Matthew Hunt Dodging the Issues One By One, Or Something?

Kukoleck Adam

Admin · 13 juin

The ACLU a Communist front wanted Evolution taught in schools imagine. Birds of a feather flock together

[picture with footnote on a right hand page - transscript of footnote as follows]

* An interesting sidelight of the Scopes trial is found in Irving Stone's biography of Clarence Darrow (Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NY, 1941). The author points out that the American Civil Liberties Union stage-managed the whole series of events that led up to the trial of John Scopes, who taught evolution in violation of Tennessee's Anti-Evolution law. George Rappelyea, a representative of the ACLU, concocted, with Scopes, a plan that included Rappleyea's swearing out of a warrant for the arrest of Scopes in the full knowledge that ACLU stood ready to defend this as a test case. Accordingly, all four defense attorneys at the trial were members of the Humanist-spawned ACLU, including Darrow himself, who was a Unitarian and an ACLU founder.

Matthew Hunt

Stopping creationism being "taught" in schools isn't reducing civil rights.

Terry Tuttle

Well the big bang and molecule to man isn't science it's Religion in itself.

Matthew Hunt

Terry, that's called "science", whereas creationism is religious. Your constitution has something about freedom from religion.

Terry Tuttle

Really? What's the definition of science? So tell me when this stuff was tested and recreated in a lab? I'll wait

Who observed any of this stuff? How come animals can't do today what you claim they could do millions of years ago? You just left science and jumped to faith

While you're at it tell me where the matter, energy and the laws came from. What came together and exploded and what was the cause?

Matthew Hunt

Terry, not all science is confined to a lab. You understand that right? Not all science has to be recreatable in the lab, although a lot of science is.

Science is about being able to make predictions and observing those predictions.

Terry Tuttle

So nothing huh? You didn't question your professors at all? You don't even know where the matter-energy or laws came from? But why not?

How do you get around thermodynamics and cause and effect? Ya know, actual science?

Matthew Hunt

Terry, such questions are malformed. Why don't you have a think about why they are malformed.

Thermodynamics is about heat engines. Why should it apply to the universe as a whole?

Terry Tuttle

Yeah yeah so what's the answer? Come on you can do this

Matthew Hunt

Terry, I'm not answering you because you didn't think about the questions.

Terry, I know you're not really interested in answers.

Terry Tuttle

You're not answering me and just adding cartoons because you don't have the answer. You can try to Nuance it all you want

You have three choices here. It was always here, it created itself or it has a creator. Actual science .proves the first two are impossible. Or you can be like the fools Krauss and Dawkins and try to redefine the word "nothing."

Matthew Hunt

Terry, or you can try and justify why nothing is important to cosmology in the first place...

I'm convinced that you have no idea what "actual science" really is.

Terry Tuttle

So nothing. Got it.

So I asked you direct questions and all I get is the "I'm above this" schtick. So now thermodynamics and cause & effect aren't actual science. So I guess if I asked you about angular momentum that would probably be a no-go also? Not actual science either? You're in a faith dude and you don't even know it. Good luck with that

Matthew Hunt

Terry, once you show me you're actually interested in the answers, I'll engage.

Terry Tuttle

Riiiiiight

Matthew Hunt

Sadly, I've played this game with creationists all too often. Not wasting my time on someone who really isn't interested in answers.

Terry Tuttle

Sadly you can't answer a basic science question. Thanks for playing

When you run out of excuses let me know

Matthew Hunt

Terry, it's not a "basic science question" but at the forefront of cosmology.

You know energy isn't conserved in gravity right?

Ron, there is nothing religious about science.

The reason for atheism as a religion was to get a tax exempt status like religion.

Ron, evolution is one of the best tested concepts in the whole of science.

Why do you think Mendel's law is no longer valid?

Ron, evolution has nothing to do with radiometric decay, they're two different sciences.

Ron, that's not Mendel's law. Either look up the law or don't talk about.

