mardi 26 août 2014

At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion], Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule:

"1) This group is for Creationism. If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members. This also applies to those who support Creationism."

I see no point in staying.

Before leaving, it is time for some honesty. I actually resumed and even copy pasted parts of our debates on my blogs.

New blog on the kid : Resumé de mes débats géocentriques sur le groupe "Creationism"

HGL's F.B. writings : Supernormal stimuli and behavioural addiction? Really now?

[Ibidem] Some Answers on a Thread of Group Creationism

So long, farewell, auf Widersehn à Dieu ...

When you say angels move stars what do you expect?
Now go forth and slander the name of Christianity to all the world.
What, going so soon? I've just found another paper for you, so you can contact the Royal Archaeological Institute!!
Angels move the stars. I love that line
"If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members."

It is very unfortunate to see someone go and instead of people wishing them well, they take the last opportunity to kick him one more time.
But that's what atheists do
"But that's what atheists do"

Making such generalizations doesn't help either I'm afraid.
The Lord bless you Hans-Georg, for the believer all things work together for good, so I'm sure He will use you in another place He has lined up for you long before your decision - Shalom Brother
Yes, hopefully Hans is now on his way to London, in order to rewrite the timeline of British history. We wait with anticipation...
Well PM unlike you Hans would say outlandish things. And unlike you rather than stay and defend his reasoning he runs away crying.
It is possible to point out the flaw in an argument without being what's called a "douchebag" in your culture, I believe.

Are you old enough to remember that people shook hands after a sports match?

Gestures like that make the difference between civilized people and a bunch of dogs fighting over food.
It's unfortunate you felt the need to leave. Be well.
Nope. It's called "being faced with evidence and unable to handle it".

Hans wanted an archaelogical paper, I went one step further and offered evidence of an even older time than that requested.

Not only that but I provided TWO archaelogical papers.

It's a shame Hans didn't stop by to pick them up on his way to the City.
I normally encourage people to stay. But then he not only said he was leaving he was a cry baby. In other words he was not being a good sport.

I still shake hands after winning or losing. and I never complain.
KP - where was this discussion?

The idea that angels were moving stars around was always a minority view, even when people held that view. The idea was that heavenly bodies were intelligent beings which were rational, and that's why they could follow courses in the sky which appeared to mimic 'perfection', i.e circles. Those who believed in such stuff believed the sun and moon were also intelligent entities, and the debate was whether they had souls. The idea that angels were pushing them around was always bizarre, and it was people like Cosmas and his Christian Topography, which no-one believed or understood which was purveying the diea.

Your 'explanation'of SN1987A is as ridiculous as claiming there is a man in the moon - in fact it's eactly the same thing, and equivalent to worshipping the sun as a god.

[HGL’s edit : Saying there is a man in the Moon does not amount to worshipping him !]
Please don't go. We need a geocentric creationist here.
Next thread down EG
I'm sorry to see you leave, while I can be overly critical and sometimes harsh I did enjoy verbally sparing with you, perhaps our paths will cross once more, I will eternally have questions of a technical natural regarding geocentricism so I shall leave you with the thought, if not today, maybe tomorrow
Follow your heart , Hans.
How do the admins have time to keep up with this/other pages?
Bye Felicia.
When was someone disrespectful to you??? I sure was never tagged.

And if you see no point in staying why do you see a point in announcing that you see no point?
it's a good point...
I can point out that as an admin of other pages it is very difficult to take action against rule breaking that you do not see
General remark from me :
My leaving the group does not amount to my hating each and every one of the guys I talked to. I have not blocked the guys who regretted my leaving or my leaving so soon.
Comments were
posted after I copied this. Here comes a new batch and my final comment to it. Before I go there, SO lives in Mykonos in Greece, and to him the fact of "angels moving stars" being marginal in Byzantium may amount to same theory being marginal tout court. If Cosmas Indicopleustes was marginal in Byzantium mainly for being flat earther and that position was definitely as marginal in Sorbonne, it does not follow that he was also marginal in Byzantium for "angels moving stars", and if he was (there is some other evidence he might have been) it does not follow this was as marginal centuries later in Sorbonne or even that people in Sorbonne were aware he had said that. But here is the new batch of comments:
"I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule" - Hans

>> And yet you've never tagged an admin who can do something about it? But you expect that we read every comment on every thread for everything that could be taken as offensive?

