1) Creation vs. Evolution : Does CMI Understand Theory of Knowledge? · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Exchange with Robert Carter, Starting All Saints' Day
- Robert Carter, on his wall
- I've got a new article up on creation.com!
[Linking to same article I linked to in previous]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- [Linking to previous]
- Robert Carter
- Interesting. Thanks for the analysis. I was generalizing things for a popular audience and you are trying to hold my feet to the fire in ways more specific than I intended to convey. Next time I will try and craft my words more carefully. In the meantime, however, men walking on the moon, the eruption of MT St Helens, etc., are not truly historical science. Yes, they occurred in the past, but they also occurred in the age of videography and instrumentation. We also have living witnesses, and have recorded the testimonies of those witnesses. Thus, I would define "historical science" with Aquinas' "contingents that are far off, in the past or hidden".
You are also correct that I blended flat earth with geocentrism. That was a gloss on my part an d I should have caught it. However, I at least answered the flat earth part conclusively.
And as far as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are concerned, yes, they are dangerous to human life but, no, they do not preclude people inside a metallic space capsule from traveling though them. We can and have measured radiation exposure in such scenarios and have determined that the presence of the VARB is not a barrier to space exploration.
You know, we cannot post a link to your blog, but some of the material would be appropriate for the article comment section on creation.com
- To which
- I gave a double answer, A and B. I will start with B, which got not response, and then go on to A, where a further exchange was made.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl, B
- "Yes, they occurred in the past, but they also occurred in the age of videography and instrumentation."
For Mount Saint Helen's, I'd agree insofar as so many witnesses independent of each other and of any central organism is there.
For Moon landing, I do not agree, since all witnesses to them actually being on moon depended on NASA and were few and videography could have been faked.
Living witnesses are still witness knowledge, not scientific knowledge. And witnesses dead or alive, it also depends on how many and independent they are.
"And as far as the Van Allen Radiation Belts are concerned, yes, they are dangerous to human life but, no, they do not preclude people inside a metallic space capsule from traveling though them. We can and have measured radiation exposure in such scenarios and have determined that the presence of the VARB is not a barrier to space exploration."
Thank you very much, I'd appreciate a link on that matter. And my blog has no policy barring me from posting it. [It was not given.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl, A
- I don't know why.
You have very certainly in the past posted links to sites outside your own.
- Robert Carter
- Only with a "Courtesy Warning" to our customers (i.e., no direct links), and only for sites that are accepted as a community standard. Since we cannot guarantee the content of personal blogs they are certainly not going to be linked to.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You cannot guarantee the content of ANY site except your own.
ANY site you actually are linking to has exactly the same problem.
Plus you have already deviated from that policy by linking to the blog of my rival Sungenis.
Plus with my creationist blog up for so long, you can certainly by now know its typical content, so you could "guarantee" it in the sense required - you would obviously be able to first state your reservations against the policy of my blog.
Apart from being YEC, it is LXX-based rather than Ussher based in chronology, it is Catholic rather than Protestant, it is Geocentric. THAT much you can guarantee.
Precisely as there were things you could guarantee with the blog GWW or GWWTCWR. Or whatever acronym Sungenis uses for his blog Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right. To which you effectively linked.
You cannot "guarantee" me being right, but since you are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church, you are not in such a position whichever blog you link to.
You cannot guarantee me being "scientific", since natural sciences are very much not my primary study, rather a sideshow. But you can guarantee my not claiming to be a scientist. You can go through the 200 and more articles and see that nowhere ever did I claim to be a natural scientist. I claim to be a philosopher of the subject (note my reference to Theory of Knowledge = epistemology) and also, which is independently true, an amateur expert.
Now, you have not linked to, but quoted one Chesterton who was very certainly NOT a natural scientist and hardly even an amateur expert (though I am not so sure about that), but who was writing as a philosopher and identifying the problem of irreducible complexity well before I think any creation scientists were around doing so. Except perhaps some of the pre-Darwinians old guard, like Agassiz.
- Robert Carter
- "Catholic rather than Protestant, it is Geocentric. THAT much you can guarantee." I knew none of this, but it is also irrelevant. Our rules are stated and clear. BTW, we wrestled long and hard about even using Sungenes' [sic] name, let alone putting up a link (text only) to his material, knowing how the geocentrists typically act, and oh look, here you are being unreasonable. Thank you for proving our point. No, you will certainly not get a live link.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Our rules are stated and clear."
As far as I know, that rule is as yet not the eleventh commandment. It is a rule by which you think you are usually accomplishing sth good. And if I think you are in this case not doing so, perhaps you should question the application - or the rule.
"BTW, we wrestled long and hard about even using Sungenes' [sic] name, let alone putting up a link (text only) to his material,"
I bet the fact he already had publicity without you helped the decision.
"knowing how the geocentrists typically act,"
Namely?
"and oh look, here you are being unreasonable."
About what?
"Thank you for proving our point."
About what?
"No, you will certainly not get a live link."
You have already said that, even so you can thank me having another policy than you for some of your readers. I have at least helped you make some money (donation and indirectly buying of your printed material), you are not very returning about the favour.
"I knew none of this,"
Oh, you are NOT the one who read Dixit Aquinas, nor one of the four who read my comment on your statement of faith?
Or you are lying about not knowing previously to my mentioning it?
Or you meant "knew" other than "knew before I told you," namely "knew before I looked"?
Those are basically the alternatives. You know, my visitor stats are usable. I took those for "last 24 hours".
After which, I added a link to a picture of me showing my cardboard, as photographed a morning as a homeless man (still am such) and then mentioned part of the reason is people not linking.
Here are some statistics, by the way.
Note how many more visitors I have in US than elsewhere, note how after one highlighted post with many visitors, a few less so, there is one day 4 page views on many consecutive posts and next day 5 page views on many consecutive posts and on top of that most links are the same for both days./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire