Censorship Again

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Documenting Censorship · HGL's F.B. writings: Censorship Again

The link I tried to share was:

Creation vs. Evolution: What About Providentissimus Deus?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/11/what-about-providentissimus-deus.html

So, has Robert Sungenis bribed French administrators of FB in order to keep me out of competition?

I was right now even prevented from simply commenting under a thing he had no problem sharing (or Levi J. Pingleton for him)./HGL

PS, it seems, according to my memory from reading Rivarol a few months ago, the French administrators of FB aren't so much French as Qataris./HGL

My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

New blog on the kid: Some Guys on CMI Might be Overdoing Work Ethic · HGL's F.B. writings: My Writings are NOT Outflows from My Innermost Devotion and are NOT Meant to be Seen and Read by God Alone

I am writing as a writer, not as a man trying to converse with God.

My words are directed to readers whom I presume decently intelligent, but perhaps ignorant in some detail, not to God who reads my heart and kidneys. SOME evil peoople in the Catholic Church don't seem to get it. Here is an example on FB, with my comment below:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not true of bread baking.

You didn't get paid to bake Pågens that no one could find and you distributed only among the poor, you got paid becaue in Sweden Pågens is a well publicised bakery.

If it wasn't Pågens, sorry.

Similarily G.K. Chesterton (who got decorated by Pope Pius XI) didn't earn his money for the house on Beaconsfield by distributing GKC's Weekly ONLY among very few clergy.

There is a huge difference between professional production and individual acts of charity as they flow from grace. Did I get my point through this time, Sir?

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon

A

Ken Wolgemuth

16.X.2024

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating for Biblical Archaeology: C-14–Part 1

Many people, including Christians, have heard of “Radiocarbon Dating” as one tool in science to determine the passage of time in years. This is correct, but very few understand how it is done. It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology. So many archaeological findings provide evidence that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are authentic descriptions of Bible times. One example I will come to is the radiocarbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that.

C-14 is produced in the stratosphere continuously by cosmic radiation causing neutrons to hit nitrogen-14 atoms, which knocks out a proton forming a C-14 atom. These combine with oxygen to form CO2 that is taken into tree leaves and plants by photosynthesis. The C-14 gets into the tree ring wood from this process. With the food chain, C-14 gets into the bones of animals. Once a tree ring grows in the tree trunk, and animals die, no more fresh C-14 gets in the bones. Then the C-14 decays back to N-14 with a half-life of 5,730 years. I will explain half-life with diagrams later.

[omitting for now but not objecting to the diagrams, but not the following ones]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Best Contributor

Most I agree with.

"I will explain half-life with diagrams later."

Already know how they work, and agree they work in the way usually thought and not the Setterfield way.

BUT ... I take objection to two statements.

"It is of particular interest to Christians, because it is applied in Biblical archaeology."

Basically true for anything since King David, but misleading when applied to for instance the times of Abraham. Carbon dated 2000 BC (the whenabouts of his birth) would be Early Bronze Age IV to Middle Bronze Age I. In reality, 1935 BC (80 years after his birth) is carbon dated to 3500 BC, which is in the late Chalcolithic.

As per the carbon dates of the reed mats of the evacuation of temple treasures from En Geddi.

"I will gradually demonstrate the evidence of C-14 decay back to 40,000 years ago, which is evidence that the earth is older than that."

You have just made a time-loop from 1935 BC to 3500 BC. Did Abraham access Sodom and Gomorra via the Tardis?

B

Ken Wolgemuth

25.X.2024

Hello to you who are connected to my Profile. This is Part 2 of the sequence related to Radiocarbon Dating, that will include examples from Biblical Archaeology. My first posting will always be on my Professional Page with the photo. I invite you to follow me there.

Creation’s Story by Geology – by Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating: Cross-Dating: C-14–Part 2

This Part 2 explains the Cross-Dating process, with one example of real C-14 data measured from German Oak species in Europe. That data extends back to 14,000 tree-ring count, and years Before Present, BP. In the future, I will explain the significance of the blue solid lines on both sides of the squiggly red line.

I also show the concept of how we can establish evidence that a mammoth lived thousands of years ago. Later I will show the Calibration Curves which are named IntCal13 and IntCal20. The meaning is International Calibration, and the year each was published.A reader of Part 1 pointed out that there are also other radiometric dating methods that can be applied to igneous rocks, with atoms and isotopes that are also radioactive like carbon-14, but with very long half-lives (HL). Examples are Potassium-40, HL 1.25 billion years; Uranium-238, HL 4.5 billion years; and Rubidium-87, HL 48.8 billion years. I may share that part of Creation’s Story in the future.

I commented twice

I and II, plus added to two other men's comments, III

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Seems very confidence inviting as long as you look at this very schematic view.

Hohenheim are world wide experts.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl also invites confidence if you look at the raw data, such as what you shared.