Terry Tuttle

Hey Matthew, I started a new business I'm selling magic rocks. All you have to do is heat them up pour water on them and in a billion years you'll have a dog. Oh it's true it's the scientific method

They don't realize where they jump from science to Faith. These people are in a faith and don't even realize it. They can tell you how the house was built as long as we start from the top down and skip the foundation

We have three choices here. Either the matter that supposedly exploded always existed, it created itself or it had a creator. Option one that it always existed violates thermodynamics. The assertion that things create themselves completely goes against science in general. So that leaves us with option three a creator

Another thing that's hilarious is when I ask for proof that whales walked the earth I always get a cartoon from Berkeley no actual evidence just a cartoon drawing from Berkeley. I'm sure we've all seen the same ones. Then they try to claim that these bones that are for whales mating were leftover bones from legs I'm not kidding.

Matthew Hunt

Ron, no. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Terry, would you prefer to see the skeleton of the whale with legs?

Ron, there is a lot of other data to support evolution.

Terry, I understand you need to be very ignorant and mock many branches of science in order to keep your fundamentalist religious beliefs alive.

Terry Tuttle

I'm not mocking science I'm mocking the evolution faith. You can't seem to separate the two. I'm asking you actual science questions you do not want to answer because it counters the narrative. Here I'll give you an example. The laws of angular momentum. If everything came together spun and exploded by the laws of angular momentum everything should be dispersed evenly and spending the same direction. How do we have planets and moon spinning the opposite direction even at the same time? That's an actual Science question

We also do not know the one way speed of light so how on Earth can you measure how old the universe is by that and star distance? You can't

Matthew Hunt

Terry, you're mocking science.

Terry, the one way speed of light is a lie.

Terry Tuttle

So I'm mocking science but you're telling me the one way speed of light is a myth. Uh yeah I ok. Now instead of answering an actual scientific angular momentum question you are telling me I'm mocking science which means you're avoiding answering it because you cannot. I have more questions like that you can't answer. You're like a one-legged Square dancer you just go in circles

If the moon is moving away from us and it causes tides how close would it have been millions and billions of years ago before that's a problem? Maybe that's what happened to the dinosaurs they got mooned

Where are all of the transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian era? Speaking of which name one scientist who has seen the entire geological column at one time. It would be at least a hundred feet thick. Name the scientist.

Hey look we're doing actual science here

Matthew Hunt

Maxwell's equations are the things which we use to determine the dynamics of light. It's simple to do a coordinate change to see that the speed of light is independent of direction.

The moon doesn't change its distance from the Earth all that rapidly.

Terry, I actually have no idea what you're talking about with regards to angular momentum. What do you mean by "everything came together"?

Terry Tuttle

Oh come on don't tell me you don't know the Big Bang Theory. All of the matter came together spun and exploded that's what they're teaching kids and have been for decades now. Don't act like you don't know this

There most certainly is a one way speed of light whether you want to admit it or not. No one knows what it is. Nobody knows what energy is they know how to measure it and use it in the effects but they don't know what it is. The same thing with Consciousness science can't explain that either they can only explain the brain neurons and how they work. So am I supposed to Discount every physicist out there because they don't know what energy actually is the way you do creationists because I believe in a Creator and don't know exactly how he did everything?

So you don't know the laws of angular momentum? You don't understand when something spins and it breaks apart the pieces disperse evenly and all spin the same direction until it meets resistance? It's called science so tell me how we have moons and planets spinning the opposite way and sometimes Two Moons spinning opposite at the same time. So if there was a big bang and everything spun and exploded to create all of this what resistance could those moons have possibly met to spend the opposite directions? Or planets for that matter? Hey look we're doing science here

These are questions evolutionists should have asked their professors. It's called logic

Matthew Hunt

That's not the big bang theory.

Terry Tuttle

Then enlighten me. So you're telling me about 18 to 20 billion years ago all of the matter came together spun and exploded. Then the planet coolef and rained on it for millions of years which created the Prebiotic soup and inorganic material became organic. Then we start the evolution nonsense with the single cell to man Theory. You are telling me that's not what being taught? You're wrong it's what's been taught for decades now in schools. There's so many holes in this theory that now we have Lawrence Krauss and that nut Richard Dawkins trying to redefine the term "nothing". That's how pathetic it's gotten

Matthew Hunt

Terry, I actually explained why there is no such thing as a one way speed of light.

Energy is well defined mathematically.

