Tuesday, 27 September 2016

On Quora

Abbreviations: Q = Question, D = Description by questioner, A = my own answer directly to it, signatures = someone else's answer, my comments, RQ = (answer) ReQuest.

How can God loving Christians be racist?

My Auntie is a preacher and very religious but she stopped going to church when they started letting black people in .

That sounds your auntie is a wee bit Pagan.

What was the Medieval church? What were some of their positive effects?

Which one of them?

To a Catholic, it was simply the Catholic Church - plus a few schismatics (like Photians/Orthodox, those adhering to wrong Pope when there were more than one) and a few heretics (lighter heresy in the East, and those acting like populations : Nestorians, Monophysites [actually Jacobites and Armenians are not same confession of heresy], some would call Photians heretics too; heavier heresy in the West, like Petrobrussians, Waldensians, and, worst, Albigensians).

So, the “Medieval Church” if you mean the Catholic one was simply the Church of Christ subsisting during the Middle Ages.

Can you defend Zionism without using any religious argument?

I am not a Zionist and I am religious.

To me Palestinian Christians are the most correct Israelites.

The best defense of any Zionist I can come up with is if they defend Palestinian Christians.

Answer requested by Daniel Kogan

How do I get free bibles?

On internet, for instance.

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Verses Search.

And with a comment:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Answer requested by Olukayode Crown

Do you find it difficult to live up to the Catholic Church's doctrine?

I do not know if I want children but I would like to one day wed someone. In the Catholic Church, this is kind of no-no. Marriage is for children. I am not sure if I believe in afterlife. I think people just die.

I’d certainly like to marry and as certainly like to … have many children.

What are some of the key similarities and differences between Catholicism and the ancient Roman religion?

Key difference : Catholicism is Christian.

Key similarity : both use Latin (except insofar as ancient Roman religion used Etruscan instead).

Answer requested by Groo V Err

Ethan Leuchter,
Romanophile and Amateur Historian
Catholicism is montheistic. The Romans were polytheistic.

Catholicism has no animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was an integral part of Roman religion.

Ancient Rome had no single mythology, it varied greatly across time and geography. Catholicism has a strict mythology defined in a single work.

Ancient Roman gods had many different epithets and each epithet represented a slightly different version of that god. The Catholic God has no such variations.

The Ancient Romans believed in omens sent by the gods, usually in the forms of animals or objects associated with a god. Catholic beliefs in omens sent by God are much more limited and are much more supernatural in nature.

The Romans represented their gods as being pretty much all-powerful humans. They were just as petty as any mortal and all had their own faults. The Catholics represent their God in a way that makes him superior to humans.

The Romans had gods of both sexes whereas the Catholic God is asexual but shows himself as a male so is expressed in male terms (see David Aldred's comment).

The chief priest for both is the Pontifex Maximus.

They both speak Latin.

They both have male gods.

They both believe that gods can have children.

They both believed in a number of more minor gods or god-like beings.

They both believe in an underworld (though the Romans believed that everyone went to the underworld instead of just the sinners).

They both believe that divine beings can interact with the mortal world.

They both are based in Rome.

This list is by no means comprehensive, it is just everything I could think of in a few minutes. However, you can still see how the similarities are pretty much skin deep and that they have extreme theological differences.

Are there any studies which correlate Vatican II to Roman Catholic priests leaving the priesthood?

In John Jay Study Undermined by Its Own Data* Catholic commentator Bill Donohue claims that there is a causal link between Vatican II and the rise of same-sex identity in that there was an increase in "heterosexual" priests leaving to get married, thus leaving the others behind in greater numbers.

I don't think this is a credible claim or theory, but would like to find more research materials which might have studied these events.

On the flip side, Leaving the Priesthood** gives statistics that during the past 60 years, over a third of priests have left the priesthood. Is there a public source for these kind of statistics?

* URL : http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/john-jay-study-undermined-by-its-own-data

** URL : http://www.leavingthepriesthood.com/

my A:
I don’t know if there are any “studies”.

I have heard there were lots of cases.

Nate S3,
Cradle Catholic. 30yr atheist; 8yr practicing Methodist.
I think anyone who blames Vatican II as the chief cause of the Priestly Exodus (esoteric OT pun intended) is keeping their head in the sand.

Vatican II ended 12/1965. Let us think: were there any other cataclysmic cultural transformations rattling the U.S. around that time?

I mean, other than John Lennon recognizing The Beatles were more popular than some Jewish carpenter’s son from Nazareth. (3/4/66) Face it: can anything of consequence ever come from Nazareth?

Howzabout that whole Hippie thing? You know, that “question everything,” “trust no one over 30” movement that would shake the foundation of every last socio-governmental organization in American society and take d.e.c.a.d.e.s to recover from?


Let’s just blame the cardinals. It’s easier that way. Dropping Latin is why the priests left.

Pax vobiscum!

HGL comm.
Has it occurred to you that with Beatles around, keeping soutane and Latin was the move needed (and heeded by some) to retain or regain some of the popularity?

If John Lennon gets away with gaining popularity from long hair why can’t a priest get it from a long coat?

If John Lennon gets away with gaining popularity from Mersey side skiffle + some fortifications, why can’t a schola get it from Gregorian?

At precisely that time, someone was actually ATTACKING both cassocks and Gregorian.

If there was no intent of harm (which I think there was), there was at least a huge lack of talent in timing (not exactly what one expects if at same time changes are being touted as “we follow the lead of the Holy Spirit” or “Vatican II is the New Pentecost”).