More so when you consider than these chronologies comprise hundreds to thousands of overlapping tree-ring segments—not just two. For example:

SCIENCE.ORG : 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197175

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My point was that the "overlap" is a somewhat sketchy affair.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl how? Not when you have hundreds of samples overlapping with statistical significance.

Not to mention, individual tree rings can be radiocarbon dated and tested for proxies like d13C to validate the correlations

Jonathan Baker

[inserted here from II]

Hans-Georg Lundahl the example you gave is quite excellent demonstration that the overlapping of tree-ring chronologies is robust. What are you talking about? 🤔 Although it’s worth pointing out, this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species. And their overlap is statistically robust. I think you need to spend more time looking at the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The further back, the less is left of each sample and the fewer samples.

"this is NOT a plot of only two samples overlapping. Each curve is a composite of multiple samples from two different regions, different tree species."

Hohenheim hasn't been genius on communicating what it is exactly that they are showing. I may have looked in haste, but I do read German ...

"And their overlap is statistically robust."

Even if that is statistically robust, once samples are fewer and shorter further back, it becomes circular with the radiocarbon dates.

"the raw data (which are public) before arriving at such erroneous conclusions."

As I mentioned, I tried consulting Hohenheim, and it didn't look very informative, they aren't sharing all that much to the online reader.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl if you want an explanation of how it works, read papers on tree-ring chronologies, rather than simple copying a figure that you don’t understand. The purpose of the university page is simply to explain the basics and provide an illustrative example, which they did.

There are fewer trees for ring chronologies further back in time, but so what? They still number in the thousands and are more than robust.

What do you think is circular with regard to radiocarbon dates? Those overlapping segments are validated to be overlapping by yielding consistent 14C activities and temporal signals. In other words, independently corroborated reconstructions.

YEC has zero explanation for this, as you’ve shown.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, the page from Hohenheim does not have any link to lots of papers.

I have tried to get access to a research access page as independent researcher, but got denied.

I do not have the means to get a subscription to lots of papers I don't believe in, and what I could get for free doesn't encourage me to believe in it.

Your comment is equipollent to "trust us who can afford to pay" ... well, no.

[To clarify to less disingenious people, it is circular if insufficiently well identified fragments get their identification from radiocarbon, and then this is used to validate radiocarbon. I would say "insufficiently" begins some time 3000 years ago.]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl you don’t need a subscription to access them, you just need to know how to do it 😉

How do you know you “don’t believe in” the papers you never accessed? Sounds suspicious…

The page from Hohenheim is just one of dozens explaining the process (U of A, for example??). Textbooks also do a fine job and are freely accessible at any uni library. You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe there is excellent reason why their conclusion is wrong.

History trumps searching diverse types of tracks.

Hohenheim is not just "explaining the process" they are in fact doing it and have the samples or largest collection of them.

Textbooks give no more than the very schematic diagrams shown already above by Ken Wolgemuth. The thing I'm going after with a screenshot from Hohenheim.

"You don’t have an excuse not to track down detailed explanations."

You have claimed that the matching is much better than the diagram would seem to suggest, that implies you already have detailed knowledge of this.

How about providing it?

I already know the process in principle, it's just how reliable it is.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The mammoth has 6 remaining pmC.

After 23 000 years, 100 pmC would decay to 6.19 pmC.

In my tables, the carbon date 21 000 BC is:

2738 av. J.-Chr.
11,073 / 11,069 pcm, donc daté à 20 938 av. J.-Chr.

It is the very node between the slow initial carbon 14 buildup after the Flood and the much quicker one between then and Babel. Note, "carbon 14 buildup" is not a misunderstanding of decay.

The buildup in the atmosphere means that, between Flood and Fall or Troy, the closer you get to the present, the closer the initial values of any sample gets to 100 pmC. Inversely of course, the further back you get, the lower it gets and the more extra years that involves. The buildup is not from the process of decay, but from the process of carbon 14 formation in the high layers of the atmosphere.

That process was on my view sped up, and this does NOT conflict with a constant half life of 5730 years.

2738 + 1950 = 4688 years.
0.5^(4688 / 5730) = 56.717 % (of initial value)
11,069 pmC * 56.717 / 100 = 6.278 pmC

Precisely what we find in the mammoth, a few decimals apart.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating. These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C.

A further test is the corroboration of the 14C chronologies not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems. Why should these correlate if historical 14C were the result of some 'post-flood buildup'?

Further tests are the corroboration of 14C chronologies with ice-core and various lake data (e.g. Ammersee, Lake Van, Dead Sea, and a thousand others). In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment.

All of this precludes that atmospheric 14C built up in the last ~5,000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"These disparities undermine the alleged 'post-flood buildup' of atmospheric 14C."

Not really. See the sketchiness of the overlap of two samples pretended to be overlapping.

"not only from tree rings but U-Th dating of corals and speleothems."

