slow radiation build, due to the stronger pre-mabul magnetic field..so negligible and starting day 8 until 1656 AM anything that would carbon date would date 50k plus or as over 70k so not carbon date.
than a second gradual radiation build to approximate current levels staring by the Mabul year taking about 800 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mabul = Deluge?

Thing is, fossils from Deluge, like a Triceratops horridus (a dinosaur which could be the unicorn) do have measurable carbon dates.

For your model to work, you need most fossils to be post-Flood rather than from Flood.

Citing:
More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220.4

CMI : Triceratops soft tissue
Joel Tay answers a letter
http://creation.com/triceratops-soft-tissue


Footnote:

4.A sample purporting to be from the Flood era would not be expected to give a ‘radiocarbon age’ of about 5,000 years, but rather 20,000–50,000 years. Indeed, that is consistently what one obtains from specimens of oil, gas and fossil wood from layers allegedly ‘millions of years’ old. The reason is: radiocarbon dating assumes that the current 14C/12C ratio of about 1 in a trillion (after adjusting for the Industrial Revolution) was the starting ratio for the objects dated. But this ratio would have been much smaller before the Flood due to the fact that the earth had a much stronger magnetic field. Because pre-and para-Flood objects would have started with a much lower initial 14C/12C ratio, the measured amount today would also be smaller, and be (mis-)interpreted as much older. See What about carbon dating? Chapter 4, The Creation Answers Book. Return to text.

Roger M Pearlman
yes if those samples died / during the Mabul year 4120 YA when there was a short term burst of radiation exposure or even pre flood, to have a small residue which dates in the tens of thousands indicate, rather than not dating at all 60k +/- and over based on extrapolation of modern conditions, so no contradiction of RCCF

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And there is little room for most fossils to have been buried any time later.

If they are dated by other methods, they usually are called "millions of years" old.

Cretaceous and so. According to CMI, carbon dating them is very rare, but when they do, it is 20 000 - 50 000 years.

jeudi 19 janvier 2017

Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology


Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

I have already published a post where my readers can learn that both I and Tas Walker have made attempts of recalibrating C14 dates to real time, as in Biblical Chronology. There is actually another table in the field, Gerardus D. Bouw's. It was presented me by my friend A.j.Kukoleck, as follows, and led to certain comments on FB, involving both my comparison with Bouw's recalibration and my comparison with someone else who was basing his chronology on the Jewish calendar's Anno Mundi. He's Roger M Pearlman.

Here is our exchange:

A.j. Kukoleck
here you go hans. now you can correct the c14 ages :)

TECHIES' CORNER : Converting Published C14 Ages to the Biblical Time Scale
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no067/techies.html


Roger M Pearlman
shared to RCCF group

Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, not bad.

I have about same "carbon age" for Flood year, but more like 2957 BC.

On the other hand, his table is more complete in values than mine is.

Here I present mine, along Tas Walker's:

Creation vs. Evolution : C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/08/c14-calibrations-comparing-two.html


I spot a problem, if we suppose Exodus was in 1510 BC.

1530 BC was twenty years before Exodus, Moses midway through desert exile.

And 1530 = 3530 years ago.

4,000 3,530 1,530


Published age 4000 years ago. Would published age 2000 BC give any good anchorage for Exodus?

I think just before Hyksos is better.

10,000 4,159 2,159 [- Göbekli Tepe]
35,000 4,345 2,345 (flood year)


2,345
2,159
0,187

Göbekli Tepe 187 years after Flood, all of palaeolithic stone age within these ... except for what is pre-Flood.

Will he take Göbekli Tepe or Ziggurat of Ur as Tower of Babel?

Wait, got one here:**

"He lived a total of two hundred thirty-nine years. Charting this on the Biblical Timeline, Peleg’s existence is from 2247 BC to 2008 BC."


So, yes, here Bouw's and KJV based chronology for Peleg also*** support Göbekli Tepe being Tower of Babel.

So, no actually this was not a problem.