Do Catholics believe everything happens for a reason?

I don't understand the idea that we are punished for sin even though most likely through out lifetime we will sin. The Lord has a plan for our lives yet we have free will? Why do we meet the people we do? Chance or divine intervention?

We believe God has a reason for everything which He makes happen or which He allows to happen. A reason grounded in justice and in mercy in His infinite wisdom. We do NOT believe we always are able to understand it.

Why do only Muslims celebrate the supposed sacrifice of Abraham's son as Eid and not Christians and Jews?

We celebrate what the sacrifice of Abraham prefigures, namely Good Friday.

Everything in that chapter of Genesis prefigures Good Friday, God’s Own Son dying on the Cross, and being a replacement victim for us.

What arguments are there for modern day Christians to practice religious fasting?

Apart from "the ancient Christians did it, so we should do too", I don't see much reasons for modern day Christians to continue with this practice. I mean, I can't see any benefit coming from it neither any reasonable justification.

So what good reasons are there for modern Christians to practice fasting with religious motivation apart from the mentioned above?

Notice that I'm talking about fasting as done in the Bible, that is, AFAIK total abstinence of food (and sometimes of water as well) up to 40 consecutive days.

Before answering the question as such, which I will do further down, I will comment on the EDIT for description of question.

"Notice that I'm talking about fasting as done in the Bible, that is, AFAIK total abstinence of food (and sometimes of water as well) up to 40 consecutive days."

Apart from Jesus's fast, I am not sure anyone was abstaining day and night from both drink and water.

Even in Jesus' case

Matthew 4:2
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. (Douay Rheims)
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (KJV)

Luke 4:2

For the space of forty days; and was tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. (Douay Rheims)
Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. (KJV)

It seems He might have drunk water.

At least from what I could find on the internet. If you have a printed page saying otherwise, that is another matter.

Now, there IS a kind of fasting which does not require this.

Jonah 3:[4] And Jonas began to enter into the city one day' s journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed. [5] And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. [6] And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. [7] And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. [8] And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. [9] Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? [10] And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. (Douay Rheims)

Here it says they fasted without food or water, but not that the fast lasted forty days, only that they began fasting forty days before the impending date of destruction.

Here are Haydock comments on the three passages:

Jonah 3: Ver. 4. Journey. He records what he said the first day, though he seems to have preached many (Theodoret) even during forty days, after which time (Haydock) he expected the city would fall, and therefore retired out of the walls, chap. iv. --- Forty. Septuagint three. St. Justin Martyr, (Dialogue with Trypho) "three, or forty-three." Theodoret thinks that the mistake was made by some ancient transcriber, and has since prevailed in all the copies of the Septuagint. All the rest have forty. St. Augustine (City of God xviii. 44.) believes the Septuagint placed three for a mysterious reason. Origen (hom. xvi. Num.) suggests that the prophet determined the number, and hence God did not execute the threat. (Calmet) --- This and many other menaces are conditional. If men repent, God will change his sentence. (St. Chrysostom; St. Gregory, Mor. xvi. 18.) (Worthington)

Matthew 4: Ver. 2. Jesus wished to manifest a certain corporeal weakness, arising from his continued fast, that the devil might venture to tempt him; and after a fast of 40 days and 40 nights he was hungry. (Haydock) --- Christ was well acquainted with the thoughts of the wicked fiend, and his great desire of tempting or trying him. The devil had learnt that he was come into the world from the songs of the angels at his birth, and from the mouth of the shepherds and of St. John the Baptist. To fast 40 days without being hungry, was certainly far above the strength of man, but to be hungry at any time is inconsistent with God; for which reason our blessed Saviour, that he might not manifestly declare his divinity, was afterwards hungry. (St. Hilary) --- On this example, as well as that of Moses and Elias, who also fasted 40 days, the fast of Lent was instituted by the apostles, and is of necessity to be observed according to the general consent of the ancient Fathers. St. Jerome (ep. liv. ad Marcel.) says, we fast 40 days, or make one Lent in a year, according to the tradition of the apostles. St. Augustine (serm. lxix.) says, by the due observance of Lent, the wicked are separated from the good, infidels from Christians, heretics from Catholics. Our Saviour fasted 40 days, not because he stood in need of it, as we do, to subject the unruly members of the body, which lust against the spirit, but to set an example for our imitation. (Haydock) --- Another reason might be, to prevent the captious remarks of the Jews, who might object that he had not yet done what the founder of their law, Moses, and after him Elias, had done. (Palacius in Mat.)

Luke 4:Ver. 2. In collating the present narrative with that of St. Matthew it appears that Jesus Christ was not tempted till the expiration of forty days. (Bible de Vence) --- Many reasons may be assigned why Christ permitted himself to be tempted. 1st. To merit for man the grace of overcoming temptations. 2d. To encourage us under temptations. 3d. To teach us not to be cast down with temptations, however grievous they may be, since even Jesus Christ submitted to them. 4thly. To point out to us the manner in which we ought to behave in time of temptation. (Dionysius)

Now, this means that however much Christ's own fast be superior to ours, by fasting He showed we should also fast.