U-Th would be pretty iffy. First, the halflife is so long, that it's virtually impossible to observe it. It's a bit like if you told me the earth we live on were a very, very huge elephant back, even apart from travellers' narratives (corresponding to Biblical history on my view), I could reply, "well, if so, the elephant is so very, very, very big, we can't observe it."

Second, there are radioactive processes that would speed up the decay of either Uranium or Thorium (nuclear plants and atomic bombs use them), and unlike for carbon, the radioactivity would not ALSO increase the parent isotope.

Third, as to the correlation, I have it from Creationists who regularly read science papers it is sometimes pretty blatantly imperfect, they have conflicting dates ... but even if that were cherry-picking, which I think it is not, the correlation could have at least during the Flood been arranged by demons, who were probably acting as God's executioners outside the Ark and its surroundings and probably could have obtained permission to prepare for an end times deception.

"In particular, Δ14C and 10Be as a function of solar irradiance / geomagnetic moment."

My point is precisely that the build-up was sped up by more cosmic radiation, which would not have just increased the carbon 14, but also the Beryllium 10, and which was mainly aimed at shortening the lifespans after the Flood (see Genesis 11 lifespans for results) and also caused the Ice Age much more rapidly than is usually thought by the YEC community.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jonathan Baker "Not all mammoths have 6 pmC—they vary by more than an order of magnitude, because they spanned ~40,000 years within the limits of radiocarbon dating."

Perfectly accounted for by my tables.

40 000 BP comes from the Flood, and the atmospheric level back then would have been at 1.628 pmC. I only showed the relevant exerpt for the 21 000 BC dated sample. Here is the full post, but it is in French, however, if you take into account that "pcm" = "pmC" and that the pmC I give is for when the sample is from, not what remains in it today, you should be fine:

New blog on the kid: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14
Wednesday 1 May 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:28
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/05/mes-plus-recentes-tables-de-carbone-14.html

Jonathan Baker

[see above, inserted in the tree ring discussion under I]

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I work at the lab where those half lives were determined. 😂 They are not really that long—about 245,000 and 75,000 years for ²³⁴U and ²³⁰Th.

We don’t measure the half life by waiting around for it to decay enough to measure a difference in the masses. That’s not at all how that works, so again, you e come to an erroneous conclusion naively.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I have spoken with those very creationists and they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms.

The correlation is not at all imperfect, and I’ve just spent the last two weeks getting almost 100 new dates, all of which exhibit a perfect correlation between Greenland, Europe, and Southeast Asia. You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data. They are very good at misleading the public.

If the alleged buildup were caused by cosmic radiation, then we would see a clear disparity between 14C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!

In addition, you wouldn’t see the divergence between ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Naively, admitted, but erroneously, you'll have to back up.

For ¹⁴C, you can find wooden spoons from 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, and materials more readily historically parallel dated, and you can verify the different remainder pmCs. 90 pmC = 0.5^(n/x)?

5 years is too little to detect a difference, so, wait ... ²³⁰Th just possibly could be historically tested. It's just 13 times longer than ¹⁴C.

Now, you just claimed that you "didn't wait for it to decay enough" which presumably means you are not taking the historic samples as the main (or even a?) source of the half life.

Show how the method you actually use doesn't have a parallel flaw?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you wouldn’t see the divergence between 14C and 10Be in ice core data if there were such a rapid buildup from cosmic radiation. We see that divergence because of carbon cycling in the oceans, but that makes no sense in the context of your post-flood conjecture."

This one's important, I had presumed it was a convergence.

You put it down to "carbon cycling in the oceans" and I could put it down to carbon cycling in fossil carbon resurfacing in the unstable environment the centuries after the Flood.

"I have spoken with those very creationists"

I'd like to see more like a written and detailed debate, and not just your word for it.

"they made it clear they don’t understand those science papers about paleoclimate, especially orbital scale rhythms."

I'd once again want more than your word for it.

Written or youtube registered, but preferrably written, public debate would be more to the point.

"we would see a clear disparity between ¹⁴C and U-Th ages in corals and speleothem. But instead, there’s nearly a 1:1 relationship back to 50,000 years. You seem to have missed this point!"

You seem to have missed the point that a speed up of decay in U-Th could very well have been carefully mnipulated by demons, as they were executing God's judgement during the Flood. AND had His permission to prepare for the end times delusion.

"You shouldn’t give so much credence to pretend experts who don’t work with producing these data."

Why would this be relevant?

"They are very good at misleading the public."

You may be very good at misleading yourselves AND the public. As far as I'm concerned, you are misleading a bigger part of the public than they are leading in a moderately correct direction.