Roger M Pearlman
Exodus was 2448 AM, it is 5777 AM 5777-2448 = 3329

3329 -2017 =
1510-1312 = Hi Hans-Georg you overstate years ago by close to 200 years.
see RCCF and Abraham until the Exodus for the actuality and calibrated for the science using the max available context.

Gobeki (in turkey) founded about 1657 AM
Tower of Bavel started about 300 years later and abandoned 1996 AM in a place not to far from Ur
so not close to each other

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am believing the Roman Catholic chronology of Christmas Liturgy (I could also believe a Vulgate based, closer to Ussher's, as a Catholic, the Church hasn't decided).

Exodus was in 1510 BC = 3689 AM.

"Tower of Bavel started about 300 years later and abandoned 1996 AM in a place not to far from Ur"

Both the Ziggurat and the GT are each near a city called Ur.

The Ziggurat is near Woolley's Ur.

Göbekli Tepe is near Ur-fa, a k a Edessa.

I specifically checked by equating Shinar = Mesopotamia and seeing that while Urfa and GT are in Turkey, not Iraq, they are still east of Euphrates and West of Tigris and so in Shinar.

You say Ur = T o B?

[I meant Ziggurat of Ur, but wrote in haste, confer the rest]

Somewhat irrealistic on Bouw's timeline.

5,500 3,865 1,864
...
6,000 3,925 1,925


Both being after death of Peleg in the KJV chronology.

Göbekli Tepe will do, the Ziggurat of Ur won't, in Bouw's chronology.

Roger M Pearlman
Hans-Georg Lundahl Hi Hans, you are welcome to believe whatever you want.
RCCF provides the actuality based on valid science and scriptural testimony taken in max avail. context.
5777 AM years to date.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"and scriptural testimony" - mistakenly using Masoretic or KJV.

"5777 AM years to date" - that is a Jewish and abridged chronology.

It seems it was deliberately contrived to make 70 weeks of Daniel match Bar Kochba instead of Our Lord.

Roger M Pearlman
Hi Hans, I did not say Ur = Migdal Bavel, but they are near each other (w/in a 100 +/- miles is reasonable w/o looking at the map and I would have to see which sites are candidates / look at the detailed evidence.

Hans no one is forcing you to use 5777 AM, but if you want to lknow/use the accurate timeline w/o the fudge that is it.
it is the inflated/fudged year count to fit your presumption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not say "Ur", I said "Ziggurat of Ur".

[Except one hasty approximated remark.]

I find the other Ur, Urfa in Shinar / East Anatolia more promising chronologically.

AND GT looks more like what I think T o B was about.

A tower "so tall that" its top reach the sky? No.
A tower the top of which can reach into heaven? Yes.

Rocket, not skyscraper, was the project.

Roger M Pearlman
anyway I am not interested in debating that issue I am sure of and wrote the book° on.
if you sincerely want to learn the truth and are open minded / able to handle, ask me nicely and I will try and correspond w/ you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"but if you want to lknow/use the accurate timeline w/o the fudge that is it."

I'd not quite agree, no.

Oh, you wrote the book°?

Well, I wrote another translation c14 to real time, hello colleague and rival!


* RCCF = The Receent Complex Creation Framework

** I omitted link from debate, here it is:

Amazing Bible Timeline with World History : Peleg: biblical figure, ‘when the earth was divided’
https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/peleg-biblical-figure-when-the-earth-was-divided/


With Back up:

http://www.webcitation.org/6ndWgrc9V

*** As did my own research.

° His book is called : Abraham until the Exodus
how, why to calibrate for the tighter 5,777 AM to date age of the universe.

mardi 13 décembre 2016

Debate with a Protestant : Continuing vs Restored Apostolic Church


Luke Lefebvre
[in his status had cited lots of early Church Fathers and writers in support of the Blessed Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, and only marred it by one detail, which started our little dialogue:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What do you mean "LONG BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"? I didn't see anything previous to 33 AD!

Kim All
The Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.

The first three centuries produced many divergent myths about Jesus. The Catholics selected the texts to consider orthodox when they produced the Bible at the end of the 4th C CE (AD).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[It seems an answer was deleted, it said : I believe what the Catholic Church says about its origin - also possible I missed the "post" button]

Luke Lefebvre
Catholic churches fourth century my friend. There was no Catholic Church in the second century it's a post Constantine invention

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew 28:20 - where did the original Apostolic Church go, if you are right?