In Matthew 17 we find Him saying it about one certain reason, for all who are exorcists:

Ver. 20. See here the efficacy of prayer and fasting! What the apostles could not do, prayer accompanied with fasting can effect. How then can that be genuine religion, which makes fasting an object of ridicule? We see also here that the true Church in her exorcisms follows Scripture, when she uses besides the name of Jesus, many prayers and much fasting to drive out the devils, because these, as well as faith, are here required. (Bristow)

Now, to resume:

1) Fasting, whether as in Bible or not, need not imply remaining without food or water for 40 days 24/24. Christ is not said to have abstained from water. Ninivites are not said to have done it for 40 days.

2) Fasting is nevertheless recommended in the Bible (Matthew 17:20, as cited, your KJV may number it as 21, because passage opens with an intro and then the words of the possessed man's father, DR numbers all that as one verse 14, KJV as 14 for intro and 15 for the words of the father).

3) Pharisees fasted.

This is relevant in two places.

Pharisee and Publican, the Pharisee tells God he is fasting two days per week. In Orthodox Church this passage is read at beginning of every Lent (no food before 3pm, 40 days, but saturdays and sundays off; certain foods not allowed).

As to the "two days a week", in Didaché ton dodeka apostolôn we find we should not use same weekdays, but use Wednesday and Friday for fasting.

Roman Catholics realise this as:

  • fasting Wednesday, Friday and Saturday four times a year (today would be Ember Saturday after Cross Mass or Rood Mass, the three days with a pause on Thursday start Wednesday after 14 Sept, Elevation of Holy Cross, and since that was on wednesday this year, the Ember Wednesday fell on St Matthew's Day, Sept 21, not a fasting day since a Feast Day, I presume, but on the other hand Sept 20 is a Vigil Fast)

  • abstaining from certain foods, chiefly meat, ideally dairy and eggs too, every Friday except in Christmastide

  • keeping Lent.

We can make a case for not fasting as intensely as the first Christians (they would certainly have waited till 6pm or sunset before the fast day meals, changing to 3pm is later), but there cannot be any for not fasting at all.

There is of course one against deciding just for oneself when one should fast, some specially eager people could fast too much and hurt themselves (not my case, since I have never fasted MORE than required by the Church I was at the time obeying), while others would be too lax and not fast at all.

How can I become more mature in my Catholic faith?

D - not read bef answering
Why is humility, forgiveness and charity so difficult? I try to pretend I do not understand sin so I am not held as accountable. I know what the right thing to do, but often it is difficult or goes against my vanity/pride. I think of hurting myself often because this life seems miserable.

Become a Creationist (as in Young Earth Creationist) and Geocentric too.

Mark Shea has his good sides, today I had to try to get this through to him:

A Reach Out to Mark Shea

Through other channels than his normal contacts, of course.

Monday, 26 September 2016

A Reach Out to Mark Shea

First off, there is a link to his blog, which I was just discovering, since I had been missing it for a few months after it started continuing:

Why are Red Barns Red?
May 17, 2016 by Mark Shea 2 Comments

Here he gives a link within his first words. Here are all the words:

Because of the physics of dying stars.

Of course you could say that about every heavy element. Why is gold rare? Because of the physics of dying stars. Why is water plentiful? Same deal. Why are you made out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen? You called it.

Here is the link:

SmartNews : Barns Are Painted Red Because of the Physics of Dying Stars
By Rose Eveleth / smithsonian.com / May 10, 2013
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/barns-are-painted-red-because-of-the-physics-of-dying-stars-58185724/

And here is the deal with this link. It links in its turn to another link.

Google + : Yonatan Zunger : Today I Learned: May 08, 2013
How the price of paint is set in the hearts of dying stars

And HERE we will quote the part of Zunger which Rose quoted:

The only thing holding the star up was the energy of the fusion reactions, so as power levels go down, the star starts to shrink. And as it shrinks, the pressure goes up, and the temperature goes up, until suddenly it hits a temperature where a new reaction can get started. These new reactions give it a big burst of energy, but start to form heavier elements still, and so the cycle gradually repeats, with the star reacting further and further up the periodic table, producing more and more heavy elements as it goes. Until it hits 56. At that point, the reactions simply stop producing energy at all; the star shuts down and collapses without stopping.

And HERE we will quote how Rose sums up the rest:

As soon as the star hits the 56 nucleon (total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus) cutoff, it falls apart. It doesn’t make anything heavier than 56. What does this have to do with red paint? Because the star stops at 56, it winds up making a ton of things with 56 neucleons. It makes more 56 nucleon containing things than anything else (aside from the super light stuff in the star that is too light to fuse).

The element that has 56 protons and neutrons in its nucleus in its stable state? Iron. The stuff that makes red paint.

Mark Shea, have you looked at a Periodic Table lately?

[From here on I make for rest of article extensive use of wikipedia, mostly resuming, but the quote is from an article as standing.]

Iron on it is Fe, and Fe is atom number 26. So, if iron has 56 nucleons (a reconstructed thing btw, no one has ever seen anything smaller than outer wall of globe shaped atoms, alone or hanging together in molecules), this means the 56 nucleons divide in 26 protons and 30 neutrons.

One more thing. Iron is in row 4. In row 6, we get Ba, which I think means Barium. It has (on this theory) 56 protons. If it has no neutrons at all (highly unlikely if protons and neutrons mean anything at all) it is the last element which falls within this 56 nucleon limit for dying stars.

Barium is group 2 and period 6, as in as mentioned row 6 and as not yet mentioned column 2.

Period 6 does not stop with group 2, with Barium.