Terry Tuttle

No the effects of energy are defined mathematically not what energy actually is. You are wrong about the one way speed of light we just can't measure it

Matthew Hunt

Terry, I'm an applied mathematician, this sort of thing is my bread and butter. I'm not wrong about the speed of light, the equations don't lie.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

when teaching a single theory, avoiding every dissenting perspective, is deemed indoctrination and not crucial free evaluation

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, creationism is false regardless of how you look at it.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Matthew Hunt until one possesses all the information of D N A and it's operation assumptions are being made and unchallenged. every time I have cited the limitations of naturalistic evaluations (especially when I cited the man who was physically and medically documented as deceased for 90 minites, but he is still living and breathing and walking around) several evolutionary naturalist criticize my citation. But anything less than a comprehensive explanation of all empirically verifiable facts is denial if not indoctrination

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, you're going for god of the gaps fallacy?

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Matthew Hunt As a Traumatic brain injury survivor (who spent 25 days unconscious in 1967) I prefer that empirically verifiable daily documentation the medical experts were in doubts could ever occur

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, what has that got to do with evolution?

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Matthew Hunt Naturalistic evaluations that include only what the human mind can comprehend, of necessity, avoid the immeasurable and unknown variables (which Quantum Physics exemplifies repeatedly)

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, as time has progressed, the human mind has been able to comprehend more and more.

Terry Tuttle

You know I keep hearing god of the gaps argument while you guys just use the ad time schtick. In fact I started a new business I'm selling magic Pet Rocks. All you have to do is heat them up, pour water on them and in a billion years you'll have a dog. It's true it's science

Matthew Hunt

Terry, another strawman? Based on your ignorance of evolution I suspect.

Terry Tuttle

Nope I totally understand. You cannot separate molecule to man from The Big Bang no matter how hard you try you have to have both. That's the flaw in your plan with the big bang doesn't even pass basic physics

You leave science and jump to Faith and you don't even see where it happens

Matthew Hunt

Terry, please see my previous comment.

Terry Tuttle

Matt, you argue no points you disprove nothing you just try to claim the I'm below your status so I'm not worthy of the debate. That's a really bad dancing you're doing there. They're like a one-legged square dance are you just go in a circle

This is what happens when a person has no argument and they know it

Matthew Hunt

Terry, you have yet to make an argument without logical fallacies in. All I'm doing is pointing out where they fail.

Terry Tuttle

So what are the logical fallacies? Something comes from nothing? Things create themselves? How does that work exactly?

Name the scientist that proved those theories

Matthew Hunt

Terry, I'm just pointing out the logical fallacies you make I. Your arguments. You need to think about them more.

Terry Tuttle

so what's the answer? Do things create themselves? What scientist came up with that theory? Does something come from nothing? Name the scientist that came up with that. I really hope you say Lawrence Krauss

Just admitted you have no answers. That's okay when you want to put on your big-boy pants let me know

Matthew Hunt

I believe it was Vilenkin who first came up with the universe as an instanton.

That's Alexander Vilenkin. Others have worked on the idea as well. It was Lawrence Krauss who popularised it.

Terry Tuttle

But they're using a distorted version of the word nothing. That's the flaw in the plan

Matthew Hunt

Likewise, I could ask you to justify why your version of nothing is relevant to cosmology.

Terry Tuttle

So now the word nothing changes because you can't prove origin? Doesn't work that way

Matthew Hunt

The origin of our universe? There are multiple explanations but we don't have the data to rule out any of them. I'm becoming fond of the bouncing universe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Terry Tuttle "We also do not know the one way speed of light so how on Earth can you measure how old the universe is by that and star distance? You can't"

Actually, with geocentrism, you can't measure distance to stars in the first place.

Furthest stars could be one to two light days up, or 3 an a half light years up (distances meant to match timelines in creation week and apocalypse).

Matthew Hunt "creationism is false regardless of how you look at it."

What's your equation for that one?

Matthew Hunt And what's your equation for the bouncing universe?

Matthew Hunt As for your laughing instead of arguing, I think I already know your equation ....

Matthew Hunt

I refuse to engage for a reason Hans...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.01961.pdf

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt I think I know the exact reason, but thanks for linking to Ijjas and Steinhardt!

"Observations show that the universe has been expanding and cooling for about 13.8 Gyrs"

Meaning, they presume we have a distance measure to furthest visible objects as 13.8 billion light years, right?

Meaning, they are not even engaging the proposition of Geocentrism and a small universe, and therefore also not refuting it.

Matthew Hunt

The reason is that you're dishonest, and post my comments without my permission.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt a fact which I am very honest about, so I don't see where you get "dishonest" as evaluation from ...

Matthew Hunt

Stop posting my comments without my permission.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why?

Matthew Hunt

Irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, what I do can be irrelevant to you as well.

Matthew Hunt

[big laugh]

You don't see what you're doing is wrong?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You don't see you are pushing barriers?

Here is the thing - if I had published anything you said on your guineapig (pet changed), your fiancée, your house on Bahamas (adress changed), your plans for next weeks stock market which you had confided to me in a private letter, that WOULD have been wrong.

Supposing the "forum" (excuse pun!) had been a private letter, but the subject still, like here, public, like what you believe on dating methods or how you feel about my publishing things, that would already not have been wrong, since such things cannot be considered a private confidence.

But on top of that, what I published was (with one exception?) first posted by you very much already in public, namely on a forum.

Recently French justice cracked down on a FB group where men were making sexist comments on women (and I mean very sexist, often demeaning). They concluded, despite forum being closed, the comments would be considered as said in public, since the number of users clearly exceeded that of a private chat.

Now, my turn, after checking we are 304 on this forum and we were obviously several hundreds more on some other ones.

Don't you see that what YOU are doing is wrong?

You belong to a belief community we here candidly call "evolutionists" which internally prefers to call itself "scientists" (in denial of scientists who are YEC). It often brags "there is no debate". THEN you come here and debate, lamely. THEN you feel you have to hide before other Evolutionists (whom you call Scientists) because the official party line is "there is no debate". AND THEN you feel you are entitled to any kind of indignation at someone spoiling your hypocrisy by exposure.

From your other thread:

"I have four degrees in mathematics including a PhD."

When you got one, you renounced your right to be treated as a mere private bloke when opining on mathematics.

Matthew Hunt

"From your other thread:

"When you got one, you renounced your right to be treated as a mere private bloke when opining on mathematics."

I did no such thing, you're making excuses for your dishonesty again.

Matthew Hunt

Which is no dishonesty, and I am giving my rationale, not "making excuses".

A PhD = a Philosophiae Doctor.

Doctor means teacher.

A teacher on his subject is not private.

Matthew Hunt

Doctor doesn't mean teacher. That's another way you're trying to justify your actions. You were chucked out of another group for doing this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Doctor does mean teacher, basic Latin.

Doceo, docui, doctum, docere, and the -tor replaces -tum in third form for nomen agentis.

Doceo means teach, so doctor means teacher.

"That's another way you're trying to justify your actions."

Successfully.

"You were chucked out of another group for doing this."

I know. :)

Matthew Hunt

You're using a dead language to justify your actions? Weak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Latin isn't Sumerian which is rather un-dead, and still less Etruscan which is still dead. Literally. No one can read or write one Bible chapter in Etruscan. That's how little we know of it.

Doctor is a Latin word and you are using a "dead language" to describe your position? Weak.

Matthew Hunt

I didn't use a dead language to describe my position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ph.D. = Philosophiae Doctor = > Latin.

You are the one describing Latin as a dead language.

As to me?

Rumor latinitatis mortuae, ut forte dixerit Marcus Twain, valde exaggeratus est.

Or, perhaps rather "diceret".

Matthew Hunt

There is no nation on Earth who currently use Latin as a national language. Hence it's dead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That's like saying, since Lapps have no nation state, Lapp is a dead language.

In fact, it is even more comparable to Esperanto, which also no nation has as a national language.

Tell the next Esperantist you meet Esperanto is dead, and see what he tells you.

However, Latin is the kind of Esperanto things are still currently named from. Unlike Esperanto, which has not yet attained such a status.

Btw, Official languages Latin, Italian - can you guess what state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

Matthew Hunt

Regional dialects don't count. Esperanto is a made up language, a bit like Elvish.

Still, you don't have an argument for your dishonest behavior.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And while Esperanto is "made up" it is, like Latin, but less so, useful for international communications.

You don't have an argument for your categorisation of my journalistic candour as "dishonest".

"Regional dialects don't count."

Lapp is not a regional dialect of Swedish or of Finnish or of Norwegian, it's a language on its own.

Plus you didn't adress Latin in the Vatican, as official language.