Jonathan Baker

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can’t go through everything in detail at the moment (on the subway, on my phone), but a few things to note:

U and Th half-lives are determined by measuring the ratio of materials in secular equilibrium. That method is described in detail here (again, in the very lab where I am currently):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X13001878

This method can date materials accurately less than 100 years old, so yes, we do validate it with historical samples. I’ve contributed to a number of these studies, which I’d happily link later when I have time.

You can’t explain the divergence between C/Be in a post flood scenario, because of physical limitations on rates of oceanic overturning. It clearly undermines your alleged explanation for 14C buildup (which also could not happen on the scales you’re talking, given the size of that reservoir).

I’ve written at length on my interactions with YEC attempts to explain radiocarbon. You can read it for yourself, or I’ll link later. You don’t have to presume it doesn’t exist.

“…but erroneously, you’ll have to back up”

That’s easy. Your conjecture is plainly refuted by the Hulu cave 14C / U-Th chronology and the coherence between radiocarbon-, U-Th-, and laminated/carved chronologies for the LGM to present. Happy to link in detail (later). These chronologies should not corroborate in a “post flood rapid build up” of atm 14C. They do; so your idea doesn’t work.

Yes, I think it’s relevant that no YEC critics of radiocarbon have direct experience in 14C or even geochronology generally. There is no debate if they aren’t even qualified to assess the discipline.

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm not unhappy to stop with you.

The technical stuff involves other things than what I've been concentrating on, I'll try to consult some YEC experts in the field on it.

I was not suggesting that the interactions between yourself and other creationists do not exist.

Given your reading skills, I would as mentioned have wanted to see the interaction from both sides instead of trusting how you chose to sum it up.

An example is :

If you’re seriously suggested that “demons altered rates of decay to deceive us”, then we can stop now because you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

I did not suggest that demons altered the normal rates of decay. I did suggest that there was a speeding up of decay, and that demons could have been involved in the execution of it and therefore also had an opportunity (granted them by God) to use the opportunity to get some samples prepared for you to mislead the public.

If you do not think this deserves to be taken seriously, are you a Christian?

Because, if you are, you should believe that demons exist (Matthew 8 ), that they engage in deceiving people through people (Apocalypse 13:13 f) and that they need permission from God to act (Matthew 8, again).

You should also prefer the chronology of the Bible over chronologies got at by very roundabout and even unhistoric methods, even if you think you have reasonably double-checked.

III

The following discussion was not reuploaded after Wolgemuth apparently reuploaded the initial status. I reposted the previous comments under the new upload. Only after did I discover that the original upload had not been taken down.

John Schutt

I wish that all Christians understood this, and that they also understood that an ancient earth does not negate a sinless, literal Adam.

Jeff Reichman

John Schutt Billy Graham provides some pragmatic advice along your same thoughts. “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman Thank you for documenting how opposition to YEC is a Protestant thing!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt what about an Adam too far back negating our historic certainty of Genesis 3 as a historic fact, transmitted by Adam over Noah and Abraham to Moses?

What about an Adam too far back negating God's goodness in keeping the implicit promise in His threat to the serpent?

On a YEC view with LXX based chronology, Redemption came within the SIXTH lifespan of Adam, just as Adam came on the SIXTH day of Creation week.

On an OE view, an Adam we all uniquely descend from would be so far back that Genesis 3 would be reduced to nearly myth as to reliability of transmission, while Genesis 5 and 11 show there is no reliability of prophecy if the genealogies are not literally true.

Also, God would very unreasonably long have delayed the Messiah.

Also, Adam and Cain could not have been farmers and Abel not a shepherd.

That's sufficiently much of a breakdown in theology.

Billy Graham didn't think that through, or some rumours he was a Commie are true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man."

It changes what man is.

And what counts as man.

Human language cannot come about by an evolutionary process, and traditionally that's one sufficient criterium to classify a being as God's image.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Is a Protestant thing? Not following.

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Note that I didn't say a thing about the date of Adam. ALL evidence shows that the universe and earth are old. It doesn't mean that Adam was.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Graham never stated nor has he ever state (that I am aware of) that man came about through evolution. He stated that it is possible that God usedwhat we call evolution for his purposed and then at some point made his a living soul.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Schutt With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him.

The latter is as blatantly heretical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "that it is possible that God used what we call evolution"

Human anatomy cannot exist in functioning populations without human language, and therefore, if for no other reason, cannot come about by "what we call evolution" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman "Is a Protestant thing?"

Well yes, you will hardly say Billy Graham was a Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) will you?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl No but I really don't understand your point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, do you understand it better if I say, there is an urban legend among Roman Catholics, and I'm suffering from it, that YEC is a Protestant thing?

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl Frankly no I’m not following at all???

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your point about Adam being old and many generations passing is a good one. But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth

John Schutt

Hans-Georg Lundahl "With an Old Universe, Carbon 14 dates will imply, either that Adam was old, or that mankind ante-dated him."

Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth. It's used for fairly recent objects. The age of the universe/earth is a completely separate discussion from the age of Adam. And, no, he was not ante-dated by humans. Yes. That would be anti-Biblical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But, that is a separate issue from the age of the earth"
"Carbon 14 is not used for dating the earth"

If the atmosphere were very old, there is no possibility that Carbon 14 could have been as low as 1.628 pmC in 2957 BC when the Flood happened.

"And, no, he was not ante-dated by *humans*."

Are you under the impression that Neanderthals weren't human? Do you ignore they belong to our ancestry?

I need a universe at the very least an earth in which La Ferrassie 1 or La Ferrassie 2, carbon dated to over 40 000 years ago, can be from just before 2957 BC. Not one in which she was "pre-Adam's times" because clearly she was not pre-human.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jeff Reichman In Paris, there is an Urban Legend that pretends that YEC and OEC basically are Protestant and Catholic versions of taking the Bible seriously.

Some, who believe that one, have concluded that I'm somehow YEC "because I'm Protestant" which I'm definitely not.

As this debate is mirrored on a blog, you'll be doing me a service before our readers.

Jeff Reichman

Hans-Georg Lundahl oh ok. I’d never heard of those positions YEC-Protestant or OEC-Catholic. Ok so now your posts make sense. Thank you for the clarification. I did a little research and sure enough there is some truth to that position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Too little.

But thanks for appreciating.

Ten Years Ago

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30 octobre 2014

It is a sad day when a Catholic visiting a library is getting exposed to so much discreet evil by probable Jews or freemasons, that he retaliates with discreet evil.

This sad event is now achieved for the second time.

Once a probable Jew (or just possibly Turk or Arab, but something signalled Jew of Oriental origin) pretty deliberately pushed my toes under the table. I stepped on his feet.

Today a freemason or possible psychiatrist deliberately spent minute after minute as I sat beside him humming a tune, clicking his tongue, to force my attention. I left the table before him and spat him in the neck.

"Heh!" he cried out as I left. "Tu vas me le payer!"

Meaning he threatened I was going to pay for it.

I am not a monk. I am not obliged to the state of perfection. I am not obliged to turn the other cheek everytime I am provoked.

So much falsehood as this exists in Paris.

Sharing Levi J. Pingleton / Robert Sungenis

Levi J. Pingleton

27.X.2024

Powerful arguments for Young Geostatic Earth Creation against Big Bang Cosmology, "dark energy", "dark matter", and Evolution...

Chapter 11: The Big Bang: Falling Under the Geocentric Weight
Chapter 11, from Geocentrism 101 by Dr. Robert Sungenis...
Levi Pingleton | Oct 22, 2024
https://robertsungenis.substack.com/p/chapter-11-the-big-bang-falling-under

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Shared!

Levi J. Pingleton

Hans-Georg Lundahl your rebuttal against Fr. Robinson was TOUGH.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

Sharing Lila Rose

Lila Rose

26.X.2024

If you think women need abortion while facing a cancer diagnosis, please read Jessica’s story.

There is always hope.

Pregnant while receiving treatment for terminal breast cancer, she refused abortion… and survived
By Cassy Fiano-Chesser | September 8, 2022, 12:47pm
https://www.liveaction.org/news/pregnant-terminal-breast-cancer-refused-abortion-survived/

Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.

Creation vs. Evolution: Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet? · What About Providentissimus Deus? · HGL's F.B. writings: Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.

From the FB forum Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism. By SSPX, I'm referring to the obedience of Bp. Fellay, not that of Bp. Williamson. The status and words of Peter Rabbit are kept as, but he's referred to Peter Rabbit on request of anonymity.

Peter Rabbit

26.X.2024

Author

Several years ago the SSPX published a rebuttal of geocentricism and creationism, claiming that scripture does not teach nor can it teach scientific theories, their principal source being this quote from Providentissimus Deus: “ (52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated [on the inerrancy of scripture] we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language”

Frankly I find this convincing but am nonetheless interested in hearing your responses.

I

Henoch Skryba

SSPX is not inerrant as we see. How anyone orthodox can read Genesis and come to the conclusion that the lifespans of the patriarchs are "symbolic"?

Peter Rabbit

Henoch SkrybaThis is not an sspx document but an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII

Peter Rabbit

Henoch Skryba I’m interested in hearing a different perspective but I believe I’m bound to believe what Papal encyclicals teach and PD teaches that Genesis is figurative and does not teach any scientific theories

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, but it seems you are talking past each other.

If SSPX ever said "the lifespans of the patriarchs are symbolic" that is NOT from Providentissimus Deus.

The Encyclical does not directly touch on either Geocentrism / Heliocentrism, nor on Old Earth or Young Earth. It can be used as a coverall for Heliocentrism, Old Earth, Infinite Universe Cosmology and lots more, but only by eisegesis into the actual words.

If we take the words of Leo XIII as they stand and in Thomistic context (and remember, St. Thomas was Geocentric and Young Earth), the passage of speaking of what appears to the senses only actually covers Scripture leaving things out, rather than getting things in reverse or lifespans symbolically enhanced or addition of lifespans heraldically telescoped or things.

It is not Providentissimus Deus, but an abuse of Providentissimus Deus to use it against Young Earth and Geocentrism being either true or revealed or co-revealed in Scripture.

By co-revealed, I mean things like the ferocity of lions is co-revealed, in so far as revelation takes it for granted, at least from the Fall to the Millennium or Parousia. I would not say Geocentrism is revealed, but I would say it is co-revealed.

And I would say I am not contradicting Providentissimus Deus.

As to things totally inprofitable to salvation, apart from non-truths, I don't know what is. But if sth is, it is hardly sth which is the subject of a lively controversy.

Leo XIII may have or may not have hoped to avoid that controversy, but his words do not remain applicable to the case if the controversy is actually there.

Now, if SSPX admits that being wrong on the thing is totally harmless, well, then we can have a case for the words according to them being applicable. But even that is not the case. They insist that Geocentrics and Young Earth Creationists are (at least those very outspoken ones online) doing some kind of harm. And if that is the case, it cannot be that the question is without consequence for the salvation of souls, and it cannot be denied that the Holy Gost can have intended to either reveal or have the context of revelation confirm sth naturally known, I take the latter position.

II

Scott Blacker

Admin

".....(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated [on the inerrancy of scripture] we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language”

My first Questions is to clarify your postion on above..

Do you belive in inerrancy of ALL of scripture from first letter to last.?

Or just the verses "profitable unto salvation"?

Do you think Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus can be used to say the Church of 1616 to 1633 to be in error for literal interpretation of sacred scripture concerning the immobility of the Earth and mobility of celestial bodies.

If so with that same logic can we now say that Pope Leo can be in error?

i

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker the way I was taught magisterial reversals is they are possible if the later documents are of a higher “weight” than previous ones. Encyclicals and Bulls are of the highest weight while homilies or angelus addresses have next to no weight, with other documents occupying places in between. We have historical examples prior to VII of private heresy in a papal homily (ie john xxii) while many authors admit no possibility of heresy private or formal within encyclicals.

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blackerthe PD quote is explaining the meaning of a prior St Augustine quote which is used by Creationists to assert this argument

A → B
A
∴B

Where
A= Science contradicts scripture
B= science is false

But in reality St Augustine is using not modus ponens but a more complex conjunctive syllogism

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit 1616/33 were decrees (type of Papal bull?), Condemnation never been lifted to this day, 2 x Pope's, 2x Catechism, 2x Councils (prohibited interpretation of sacred scripture contrary to Unaminious consent of Fathers - 100% Earth immobile and celestial bodies mobile), re admitted by Leo XIII on same document cited above albeit in broader ambiguous language. For me that list alone carries more authorative weight then one Pope's Encyclical. Plus we have the empirical scientific data that supports Geocentrism and theoretical physics that cannot disprove Geocentrism. That should at least make you think that the Holy Spirit was not on vacation for 97% of Church history in holding true to a Geocentric universe all that time.?.

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit I'm not afraid to admit I'll require study on this, I've only partially read on St Augustine.

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker I believe it was a non-magisterial (juridical) decree of the inquisition/cdf, but I admit I’ll need to do some research myself, if you pm me your gmail I can give you editing privileges for you to add your findings to the google doc. I’m fine just discussing here too

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Do you think Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus can be used to say the Church of 1616 to 1633 to be in error for literal interpretation of sacred scripture concerning the immobility of the Earth and mobility of celestial bodies."

No, it cannot.

It cannot because Leo XIII is according to the letter of his words speaking of things like the intimate nature of physical reality. But Geocentrism or Heliocentrism is not about Solar Protuberances or the H + H => D, D + D => He process of fusion, it is about things much more directly knowable, and actually known since Creation, I take St. Paul in Romans 1 and St. Thomas in Prima Via are adressing God as the prime mover of astronomical objects.

It would be more plausible even to take it as questioning whether the issue of Transsubstantiation vs Consubstantiation (both involve Real Presence) could be settled. Because accidents and substance are propositions on some level about the intimate nature of physical reality. However, I think the Council of Trent settled this in Session XIII, canon 2. Which has higher weight than Providentissimus Deus.

"But in reality St Augustine is using not modus ponens but a more complex conjunctive syllogism"

The conjunctive syllogism has two conditional phrases.

The one condition is, if a philosopheme contradicts what Scripture certainly says, it is false, the other is that if a Scriptural exegesis contradicts what observation and reason (not "Science" reg. trademark!) make necessary, the exegesis is wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit "it was a non-magisterial (juridical) decree of the inquisition"

The decree was not on the behaviour of Galileo (1616 doesn't even mention him), but exclusively on doctrinal questions in the first instance, and in the second one, involved a personal slant on Galileo related to the repeated doctrinal matter.