After this we get a double groups 3 to 16 in period 2, namely 57 La to 70 Yb (Lanthanium to Ytterbium, I9 presume) AND Lu 71 to 84 Po, as in from Lutetium to Polonium (probably both elements named by Sklodowska-Curie or her husband - she was a Polish patriot and a Parisian). THEN the period 6 ends in groups 17 and 18, At and Rn (Antimon, I presume, and Radon, one of the things making total background radiation more milliSieverts per year than the cosmic radiation would be on its own).

After THIS we get a period 7, 87 for Fr and 88 for Ra (Radium, not the noble gas, but a metal) and after this you get 89 Ac (Actinium) to 102 No (Norwegium?) including, most famously, U as Uranium and Th as Thorium and Pu as Plutonium (92, 90, 94), and unless I am mistaken Cm is also known as Cesium. It's 96n Cm, that is. Then 103 is period 7 group 3, then they go on 104 in group 4 (being Lr) to 118 in group 18, being Uuo. Also known as (I am looking it up) Ununoctium. And (also looking up) Lr is ... no, not Logan's Run (much as I enjoyed it while age 9 in US and learning English!), but Lawrencium.

Now, Lawrencium exists thanks to the cyclotron, invented by ... (looking up) ...

It is named in honor of Ernest Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron, a device that was used to discover many artificial radioactive elements.

But how do you explain the elements pas Barium?

Or, for that matter, past Iron, because the 56 protons in Ba are not alone. The isotopes are nucleon counts 130, skipping 131, and going from 132 to 138. The latter one being most common. So Barium ALSO could not have formed in a dying star!

But perhaps (charming idea) Uranium and Thorium are really enhanced lead, however that could have come about?

Well, duh, lead also, Pb for Plumbum, is past 56 nucleons. It is past Barium in protons, since atom number 82.

Its isotopes are 202 to 210, skipping 203 and 209, 202 is synthetic, 205 and 210 are just there in traces.

Sounds a bit more than the 56 nucleons in Iron, right?

And Iron itself does not end with isotope atom weight 56. There are 57 and 58 naturally occurring, and we need not bother about synthetic atom weights 59 and 60. If the dying star can produce nothing heavier than 56 nucleons, where do iron 57 and 58 come from?

There is another theory, though you might have been misinformed by Robber Baron (and I am kind to Robert Barron with this nickname!) it is not meant to be taken scientifically.

Genesis 1:[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

Note, if you would insist this verse leaves some room for elements UP TO iron atom weight 56 (!) to first form in dying stars in heaven before getting to earth, I should fairly warn you that stars are not created until verses 14 to 18:

Genesis 1:[14] And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. [16] And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

On the bright side, this leaves some room for lead and uranium to be there without God having, when creating these, to heed the restrictions inherent in dying stars (according to a certain theory).

If you really think there should be leeway for scientific theories of elements to replace these, how about this one.

God on day four created Moon, Sun, Mars, Saturn and a few more. Earth has since then been producing Silver (Ag, atomic number 47, atomic weights however naturally occurring 107 and 109), Gold (Au, atomic number 79, atomic weight naturally occurring 197), Iron (see discussion above), and Lead (probably along with Uranium and Thorium) under the astrological influences of these bodies.*

That was good science in the day of St Thomas Aquinas. For my part, I think I prefer placing a one time creation of these elements in verse 1, before creation of any celestial body and possible influence of any astrological type.

One more thing. I learned this fact originally from Kent Hovind. Now that Mark Shea provided me with another source for it too and reminded me, I feel free to use it.**

And one more after that, why link to Rose and not to Yonatan Zunger? Is it because his words were on a google plus, not a Smithsonian page? If so, that is a sad testimony to faith in institutions and distrust in blogs. As if a blog (except naturally your own) were worthless up to when an institution links to it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Cleophas of Emmaus***, sorry
that was yesterday, I mean
Sts Cyprian and Justina°

*I omitted Jupiter and Tin because not knowing what atomic number and weight. But Jupiter's influence sure works better than dying stars. Atomic number 50 is one thing, but the isotopes are atomic weight (total number of nucleons, according to these theories) way beyond the 56 limit (112 to 126, most common three 120, 118, 116). ** Dying stars produce nothing, zilch, nada beyond atom weight 56! *** 25.IX: Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum. ° 26.IX : Nicomediae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Cypriani, et Justinae Virginis. Haec, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Eutolmio Praeside, cum multa pro Christo pertulisset, ipsum quoque Cyprianum, qui erat magus et suis magicis artibus eam dementare conabatur, ad Christianam fidem convertit; cum quo postea martyrium sumpsit. Eorum corpora, feris objecta, rapuerunt noctu quidam nautae Christiani, et Romam detulerunt; quae, postmodum in Basilicam Constantinianam translata, prope Baptisterium condita sunt.

Saturday, 24 September 2016

"Canonisation" of Roncalli Revisited

Vatican Diary / In a few months, six new saints canonized outside the rules
19.3.2014, by Sandro Magister, on Chiesa Espresso

"the "canonization equivalent." The nature of this special procedure, which "has always been present in the Church and has been employed regularly, if not frequently," was illustrated in "L'Osservatore Romano" on October 12, 2013 by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the congregation for the causes of saints. The cardinal explains: "For such a canonization, according to the teaching of Benedict XIV, three elements are required: an ancient tradition of devotion, the constant and common attestation of trustworthy historians on the virtues or martyrdom, and the uninterrupted fame of miracles." Cardinal Amato continues: "If these conditions are satisfied - again according to the teaching of pope Prospero Lambertini - the supreme pontiff, by his authority, can proceed with the 'canonization equivalent,' meaning the extension to the universal Church of the recitation of the divine office and the celebration of the Mass [in honor of the new saint], 'without any definitive formal sentence, without any preliminary juridical process, without having carried out the usual ceremonies.'"