Matthew Hunt

Vatican city isn't really a country. You still haven't justified dishonestly posting my words against my express wishes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have justified it several times, Vatican city certainly is a country in international right (is your perversion of it Chinese Communist or what), and Latin stands for a culture I admire more than yours.

Have you tried telling a Muzz over and over again to eat pork and drink beer?

Or has a Muzz tried over and over again telling you not to eat pork and not to drink beer?

That's about as pathetic as your repeated complaints are to me.

Matthew Hunt

So, to conclude, you have no reason to take my comments and post them on your blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Most definitely so, but explaining them to you is like explaining to a Muzz one has a reason to drink beer or eat pork other than getting fat and drunk.

To do them justice, some of them are more decent on cultural differences than you are.

Matthew Hunt

So will you abide by my wishes and not take my words from here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nothing promised like that at all.

Matthew Hunt

So you and I will never talk about physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You already did to others here.

But as we did cross pens or more like keyboards on morals, I do resent this:

"Stopping creationism being 'taught' in schools isn't reducing civil rights."

It's as much a reduction in civil rights as Tennessee's law would have been, if there had been an Evolutionist population around there.

Matthew Hunt

Why is teaching science in the science classroom a violation of civil rights?

Ron, science isn't religion. Religion is an opinion, science is not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The violation comes in when one opinion about what is good science is allowed to overrun the opinion of parents on it, not simply in mundane things like - new deal according to youtubes lately - don't suck out serpent venom, just get as quick as possible to hospital, but in things that are not directly checkable, and where one version of "science" is against another version of religion.

Matthew Hunt

That's why it's not part of the school on what is good science. That's where scientists come in and research.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, researchers come in two teams, why make laws to exclude one?

You cannot make just one of the teams the judge of schools, without making that team a de facto state religion.

Matthew Hunt

No they don't. Creationists don't research into creationism

Ron, don't be silly. Evolution is perfectly good science and is the only explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The only explanation once you discard the true one, special creation (not for each Linnaean species, though). And, yes, Creationists do research Creationism, that is why decades ago Edgar Andrews could claim hares and rabbits look the same but have totally different genes, the one hare genes making it a hare, the other rabbit genes, making it a rabbit, while now, Baraminology is the trend and hares and rabbits are same baramin (or created kind).

I for my part researched (while amateur):

• 1) Distant starlight paradox by Geocentrism
• 2) Possibility of mammalian chromosomes changing number (successfully, trisomies aren't successful)
• 3) Claim that Geological column only exists in textbooks (I had to add "and distinction for post-Flood layers, like Younger Dryas, and pre-Flood marine columns, like Bonaparte Basin
• 4) Edgar Andrews' and Kent Hovind's "carbon buildup" as explanation for carbon dates excessively old, from back when carbon 14 level was lower (I had to add, the pre-Flood build-up was slower, the post-Flood very much faster than as per current rate of carbon 14 production, I was impeded from checking the exact radioactivity levels resulting from my carbon 14 buildup rates, though, by Usoskin's lack of cooperation).

And, where do you end the rights of scientists to decide curricula?

Matthew Hunt

Creationists don't do research.

They're doing propaganda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Propaganda means propagating what you believe.

The word comes from the whatever type of office in the Vatican back when it was Papal states that was ... a, a congregation, it was ... Congregatio de propaganda fide. The congregation for spreading the faith.

Everyone wants to spread his or her research as everyone wants to spread what he believes.

That "propaganda" by being so is "not research" is BS (not spelling out the word, OK?), and why Evolutionists' research should be more research and Creationists' propaganda more propaganda than that of the other team is not clear from your words, only that for some reason you think that so.

Deciding a curriculum is a golden opportunity for any propaganda, true or false. The problem still is, why would believers in one system, just due to academic titles, which you have shown they don't always understand the meaning of, even when those of other system also have so, decide the curriculum over the heads of parents and their student offspring who believe the other one?

Do you think Muslims should be allowed to decide what curriculum to have in a Christian school too?

As to your own objectivity, you kind of hinted at lack of such in the fact that you never bothered trying to assess my research.

Matthew Hunt

"Propaganda means propagating what you believe."

Incorrect. It's spreading a message which you want the populous to believe.

The difference between science and creationism is that science does actual experiments and analyses that data whereas creationism tries to create a narrative which is consistent with their predefined conclusions.