I have creationism to explain to those who don't understand it. Sorry if I didn't show up to every thread. Good luck on other pages.
We see no point in you staying either. Finally! Agreement!
R « Jesuslives »
You for real dawg?
Basically Hans is a good argument for banning the internet.

And I just want to point out how awkward it is to have PM defending atheists! That is what Hans brought us to! But thanks PM, I try to point out the same thing when I hear folks generalize about Christians.
Before I throw a tantrum and leave, here is several links to my blogs written in gibberish.
I think PM would appreciate that, JF. (just tagging him so he knows)
After the animosity shown when I left
I think I can safely conclude I was not imagining being treated disrespectfully. A guy who considers me a good argument for banning the internet, and who is an atheist who feels hurt when a Christian defends atheists against hasty generalisations (which I would too), then there is not any kind of proof all atheists hate Christianity, but a definite proof he does and feels safe among the atheists he associates with in venting it.

He may very well be defending Christians against generalisations, but I feel the generalisation of relying on God and the supernatural as valid explanations (one thing every Christian should as per Catechism of St Pius X) may be one of the horrid things he feels one must not paint out all Christians as doing.

There was a time when C. S. Lewis was part of the debate, when a Christian stating definite belief in the miracles of Christ could, in some corners of the Western World, be accused of slandering Christianity.

A thing to the moderator : I was not complaining about them not doing their job. I find it the job of debators to be civilised rather than of moderators to force them to it.
More on SO:
a) His wall (or what he shares with people not his friends on FB) contains material of three types:

  • i) A video about Near East history of claims to Holy Land.
  • ij) A philosophical video about "just now - ism" (shared on Creationism group)
  • iij) Three items about creationism "being in a crisis.

The things about creationism are from june 24, the other two an item each from June 23.

b) on about section I found one item except location:

I am interested in the prsychology of belief systems, especially those in which the believers have been sucked into an intellectual back hole, what John Cleese once called "closed systems of thought".

A Modern Thinker : Paradigm and Ideology

It has not occurred to him that his own belief is a closed system of thought. That a scientist engaged in research has a psychologically different state of mind than a believer, but that the people who read him have the same state of mind as believers. In either case ranging from unnecessarily narrow minded supicion against people not substantially disagreeing to extreme broad mindedness verging on apostasy, and in between the simple state of believing a thing to be true to exclusion of its opposite.

Are we dealing with a psychologist based in Greece, surrounded by disciples of Romanides? I do not know, but it seems eerily like it.

We are probably dealing with a man who regards the Holy Land as a peaceful place as soon as there is no more anything holy about it, but if he wants persuasion only, he is not winning the fight for that peace with his anticreationism, and if he is prepared to war against creationists to get peace in the Holy Land, there is a name for such peace: desolation.
Ensuing Correspondence with KP
Took place at FB, posted as an appendix to above "farewells" from me.
26 août [2014] 16:40
Me to KP
Look at your farewells a bit. Since I left the group I cannot answer under your comments.

linking back here

Look especially carefully at my general comment.

If there was any paper you wanted to hand me I am still willing to take on the issue what I find right and what I find wrong about it..HGL's F.B. writings: At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]

27 août [2014] 10:10
Me to KP again
I went to the thread and found a broken link.

You give me fresh links, I will stand by my promise in public on my blog. THEN you will be able to post my blog post and if you think you should, tear it to pieces in a group where your loudmouthedness is the rule.

But I have not broken my promise by leaving the group.

In order for you to know a little in advance of what you can expect, here is this item for you:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)

Dimanche [7 sept 2014] 22:05
KP to me
if you can't be civil, please don't leave unpleasant messages in my inbox. Thanks.

Lundi [8 sept 2014] 16:38
Uncivil to state I broke no promise? Serious?

jeudi 21 août 2014

Supernormal stimuli and behavioural addiction? Really now?