So, if there are miracles, a canonisation can be done without usual ceremonies.

"In this area, therefore, it is also striking that Pope Francis has decided to proceed with the canonization of John XXIII – which will be celebrated next April 27 – according to the ordinary procedure but without the canonical certification of a miracle attributed to his intercession and having taken place after his beatification."

In other words, Bergoglio's act with Roncalli was the reverse. The condition always there, not fulfilled. The ceremonies that can be omitted, not omitted.

VERY glad of taking my distance from Bergoglio from that day on./HGL

Friday, 23 September 2016

Drôle de coincidence, non?

Après le billet sur lequel je me débats et qu'il a fait juste pour moi, le blogueur Prof solitaire a fait un certain nombre d'autres.

Ceci est le statut de sa page d'accueil actuel:


Ensuite, on clique l'icône pour "messages plus anciens", et on va à ...


Où le premier article en haut est le dernier qui disparaissait en ajoutant d'articles après.

Cet article est "le mien":

Carbone 14 et franc-maçonnerie...
sur le blog du prof solitaire

Au thème "Jesus is a really shitty scientist" faut juste ajouter que pourquoi pas, c'est Lui qui a construit un Univers Géocentrique et une faune diversifié du début, tout ce qui est tabou dans le monde des scientifiques de nos jours.

À part ça, le prof semble ne pas avoir été contant d'avoir ce message de blog tout en haut ... n'a-t-il pas aimé le débat? Car, notez, le nombre de messages blog après contient exactement autant de messages (dont la plupart d'art) qu'est nécessaire pour que ce message là ne soit plus accessible.

Ça me rappelle ce que je viens de dire en anglais, les évolutionnistes semblent ne plus aimer le débat:

Creation vs. Evolution : Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's?

Et le débat qu'il m'avait promis avant, sur les dix essais en récalibration créationniste de carbone 14, il semble ne pas le vouloir prendre non plus ....

Prenons, pour ne pas donner tous les liens, celui qui m'a plus le plus après, ou les deux.

Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près

Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

Dans le premier, je réfute mathématiquement un autre créationniste, celui-là Protestant. Et dans l'autre, je trouve une table de récalibration que depuis je revisite et revisite pour faire les miennes. Ils sont les essais 6 et 8 dans un total de dix. Le début, je donne un peu de leçons en persistance et autocorrection comme on le souhaite des scientifiques.

Bien entendu, ils ne prennent pas en compte la datation dendrochronologique, sur lequel le prof ne cite pas le lien qu'il donne néanmoins, juste en citant un peu de "pep talk" sans arguments très détaillés.

Là, je cite le site sur cette chose et je réponds, dans les commentaires.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating?

A-t-il un seul argument contre mon scénario?

Je cite
"Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates."

Encore moi
Bon, ceci est en effet un aveu que pour qu'on doive se fier à des dates radiocarboniques de 8 200 ans, il faut avoir des choses datés indépendamment de la datation radiocarbonique et aussi avec celle-ci, de manière que le bon fonctionnement de la datation radiocarbonique (donc un niveau de carbone 14 à peu près comme aujourd'hui) soit vérifié par la datation indépendante.

Je propose les documentations historiques, qui sont excellentes pour les dernier 2500 ans. L'auteur de ce site propose le comptage d'anneaux de croissance dans les arbres. Qui confirmerait les datations radiocarboniques jusqu'à il y a 8 200 ans.

Le problème est que telle datation fiable en termes de dendrochronologie n'est pas fiable.

J'ai vérifié une fois (référence perdue, hélas!) que les séries en Europe ont des bottlenecks, comme on dit en anglais, et ceci donc avec très peu d'arbres qui feraient le pont. Malheureusement, le diagramme pour les diverses anneaux des diverses arbres ne fait pas confiance par sa stricte parallélité.

Des créationnistes avant moi ont aussi dénoncé les anneaux de croissance comme pas forcément annuels. En Californie, la présence d'humidité et de sécheresse (deux fois par an) peut très bien être plus important que l'été et l'hiver.

Le prof, plus loin
Hans, avec ce que je sais de votre idéologie, je suis convaincu que vos arguments anti-science ne sont pas solides. Malheureusement, je n'ai ni le temps, ni les connaissances et ni l'envie d'attaquer vos arguments un par un afin d'en prouver la fausseté.

Je vous invite à écrire une thèse et à la soumettre à une université et à la révision des sommités dans le domaine. Si vous avez raison, alors allez-y et révolutionnez le monde de la science. Je serai le premier à reconnaître mon erreur et à m'excuser.

Ce serait bien la première fois qu'un théocrate catholique créationniste aurait raison à propos de quoi que ce soit.

D'ici là, je vais continuer à accorder ma confiance aux grands consensus scientifiques qui font l'unanimité chez les sommités intellectuelles du monde des sciences, c'est à dire des gens qui sont davantage préoccupés par un désir de décrire la réalité plutôt que par celui de prouver à tout prix que leur petit livre religieux est la vérité absolue telle que dictée par un divin créateur.

Ne vous en déplaise, en ce qui me concerne, ce sujet est donc clos.