Science is independent of any religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's spreading a message which you want the populous to believe."

Generally, the one you believe. With exceptions.

"The difference between science and creationism is that science does actual experiments and analyses that data"

I take experiments from scientists, and analyse them.

"whereas creationism tries to create a narrative which is consistent with their predefined conclusions."

With the premisses. We do not pretend to reach theology only as conclusion from scientific data, and you do not reach atheology only as a conclusion from them either.

"Science is independent of any religion."

While the practise is supposed to be accessible to adherents of any or none, what counts as science clearly depends on what religion one is.

Matthew Hunt

Not the one you believe, the one you want the populous to believe.

Ron, when you're wrong, you're wrong big time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Not the one you believe, the one you want the populous to believe."

That side issue on shades of meaning of propaganda obviously arose from Protestant conspiracy theories against Jesuits and Congregatio de Propaganda Fide.

It is still today loaded with conspiracy theorising, as when you spread a message, you are normally supposed to not just want others to believe it, but to believe it yourself (world of business is an obvious exception, where you can want some other guys on stockmarket to sell things cheap, so you can buy them).

"whereas creationism tries to create a narrative which is consistent with their predefined conclusions."

I'm reminded about Evolutionists on another topic, Shroud of Turin : they can't allow a miracle, not a single one.

// For the materialist the system MUST be closed. This is the weakness of the materialist point of view. All it takes is one miracle to break their fragile worldview. Just one miracle means that the system is not closed, but open to outside forces that can intervene and interrupt that system. If the miracle is consistent with the rest of our body of knowledge, if it is rational (rather than random or absurd) and if it makes sense with the rest of our proposals about reality, then the materialist edifice must crumble. //

The Turin Shroud: Evidence for Everything
AUGUST 1, 2019 BY FR. DWIGHT LONGENECKER
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2019/08/the-turin-shroud-evidence-for-everything.html

Let's say your side and mine share certain very observable "laws of nature". Ohm's or Coulombe's, for instance.

We both have "extra laws", on your side "no miracle allowed" (or however you like to formulate it), on mine, "God's word cannot include one falsehood".

Matthew Hunt

Science doesn't look at *all* possibilities. The preview of science is to obtain models of physical/biological/chemical phenomena which can be used for predicting other things. You simply cannot do that if you include a supernatural element.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, "historical science" is useless as science, since, also, it cannot predict other things.

You can do lots of things that predict, and lots of your predictions will go wrong anyway, and therefore excluding things from your overall world view (which is used in assessing history, whether of a shroud or of a fossil), in order to have everything predictable is totally pointless.

And, again, you have shown your side to be a religious (anti-religious) outlook, which makes it unfair to parents and pupils on the other side to have yours enjoy hegemony over schools they go to.

Matthew Hunt

"Historical society" is a made up phrase by creationists to try and discredit the science which proved their fairy tales false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except there is a clear difference between a science which deals with the "hic et nunc" and one which purports to deal with past, future, hidden or faraway.

Btw, I disagree with CMI on stellar distances being "operational science".

AND, we have readers: [linking here]

Matthew Hunt

Lying about me as usual. I've noticed that many religious fundamentalists lie about scientists.

The turin shroud was proven fake by radiometric dating.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Lying about me as usual."

What lie?

"I've noticed that many religious fundamentalists lie about scientists."

As in?

I have noticed you lied about me and other creationists in relation to research done by us.

"The turin shroud was proven fake by radiometric dating."

Two possibilities : the Resurrection, which left the marks in dark, may have had a radioactive component (and that would have made more C12 into C14, a recent explosion of that type had samples close to it afterwards carbon dated 3000 years into the future) OR the Caltech computer which gave the results had been hacked. You know, KGB.

Matthew Hunt

Claim that I avoided answering - lie.

Claim that I'm a public scientist who can be quoted without permission - lie.

Creationists do no original research. They simply engage in propaganda against real scientists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, "no research" and "no original research" is a huge difference.

Some of us do original research, though, as Mark Armitage in carbon dating dinosaurs or myself in cataloguing fossil layers or in mathematics of carbon rise (a theorem long left without mathematic detailed support by other creationists).