Status of TF:

And now for something slightly different. What do you think about animals, including humans, having "hardwired" neural pathways and behaviors? Here's a very interesting short essay/comic on "supernormal stimulation" that attempts to explain why humans tend to indulge in or even become addicted to things like junk food, the internet and pornography. Is there be a disconnect between creation and evolution in explaining these behaviors? Heck, there's even a quotation from C.S. Lewis towards the end on fighting temptation.

Sparring Mind : Supernormal Stimuli: This is Your Brain on Porn, Junk Food, and the Internet
by Gregory Ciotti


[One exchange of words left out]


Who says internet (or "junk food" even) is comparable to porn?

One cannot speak of internet as an addiction. Those who do are forgetting what words really mean in medicine.

One cannot speak of internet as a temptation that is forgetting who is to judge what is sin. "Thous shalt not use internet" is not a commandment, and neither is "thou shalt use internet if at all only little".

It is about communication, and human communication is not an addiction or temptation, it can be a temptation because of content, but not because of format (excepting nudity outside marriage).


Hi Hans-Georg,

\\Who says internet (or "junk food" even) is comparable to porn?//

The article I posted, as they qualify as "supernormal stimuli." They're stimulating different neural and behavioral pathways, but the author is arguing that they can have very similar effects.

\\One cannot speak of internet as an addiction. Those who do are forgetting what words really mean in medicine.//

It's currently listed in the appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, tagged for "further study." Not official an addiction yet, but it's obviously about as new as you can get so there's very little research on it.

Wikipedia : Internet Addiction Disorder

\\One cannot speak of internet as a temptation that is forgetting who is to judge what is sin. "Thous shalt not use internet" is not a commandment, and neither is "thou shalt use internet if at all only little".//

I suppose the "sinful" nature of the examples in the article would depend on if you lump them into "sloth, gluttony, and lust" of the "deadly sins" for the internet, junk food, and pornography.

\\It is about communication, and human communication is not an addiction or temptation, it can be a temptation because of content, but not because of format //

Well, the article certainly lists several "harmful" side effects of internet usage, though it's not aimed to address sin.


Starting to read article and looking at definition of "supernormal stimuli":

" supernormal stimuli, a term evolutionary biologists use to describe any stimulus that elicits a response stronger than the stimulus for which it evolved"

Evolutionary biologists? Hullo! We are NOT evolved. We are created. And Our Creator knew perfectly well Internet was coming through us.

THEN stimulating a neural and behavioural pathway is not a thing that is bad. It is not a thing that is morally good either. It is a physical good for the behaviour and is not physically bad for the person unless it leads into physical and moral harm. The problem with porn is not the neural pathway per se as such - you get that with prayer too - but the fact that it is directed to the moral damage of lust. That is not so with internet or so called junk food.

As to "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", you can very well nickname it the Devil's Bible. Alcohol and heroine give addictions, and you do not need to study the Devil's Bible for that.

Internet is not a supernormal stimulus in the sense given by the article. I am not for porn. The supercute is used in manga - to bad or good use depending on the moral the mangaka confers with his story. Facebook is not super anything. Except when one comes when every friend is online and there come too many notifications : then notifications clicking are super annoying. It is reason, and the real human pleasure of friendship which keeps people on FB who would otherwise flee it due to overmany notifications. Of course everyone I like on, FB is someone I think I would like in real life too. Sometimes I come across people on FB who annoy me, and who in real life I might have shunned - and I still have a discussion with them, because I know (or at worst feel I know) my intercourse with them is limited to that discussion. As human communication, FB is rather a SUB-normal stimulus in that way. Though I would ditch the category stimulus altogether and call FB what it is: human communication.

As to the expression "behavioural addiction", better ditch it. There is a real word for it, and it is habit. Habits are not a medical condition as long as they are habits and not medical addictions (alcohol, heroine). Therefore, habits are not the domain for doctors, but rather for moralists to judge, and these in turn have to turn to the Bible and not to the Devil's Bible (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in misdirected awe for shrinks as if they were medical experts on the matters.

Some Answers on a Thread of Group Creationism

Status of DL on group wall:

If the bible for some reason was missing Genesis 1 and 2 and the two genealogies in the gospels were not there would you still think that scientists were lying to you about an old earth or would the evidence suggest the world is 6000 years old and we don't need Genesis 1 and 2 to tell us this?