Est-ce que le sujet était tellement clos pour lui, qu'il voulait qu'il le soit pour tout nouveau venant à son blog? Ça expliquerait que je trouve après ce message là, dix autres, dont les premiers huit sont de l'art. Sur un blog dont la page d'accueil montre exactement dix messages, les dix derniers, à la fois./HGL

PS, les liens vers le site que le prof citait ...

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
on Creation/Evolution Journal : Issue 8 (Spring 1982)
Author(s): Christopher Gregory Weber

... et vers ma réponse ...

Creation vs. Evolution : Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14

Bonne lecture!/HGL

Note on the Crusade (Medieval Version)

Here is some good stuff:

The TOF Spot
on Crusades

Deus vult! Part I: The Preludes

Deus vult! Part Two: On Your Marks

Deus vult! Part III: I have come in order to die

Be it noted, I don't disagree about Crusades, or about supporting Peshmargas against ISIS.

If I disagreed about supporting Kharzai, it is because Kharzai, the Western backed and democratically elected (as far as Parliamentarian Democracy is at all democratic) Kharzai was putting Christian connverts in prison and forbidding the sale of Bibles in Kabul.

Back in those times, some Geoff of Bouillon or Tancred or Bahamonde (after whom another caudillo was named) would have put Kharzai into gaol for such doings. At best./HGL

Can Young People Conduct a Media Business from Home?

Just if they have talent.

But until they've tried, that is strictly for them to decide. Even after, when they move out, parents can no longer decide for them. Nor anyone else, as long as they stay legal.

Now, I was a few months ago speaking of what the Wright brothers did before starting what became flight.

Here is another example.

New owners have requested a demolition permit for Walt Disney’s first home in California. The well-preserved 1914 Craftsman bungalow at 4406 Kingswell Avenue in Los Feliz belonged to Walt’s aunt Charlotte and uncle Robert Disney, who in July of 1923 invited their young nephew to board in their home (at a rate of $5 per week) as he pursued his dream of becoming a film director.

See the title of the article I cited, then click and read the rest:

The Home Where Walt Disney Founded His First Studio Is Set to be Demolished
July 19, 2016 Chris Nichols Architecture, Celebrity, Film, L.A. History, Urban Development

Plus, let's not forget how Lizzy and Hilde Kate are doing in the Lysiak home:

Orange Street News

Of course it may help that their father is also a journalist./HGL

Thursday, 22 September 2016

Spero Christifideles heri habuisse

bonum festum Sancti Matthæi Apostoli, Evangelistæ et Martyris./HGL

Yesterday Morning, I distributed slips of paper with URLs to five blogs

Here are some viewer stats, last 24 h:

Ukraine 7
Ukraine 27 34
Ukraine 9 43
France 1
France 4 5
France 1 6
France 11 17
France 7 24
UK, Canada, Australia
Canada 1
Canada 9 10
Canada 1 11
Australia 1 12
United Kingdom 1
United Kingdom 2 3
United Kingdom 1 4 16
United States
United States 1
United States 2 3
United States 3 6
United States 8 14
Germany 1
Germany 4 5
Germany 6 11
Netherlands 2
Netherlands 5 7
Romania 2
Romania 2 4
Romania 3 7
Mozambique 1
South Korea 1 2
Denmark 1 3
Indonesia 1 4
Poland 2 6
China 1 7

Per blog:
Creation vs evolution

Ukraine 7
Netherlands 2
Romania 2
Canada 1
Germany 1
France 1
Mozambique 1

somewhere else
France 4
South Korea 1
United States 1

Great Bishop of Geneva!
United States 2
France 1
United Kingdom 1

New blog on the kid
Ukraine 27
France 11
Canada 9
Netherlands 5
Germany 4
United States 3
United Kingdom 2
Romania 2
Denmark 1
Indonesia 1

Ukraine 9
United States 8
France 7
Germany 6
Romania 3
Poland 2
Australia 1
Canada 1
China 1
United Kingdom 1

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Two Rules of Successive Odd Numbers Apply to Square Numbers

Obviously, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49 ... is as we have been taught in school

1 + 3 = 4, 4 + 5 = 9, 9 + 7 = 16, 16 + 9 = 25, 25 + 11 = 36, 36 + 13 = 49 ...

Now take a look at 49, it is 7 * 7. Imagine we are dealing with a square of pebbles or where dimensions are required to be one precise set of length units. Now, take the same parameter and make the rectangle oblong, by shuffling the units from width to length.

7 * 7 = 49
 49 - 1 = 48
6 * 8 = 48
 48 - 3 = 45
5 * 9 = 45
 45 - 5 = 40
4 * 10 = 40
 40 - 7 = 33
3 * 11 = 33
 33 - 9 = 24
2 * 12 = 24
 24 - 11 = 13
1 * 13 = 13

Is this a law? Check 64.

8 * 8 = 64
 64 - 1 = 63
7 * 9 = 63
 63 - 3 = 60
6 * 10 = 60
 60 - 5 = 55
5 * 11 = 55
 55 - 7 = 48
4 * 12 = 48
 48 - 9 = 39
3 * 13 = 39
 39 - 11 = 28
2 * 14 = 28
 28 - 13 = 15
1 * 15 = 15

I think it is. How about cubes, now?

First of all, what are the successive differences between cube numbers?

1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000.

1 + 1 + 1*6 = 8; 8 + 1 + 3*6 = 27; 27 + 1 + 6*6 = 64; 64 + 1 + 10*6 = 125; 125 + 1 + 15*6 = 216; 216 + 1 + 21*6 = 343 ...