You are in fact a public person by the fact of being a Philosophiae Doctor. Whatever extra "public" you mean by "public scientist" is moot and to my mind irrelevant - did you simply mean published? Several questions you give an answer in first instance, and then dodge as soon as that answer gets challenged.

Matthew Hunt

How many times to I have to tell you. I'm not a public person.

You may, if you wish, quote from my published research articles, but nothing else. The key phrase is, "in your mind", that's irrelevant. You think that we live in a geocentric universe "in your mind", so I don't put much stock in what you think. I have a PhD in applied mathematics, that's IT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, and here you are on applied mathematics.

The "to my mind irrelevant" was about anything over and above Philosophiae Doctor.

Thing is, if you meant what scientists (of your school) publish, they usually don't publish their debates with Creationists, meaning your restriction would impose on the public an ignorance on what you are about when actually engaging in debate.

You like some kind of "bullying" or at least intimidation by reference to your qualifications and your "what do you mean" to any point you hadn't foreseen. Then you like keeping that in the dark. So do your colleagues. That's why I am not respecting the restriction you are trying to impose.

Matthew Hunt

Using an archaic term for PhD in another language as an excuse to post my words on your website without my permission.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PhD is simply an abbreviation for Philosophiae doctor. That full phrase is no more archaic than PhD is itself.

Plus, once again, if I were to abide by the permissions of the likes of you, I'd be left with nothing to publish, since your side likes hiding the interactions with Creationists.

Matthew Hunt

Incorrect, PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. On no part of my certificate does it have *any* Latin. Again, your argument fails.

I don't post people's comments without their position.

Ron, you pray for me, I'll think for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt "PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy"

Which is why it's abbreviated DoPh, right? Wrong.

Doctor of Philosophy is just a translation of Philosophiae Doctor.

"On no part of my certificate does it have *any* Latin."

If it includes the abbreviation PhD rather than DoPh, it does.

Plus might be because your alma mater is a diploma mill.

"I don't post people's comments without their position."

You're welcome to post mine, simple reciprocity.

However, I think journalistic interest prevails in this case.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, wrong as usual. The letters are a shorthand. Keep spinning the lie.

Actually it doesn't, you're just grasping at straws. Does anyone actually read your blog?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, it seems you didn't, since I saw no stats from England ...

Italie 75
États-Unis 7
Russie 5
Irlande 2
Portugal 2
Vietnam 2
Inde 1
Corée du Sud 1
Pologne 1
Sénégal 1

11 août 2019 14:00 – 12 août 2019 13:00

And, shorthand for Philosophiae Doctor is PhD, shorthand for Doctor of Philosophy, if it stood on its own, would be DoPh.

Matthew Hunt

So no actual Latin on my certificate and you shove it in because it suits your purposes. Got it. There's a word for that: Lying.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not claim there were any Latin sentences on your certificate, which is per se bad, if there aren't, but I did say if it said "PhD" it has one Latin phrase abbreviated.

You are so eager to accuse me of lying, you are lying about what I said.

Matthew Hunt

I am accusing you of lying. PhD means Doctor of philosophy, no more no less. It doesn't make me a "public scientist" at all. It just means I have done some original research in an area. You can quite my research articles if you like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PhD abbreviates Philosophiae Doctor, of which English translation is Doctor of Philosophy. It still abbreviates the Latin and not the English phrase.

"It just means I have done some original research in an area."

That being the modern critierium for getting one, it seems disputations are a bygone era (when they really meant facing someone disputing one's points), but "doctor" means you are an authorised teacher for university purposes, and prefixing Philosophiae means it is for the faculty of Philosophy.

Which to me indicates you should show some pride, not shame, in your own words on a topic close to your faculty subject. You are by refusing acting as if you were just a nobody who never made it to PhD.

Matthew Hunt

So you're applying definitions from yesteryear and thinking that they're applicable today. It's like calling chemistry, alchemy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, without alchemists, you wouldn't know sulphur was sth other than earth with an influence of fire.

Yes, I am very much applying definitions from, not yesteryear, but yestermillennium.

I don't like changing definitions every year.

I also don't like changing the buying power of money every year.

Matthew Hunt

Definitions are often refined over time.

Ron, I don't agree with the myths you believe are literally true. That means I'm rational.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The finer definition can get a new name, instead of becoming a new definition of an old word.

Here we are not talking refined definition of philosophiae doctor, but devaluation.