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahlaccording to the letter of his words leo is speaking of the “essential nature of things of the visible universe” not the intimite nature of physical reality. If you’re going to say something like “to be precise” maybe you should follow that up with being precise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How is "essential nature" and "intimate nature" not equipollent?

Unlike your own attribution to me of words like "letter of st leo" I did not misquote all that much from memory.

I held the document before me (on internet) while answering Father Robinson, and did not feel the need to consult it a second time before answering you.

My bad, but not all that bad, after all.

[Plus I apparently hadn't said "to be precise" in this precise context or even this precise FB discussion ... and didn't he have anything to say on the actual content of my argument?]

Plus

it so happens, the "intimate" part of my misquote is arguably a conflation of the same and a following sentence of the Latin text:

Sin tamen dissenserint, quemadmodum se gerat theologus, summatim est regula ab eodem oblata : « Quidquid, inquit, ipsi de natura rerum veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus nostris Litteris non esse contrarium; quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Litteris, id est catholicae fidei, contrarium protulerint, aut aliqua etiam facultate ostendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus esse falsissimum (S. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., I, 21, 41) ». De cuius aequitate regulae in consideratione sit primum, scriptores sacros, seu verius « Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista (videlicet intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem) docere homines, nulli saluti profutura (S. Aug., ib.,II, 9, 20) »;

SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI LEONIS DIVINA PROVIDENTIA PAPAE XIII
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE STUDIIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE* (Providentissimus Deus)
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

ij

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blacker Re the inerrancy of scripture I think we should create a list of assumptions and definitions. Here’s a google doc

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-X_OVfBRT6RMtcbv27s8qmBeaqYSrJ9nIfqggDEwcXo/edit

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit "The study of the empirical realm through inductive reasoning. I also like Dietrich Von Hildebrands definition which is roughly the study of contingent but highly probable essence structures."

Both definitions miss out a vital ingredient on what you are assuming when you assume Heliocentrism is Science.

They miss out on Science as Institution, and as institutionally a Quasi-Magisterium.

This is however something which totally can falsify the things that St. Augustine, and (partially at least) Pope Leo XIII were talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"certain terms like “cosmos” or “world” must be used in their pre-scientific pre-modern or even pre-hellenistic-proto-scientific sense"

Sts Augustine and Thomas are also speaking in what "Science" as modern institution would term "pre-scientific" and "pre-modern" terms.

As to "pre-hellenistic-proto-scientific" this is what St. Thomas was getting at, insofar as Moses hadn't mentioned the crystalline spheres (which don't appear to the senses), which Hellenistic "proto-science" posited and modern science posits no longer.

I think this reversal on the "scientific" side should be noted.

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah what kind of problem do you think needs to be noted. I’m curious because you’re coming close to a big theme in von hildebrand’s “what is philosophy”

Hans-Georg Lundahlas far as “when you assume heliocentrism” and other claims about my beliefs I didn’t say that. Your hs teacher taught you heliocentrism because that’s a convenient historical convention. Modern physics is more complicated than that. There is a real sense in which it is agnostic on this question.

From that perspective I’m not making a positive claim, only a negative claim about geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl quite frankly your argument style is so full of strawmen, wordsalad (eg your self contradiction on the “letter of st leo”), and general inability to engage in a direct manner, I see little fruit in further dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What? Quoting you:

(eg your self contradiction on the “letter of st leo”)

Would you mind using a correct devise? Here are the actual words

which totally can falsify the things that St. Augustine, and (partially at least) Pope Leo XIII were talking about.

If you read hastily on a cell-phone, you will misread and diagnose word salad where there isn't any.

“when you assume heliocentrism” and other claims about my beliefs I didn’t say that.

I'm classing any non-Geocentrism as a species of Heliocentrism. By the way, I said "when you assume Heliocentrism is Science" and not "correct" or "current" science and also not "truth" ...

The negative claim about absolute Geocentrism actually is what I'm talking about.

By the way, "falsify" ... I probably meant in the French sense of "fausser" = distort. The meaning is, Sts. Ausgustine and Thomas (and partially at least Pope Leo) were not speaking of Science as an institution. (In Pope Leo's case, that is only partially true).

I think you also made a garbled reading of my phrase:

because Leo XIII is according to the letter of his words speaking of things like the intimate nature of physical reality.

Perhaps "according to the letter of his words" is bad phrasing, I should have said "according to his words taken literally" ... but you are aware that there is a difference between that and describing an Encyclical as "letter of St. Leo" (quoting what you garbled it into)?

If you are too bad at language for that, you should simply NOT be dabbling in reading encyclicals. Some people are very challenged in expressions not matching their habitual ones. Such people are likely to get Encyclicals from over 100 years ago wrong.