If you don't recognise the multiples of six involved, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21 are triangular numbers. 1 + 2 = 3; 3 + 3 = 6; 6 + 4 = 10; 10 + 5 = 15; 15 + 6 = 21. They augment by successive numbers.

If we scale down by shuffling units from factor to factor, as before, we will however get another kind of rule.

8 * 8 * 8 = 512
 512 - 1*8 = 504
7 * 8 * 9 = 504
 504 - 3*8 = 480
6 * 8 * 10 = 480
 480 - 5*8 = 440
5 * 8 * 11 = 440
 440 - 7*8 = 384
4 * 8 * 12 = 384
 384 - 9*8 = 312
3 * 8 * 13 = 312
 312 - 11*8 = 224
2 * 8 * 14 = 224
 224 - 13*8 = 120
1 * 8 * 15 = 120

Yes, we are scaling down with exactly same steps as from a square, except that each subtrahend is now multiplied by the cube root of the original cube number. Let's doublecheck:

7 * 7 * 7 = 343
 343 - 1*7 = 336
6 * 7 * 8 = 336
 336 - 3*7 = 315
5 * 7 * 9 = 315
 315 - 5*7 = 280
4 * 7 * 10 = 280
 280 - 7*7 = 231
3 * 7 * 11 = 231
 231 - 9*7 = 168
2 * 7 * 12 = 168
 168 - 11*7 = 91
1 * 7 * 13 = 91

This is the kind of mathematics that Boethius enjoyed - unless one should say he put in his textbook of arithmetic no such lopsided things as going from 7*7 to 6*8 or from 7*7*7 to 6*7*8. I don't recall those examples from his textbook, but that could just be my sloppy and tired reading back then or bad memory since then.

Check ye it out!

Anicii Manlii Torquati Severini Boetii
De Institutione Arithmetica
Libri duo
E Libris Manu scriptis Edidit Godofredus Friedlein MDCCCLXVII

Oh, if you know Latin, of course. And if someone is prepared to fill in the remaining 50 % from the text of Friedlein (since it is 1867, copyright has expired, there is no copy right violation for this edition by numerising it).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Matthew
Apostle and Gospeller

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

I Also Find the Flat Earth Refuted

1)Creation vs. Evolution : Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present · 2)New blog on the kid : I Also Find the Flat Earth Refuted

CMI published an article:

A flat earth, and other nonsense
Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati

Ideas do exist whether there is internet or not. Obviously, the previous ways of expressing ideas, before internet was there, were either private expression or certain mass media (including lecturing from ecclesiastical pulpits or from school pulpits) where you are not your own editor. And, indeed, in some of these cases, Flat Earth did exist very well apart from the internet.

Yeshivôth, heard of them?

Now, one of the main Christian (... or half and half so, but not compromising on the verge of clear modernist confirmity ...) proponents of Flat Earth is Rob Skiba II. He is ALSO Hebrew Roots. And that means that "Torah school" and "Yeshivah" are words that mean something to him.

Now, if you go to AD 1200 and continue up to 1300, you will find few or no proponents of Flat Earth in University of Paris. But among Jews "juste à côté" (up till when St Louis IX expels them) and then further East (some only went as far as across Le Rhône into Carpentras), you would probably not have found any proponent of a Round Earth. They had their saying "it is allowed to study Greek philosophy between day and night" or sth like that, namely the short while of evendim. The time between sun touching horizon and first two visible stars (which may in Greek terminology be planets, of course).

If you kill the internet or smother its freedom of expression, you will probably still have Jews proposing Flat Earth in their Yeshivôth, and you will also (as I learned from a video proposing Vedic Flat Earth Geocentrism) have Hindoos explaining the shadow of Earth during Lunar eclipses as being really the "planet Rahu" interposed between Moon and us. This last is also why I disagree with Rob Skiba on his reason why not to embrace Flat Earth fully, he thought Lunar eclipses were the best argument, I think polar region and close by region seasons on the two hemispheres the best argument.

Along with different stars.

Suppose one granted Flat Earthers a torus shaped Earth, with only upper faces qualifying as Earth and only upper faces included in discovered geography. Suppose North is the dimple inside and South is the rim outside. 6 months long day would be easy to explain, if Sun in daily circuit above the torus was during six months on the dimple side, a closer circle (summer half year of Northern hemisphere). But six months long day on South Pole would be more difficult. Take the half year which is Summer on Southern hemisphere. They suppose the circuit is wider and therefore on the outrim side of torus. So wide that dimple (=North) is always cut off from Sun by the bulk of the torus. This means that on the other hand any part of Antarctica would each day (as in 24 hour space) in part have better access to Sun, as Sun was on its side of its part of the torus, but in part worse, since cut off from Sun by not just closer torus but also by other torus bulk.

Also, their argument that the stars "of other hemisphere" (recall, some of South will be seen from North of equator and vice versa) are invisible because too far away is an argument which has been refuted by the telescope. If you trust that instrument, that is. Which I do - only not as much as I trust the microscope.

The internet has allowed me to "hear" (actually more often read) the Flat Earth case and also refute it - including to those exposing it on their sites (insofar as they did not outmoderate my comments to their readers too).