My answer to status:

"would you still think that scientists were lying to you about an old earth or would the evidence suggest the world is 6000 years old and we don't need Genesis 1 and 2 to tell us this?"

Neither. I would consider that Scientists were lying to themselves about the clarity of the evidence (even if I did not get to this before actually believing Genesis 1-2 and the genealogy of St Luke) and I would be looking at other historical datings of the world. How far back in time did Egyptian or Babylonian archaeology go? Is there historical evidence before Tolkien's life of the events in Silmarillion? How long ago was Atlantis? Etc. I would, in absence of Biblical authority, probably take pagan authority on world being 40.000 years old. And I would in doing so be a bit confused on whether God or the gods created earth.

My answers to some other points brought up:

"Matthew 1:6 says Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3: 31 says that Jesus was the son of David through NATHAN. Which one is correct?"

Matthew is correct about Jesus' juridical sonship through his stepfather St Joseph. Luke is correct about his physical sonship through the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose real grandfather was stepgrandfather to St Joseph or something, so Luke was also jurically correct about St Joseph, as Matthew was physically correct about him).

APART from this, if you descend from someone who lived centuries ago, you usually do so on more than one line of descent. A man being your father's father's father's father may also have been your mother's father's father's father through two other men, as well as being even your father's mother's mother's father. ANY genealogy of the Biblical type is of necessity a selection. If it uses the words "begat", one can exclude transitions from father in law to son in law marrying daughter of the first. It can also exclude stepfather and stepson relations. Now, the genealogy in Matthew uses the word begat. That in Luke does not.

"Geology (and they were christians) decided that the earth was older than 6000 years in the 1700's"

In the 1700's lots of Christians were Apostates. Even without evolution. Probably common acceptance of Heliocentrism had sth to do with that. The Church was right to condemn the two theses of Galileo, and he was right to condemn them himself, first publically, and later in his conscience.

"there are areas on the earth that show no flood."

Oh? What area has NO Cretaceous, NO Permian, NO Carboniferous or Missisippian, NO Palaeocene, NO Ediacaran, NO Cambrian, NO precambrian etc. fossils?

"Because Adam didn't have a scribe or a pen or scrolls."

He can have been the first scribe. But if instead he was passing along the story per oral tradition, the pre-Abrahamic and thus possibly pre-written accounts, passed down orally, come down in so short snippets that these can have been carefully formulated in sufficient brevity and clarity for correct oral transmission per learning by heart.

We cannot FOLLOW written accounts as if every piece of writing that was there has come down to us. Absense of direct evidence as in manuscripts is not evidence of absense.

Presence of a certain "total culture" remain of a certain community (thus not just things like the tombs of Abraham in Canaanite territory as it was then) with total absence of any writing is of course evidence of absence in that particular community, but not as for all contemporaries [thereof].

"It actually appears it was written long after moses was dead. Probably written during captivity in Babylon."

ALSO. By exact copying from scrolls brough along from pre-exile Jerusalem, copied from the series of scrolls preserved when Athaliah had tried to obliterate the law, which in turn were copied from scrolls going back to Moses.

THAT is what the story of books subsequent to Deuteronomy suggest very strongly as the history of the Mosaic texts.

Saying it was not only written but actually authored during captivity in Babylon is heretical.

[On the two genealogies again:]

"Creationists think they are for determining the age if the earth. Matthew would laugh at that."

1) Genealogy of St Matthew is for documenting Christ is Messiah of Israel. "Son of David Son of Abraham".

2) Genealogy of St Luke is for documenting Christ is descended from the first man in a line that has recalled what the Gentiles have forgotten. That He is therefore also redeemer of the Gentiles.

3) Genealogy of St Luke reaching back to Adam gives us the number of generations. And Genesis gives us the number of generations among these that were extra long lived. That a chronology was not the primary purpose of the genealogy does not preclude that the genealogy actually provides such a thing too. Biblical inerrancy does not mean it is "inerrant about whatever it really intends and purposes to make its main point, but fallible in sideissues" it means the Bible is inerrant in side issues as well as main points.