III

Scott Blacker

Everyone Jacob is seeking truth on this subject in our Group title. He has raised a good question re Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Providentissimus Deus in light of recent CFN podcast with SSPX priest. This thread is to address this specific question. Remember we've all been here at somepoint ourselves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Scott Blacker Would the recent podcast be the interview on Catholic Family Podcast?

I've adressed Fr. Robinson before and am currently more than halfway through that video and adressing it.

"Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX" First Fifth Reviewed · Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth · Third Fifth of Same Interview

"Remember we've all been here at somepoint ourselves."

I've never actually even as a Catholic gone out of my way to contradict literalism.

Five years into my conversion, I was probably no longer a literalist, but possibly on the way to returning to the position, which at my conversion I had neither explicitly nor implicitly abjured.

Ten to twelve years after my conversion, I have the opportunity to read City of God by St. Augustine, who according to that book certainly is a Young Earth Creationist, as well as a Literalist on the action of the Apocalypse, however, not a premillennialist, he held and I hold the millennium is now ongoing (saints in Heaven are probably approaching a medium length of rule with Christ as 1000 years).

Getting into the debates on forums after that, I find Distant Starlight an unforeseen objection to Young Earth Creationism, and I find Geocentrism a possible solution, but since then it seems to me it solves so much more.

Scott Blacker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes that same podcast. Jacob raised a specific question which I discovered you already treated in your retort part 1/2/3. Thank you. Peter Rabbit please consider reading above links by Hans-Georg.

I have also attempted to in this thread.. My "Remember we've all been here at some point ourselves." is in relation to holding Heliocentrism as core belief - being challenged - now holding Geocentrism as Truth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually held Heliocentrism as de facto true, but not as a core belief.

In High School, I asked a physics teacher how we knew Heliocentrism, and was satisfied (but not over-enthusiastic) at the time when he said "the calculations of orbits from the masses coincide with the orbits we observe" (if we assume Heliocentrism).

I had not then reckoned with two things, namely:

a) it's circular, we "know" the masses from the orbits;
b) how if Angelic movers tweaked the outcome of masses a bit? I mean to orbits we observe (as in actually observe).

Peter Rabbit

Hans-Georg Lundahlyou never addressed my quote

Hans-Georg Lundahl one of the big problems that keeps coming up here is that one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. If you want to prove something you have to address both

Peter Rabbit

Scott Blackeryeah I don’t really believe in heliocentrsm and it certainly isn’t a core belief. My only concern is you guys dissenting from pd’s belief that scripture doesn’t contain support for creationism/ geocentrism

Scott Blacker for the record I believe in geocentrism even less than I believe in heliocentrism though

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Rabbit In part three, I did so under time stamp 24:37.

"If you want to prove something you have to address both"

I kind of did. I actually mentioned that St. Augustine made a disjunctive premiss. For each separate matter, with some apparent conflict, there is an evaluation whether it is a conclusion that does not follow from the observations or an exegesis that does not strictly follow from the canoninical text (or the canonical text in all its versions).

"one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens."

How about you recall that yourself before you stamp a conclusion from observations as valid knowledge? Remember, unlike Geocentrism, Heliocentrism as such is never an observation, it's always just an indirect conclusion.

"pd’s belief that scripture doesn’t contain support for creationism/ geocentrism"

Providentissimus Deus never actually says that.

A much better application of the principle referred to is to use it as an answer if someone asks "why didn't God reveal string theory" or "quantum physics" ... supposing each (either of them, possibly both together) to be true, the Bible neither reveals it nor contradicts it. Precisely as with the crystilline spheres that the Hebrew view hadn't and the Greek one had, and St. Thomas explains why it was not mentioned by Moses, and it turns out Tycho Brahe made an observation that disproved the theory.

Back to part 3, here is my comment under the quote from Providentissimus Deus:

Like, the actual physical shape of the earth was not profitable unto salvation when the both Testaments consistently write in a manner compatible with both Round Earth and Flat Earth, and now it does matter in order to get maps to far off populations, we see the words of Scripture matching Round Earth and corners of continents.

However, in order to put Geocentric utterances of Scripture in the light of "Heliocentrism being true but unprofitable" we should consider whether Geocentrism is profitable. If you look at European (including colonial) history of ideas since 1633, you can observe that both Heliocentrism and Atheism have been more accepted since then. And you will agree that Atheism is actually harmful to a soul.

Now, my best Geocentric prooftext in the Bible is actually Romans 1.

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:20]

IV

Scott Blacker

Peter Rabbit an interesting article for your consideration please (Creation source). PS I have found a response from another member other than mine above which addresses your question more specifically (PD document language and how to reconcile). its in another thread so I will re post here and tag original author (it was a response to original interview I shared on CFN).

https://kolbecenter.org/kolbe-report-10-26-24/

[The Kolbe Center link seems not to deal specifically with Providentissimus Deus.]