It’s notable that the article The Flat Earth Myth, as recently as 2013, did not receive any negative comments from flat-earth believers. Why? Because there were hardly any people back then who believed it! Rather, readers were grateful to see that the church had never taught this nonsense. Several honest atheists have even slammed people from their own side who have pushed a bad pseudo-history that accuses the church of teaching a flat earth. [Citing Tim O'Neill, very corectly, in footnote]

Yes, probably a few more Jews have converted to Christian Fundamentalist communities, which are not as doctrinally opposed to Flat Earth as modernist ones or even Trad Catholics are. Some fans of Sungenis (fellow Catholic with a question mark and fellow geocentric) have been somewhat uncharitable to Flat Earthers, it seems he is not quite enjoying the prospect of sharing Heaven with converting Jewry. Or they are not quite doing so. Or were not, until I pointed out that a Catholic Flat Earther would most probably be a former Jew.

And the same happened in reverse, with observers on ships. Indeed, this was explained well back in the Middle Ages by John Sacrobosco (c.1195–c.1256) in his Tractatus de Sphaera (Treatise on the Sphere, i.e. the earth):

That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. (Tractatus 1:11)

Well, some of them have presented a calculus of HOW far down things "would" disappear on a circular earth and used fact the views don't match that (i e Chicago seen from Lake Michigan) as proof it is not circular. However, one should note that a torus shaped earth actually would pose same kind of problem to them as a circular one - or one extra problem to anyone, namely if true, the non-disappearance would be greater along the top of the torus, which is not true.

OT prophet Isaiah lived between seafaring Phenicians (Chanaaneans, mainly) and land crab Babylonians. The authors of Talmud Bavli on the other hand seem to have been only in contact with land crab Babylonians, or their heirs. This is shadowed by fact that OT is neutral in wording, while post-Christ Jewry have historically been favouring Flat Earth, and more the more they have been ghettoised.

In fact some of them disliking Flat Earth and others of them disliking Geocentrism and St Thomas Aquinas, are two sides of their anti-Greek prejudice. Obviously not shared by the Catholic Church which heeded "in Christ is neither Jew nor Greek" (i e in their previous opposition, obviously the fact of belonging to either ethnicity does not exclude from the Church).

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Philip, ex prefect of Alexandria
martyred by his successor

Update, 14.IX, Elevation of Holy Cross Feast:

Just listened to Russell Humphreys, on his non-Geocentric view of the "light years" and how "distant" star light came here very fast.

Gravitational time dilation is supposed to be proven by comparing clocks ticking at ground level and high up in sky-scrapers, as far as a certain diagram of the clip could show.

However, this could also be because ether turns faster out there / up there in a Universe turning around us by the ether. And it could be affecting the clocks without affecting the actual time.

This Geocentric option for it would be somewhat ingenious as a solution even for distant starlight - if needed still, in Geocentrism - because starlight seems according to modern theories of how you measure distance, to be distant any way you look. Imagine how fast the ether would be turning - in RH's theory affecting "speed of time" even! - so many "light years" above a centre of a turning Universe.

Just that, with Geocentrism, you cannot prove the phenomenon observed by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838 (and previous years) to be parallactic or functioning in similar ways. In fact it cannot be parallactic in the sense of a landscape "moving parallactically" for your eyes, because you watch it from a train, if Earth is NOT moving with us like a train. And it cannot be proven that it functions in a similar way either, as Bouw and DeLano imagine. So, "the first rung of the cosmic distance ladder" just disappears. Therefore the rest. Therefore the distant starlight problem too.

Now, as on their article, they did allude to an earlier article of theirs, I should link to my response to it:

New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...

I was going to make it part 3 of this series, but it is already part 2 of a larger one./HGL

Later same day:

I checked about Bessel. He was born in Minden. Two facts stand out:

  • 1) The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave the possession of Minden to Brandenburg-Prussia, and it remained with Prussia until its break-up in 1947. The rule of Frederick I of Prussia (in office 1688-1713) ended the 400-year self-determination or independence of the citizens of Minden. The 40-man unit (Vierziger) was dissolved by the king and the town council was replaced by a town authority consisting of 16 businessmen, 16 tradesmen and eight representatives of the community who were elected for life.

    In other words, Bessel was fully part of the Prussian heritage which today's article by CMI deplored in the case of von Trotta. In case anyone should think he was of a Catholic region even so (Cologne was Catholic and in Prussia), let me remind you there was a reformation in Minden:

    The introduction of the Reformation to Minden in 1529 created much conflict in the town, leading to the formation of a 36-man unit that took over the role of town regiment. Nicholas Krage announced Minden's new evangelical church order from the pulpit of St. Martin's Church (Martinikirche) on 13 February 1530. There were 128 prosecutions for witchcraft between 1603 and 1684. As in nearby regions, almost all those sentenced were women. Imperial troops occupied Minden from 1625 to 1634, during the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648). Protestant Swedish troops laid siege to Minden and captured it in 1634. Queen Christina of Sweden (reigned 1632–1654) granted full sovereignty in internal and external affairs to Minden.

    So, it was, like the Magdeburg or Meideborg where von Trotha was born - he was the culprit of the Herero genocide - a Protestant area.

  • 2) Minden is a place from which Jews were not being expelled during the time when it was fashionable in some German states.

    A Jewish community has existed in Minden since the 13th century. There were up to 400 members in the 19th century. After WWII the Jewish community was reconstituted with 40 members. The Minden synagogue which was destroyed in the Kristallnacht pogrom, was inaugurated at a new site in 1958 and is the centre of the Jewish community.

    Since the 13th C.? Sounds like they could have been coming there from the France from which St Louis IX expelled them.