Luke Lefebvre
It existed for the first 300 years and it was taken over by the Catholic Church in the fourth century that's what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
According to Matthew 28:20, if it was "taken over by the Catholic Church", how can the Catholic Church NOT be it?

Luke Lefebvre
Clement of Rome was not the first pole but he was the pastor of that church in Rome. It was not called the Roman Catholic Church because he was not the first Bishop there. He clearly says both Peter and Paul establish that church and at that time there were multiple pastors Clement being a subordinate pastor there

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If that were true, where is a continuing Church today which says so?

All I see are Protestants concluding so.

Luke Lefebvre
Irenaeus is probably the greatest historian of the second century. He's a convert of Polycarp of which Polycarp was converted by John the apostle. Clearly Irenaeus was not a Roman Catholic LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have a friend who read him and who says he was, I know others who say he was an Orthodox, I know no one who honestly claims he was a Protestant after looking at the evidence.

Luke Lefebvre
We have to look to the Protestant Reformation to see them bringing the church back to first century theology. That's what they believed a lot of them within the first 300 years

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with this is that "bringing the Church back to first century theology" means admitting the Church lost it - contrary to Matthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre
How Irenaeus interpret the Scriptures is no different than people interpreting the Scriptures today. If he was wrong about certain doctrines he had an overall perspective of good doctrine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
As have the Catholics today too.

As you said he was "wrong about certain doctrines", you are perhaps admitting he was no Protestant?

Luke Lefebvre
But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible. They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God. The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God

Hans-Georg Lundahl, well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Luke Lefebvre, I'll have to pick this apart a bit.

"But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible"

Do you mean traditions outside the text of the Bible or do you mean traditions without connexion to Biblical doctrine?

"these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible."

If you mean without connection to Biblical doctrine, neither have we today.

If you mean outside the text, they had, like sign of the cross, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays.

"They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God."

They at least honoured her as actually being that.

"The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God"

That would mean they did not regard Christ as God, I don't believe that for a second!

"well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine."

How, according to Matthew 28:20 can the Church which Christ founded be wrong about any doctrine? Just previous to that promise, He had told the disciples to teach the nations ALL he had told them to do.

This means He was promising inerrant assistance!

Luke Lefebvre
What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church. That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible. These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information

There's three periods to Christianity as a whole. The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement. It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years. I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God"

Did they not believe Jesus Christ was God, or did they not believe Mary was His Mother?

"as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church."

If not as, then differently? How differently?

"That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible."

If that were the Catholic Church's action, where is the Church who every century used it right?

"These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information"

Not doubting that a moment, but they were Catholics, and so is the Catholic Church doing now.

"There's three periods to Christianity as a whole."

I don't think so.

"The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement."

If the Catholic Church "went astray" as your scenario presupposes, you ruin Matthew 28:20.

"It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years."

A "return" means all of the Church had "left" what was originally there : contrary to Matthew 28:20.

"I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven"

Why would the leaven in three meals of flour mean that? What if it is a normal recipy for leavened bread?

Luke Lefebvre
We know The Catholic Church went astray. But they had general beliefs of the Christian faith. The Protestant movement restored that faith

For the first 300 years Christians there did not have perfect interpretation of the scripture no different than people today. My point being is God's word was always there the church was always there and today we have been restored to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
When you say "you know the Catholic Church went astray", either you show where the faith once delivered to the saints was PRESERVED or you contradict Mattthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre
Matthew 2820 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL it doesn't teach that at all it just says go make disciples and we know the church got corrupted.

Sorry for the laughing

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Matthew 28:20 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL"

Matthew 28:20 has two parts.

In the first part He tells the disciples to preserve His doctrine, in the second He says He will assist them all days.

So, Matthew 28:20 very well tells He will preserve His doctrine in the Church.

You should be sorry for laughing like a fool, instead of understanding!