Even on your definition, the fact you did original research means you could do some against our points, and if you hang around much here and don't, you are either too lazy, or haven't got the knack yet, since you rely heavily on Dawkins' stuff.

As in your answer to Ron: "Ron, I don't agree with the myths you believe are literally true. That means I'm rational."

No, it doesn't.

Being rational and believing a mythology are neither the same concept nor opposite concepts. Learn some logic.

Matthew Hunt

Heavily rely on Dawkin's stuff? What is that exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For instance, calling Christianity a mythology (or the Creationist part of it so), for instance making lack of belief in its literal truth not just a test of being right, but of being rational.

Matthew Hunt

Thre is no "creationist part of christianity", it's a sect of christianity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Genesis involves Creationism and has always been a part of Christianity.

Creationists today are not one sect.

If anything is sectarian in the sense of breaking away from common core it's rejecting Creationism.

Matthew Hunt

It's an interpretation of your preferred religious text.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The historic standard one.

Your comment is like presenting Jesus Christ Superstar as standard Christianity and calling out "Jesus died for our sins" and "Judas was a traitor who was greedy" a sect version of Christianity.

Matthew Hunt

Certainly not standard. The majority of christians reject creationism as false teaching or at best, a metaphor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did you miss the word "historic" in "historic standard"?

You are describing a situations perhaps not true everywhere, and in the West definitely arisen AFTER Darwin and in many places even much later than just after that.

Like among Catholics, you are speaking after 1947.

So, Creationism is the historic standard interpretation of certain core topics and less core topîcs of Christianity.

Matthew Hunt

historic standard being, not a standard any more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Historic standard is still a standard, and Catholicism is dogmatically tied to "historic standard".

Matthew Hunt

No. Standard meaning that we have to use what we KNOW from science to reduce the interpretations from the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It so happens, while that may be an Atheistic standard, it certainly is not a Christian one.

It was explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church in 1869 or 70, whichever part of the Vatican I council made the decree on Revelation.

And the Syllabus by Pius IX too.

Matthew Hunt

That's what a rational person would do, regardless of being religious or not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Religious is not a relevant category.

Christian is. Now, Christianity is tied to a historic standard. Despite already failed attempts of people believing "Jesus Christ Superstar" to take the name Christians, and also despite the about to fail attempts of Old Earthers, Heliocentrics and Evolutionists to take it.

Also, it is sectarian to limit "rational" to those adhering to a particular sect, including your own.

Matthew Hunt

Religious is a very relevant category as it incorporates christian. I don't belong to *any* sect, religious or otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is, "religious" is too vast to be relevant.

Western Atheism de facto is a Protestant sect minus Christianity.

Matthew Hunt

It's perfectly relevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, too broad.

What's rational for a Hindoo is not so for a Christian - speaking of Aristotelic rationality as applied to their religions.

Matthew Hunt

Nope, perfectly relevant.

Atheism is a single position to a single issue.

*Hindu.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Atheism as seen in Western Society (a k a Freethinkers etc) is lots more than that.

It's sad you can't see that what's rational for a Christian is irrational for an Atheist and what's rational for an Atheist is irrational for a Christian - as programs and views go, like we do have access to Aristotelian rationality, but it obviously reaches different conclusions on what to do, based on different premisses on what is true.

Hindoo or Hindu, both exist.

Matthew Hunt

When you say "Christian" you really mean creationist. I've long learned to differentiate the two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here. Let's take what's rational from an Atheist perspective and what's rational from a Christian one.

To you, religion is a byproduct of the mind, via some bad guesses and perhaps neuroses in Palaeolithic and Neolithic, mythology of religion, mind of biology via evolution, biology of matter via abiogenesis, matter of atomic type and also other particles are byproducts of energy via Big Bang (tell me if I get one of them wrong).

To you, existence of God in Christian sense is non-sense, and if Christ Jesus is reported as having claimed to be God, it doesn't mean He's omniscient, it means He was deluded, evil, or misreported.

In this scenario, what he thought about literal truth of Jewish mythology 2000 years ago is very irrelevant to what an Atheist should think about it today.

Fine, on your view, Creationism is an anomaly. Rationally deduced from your premises.

Now, follow mine and I'll see if you can make a rational deduction.

There is a God, one single Being in three Persons who love each other eternally and are eternally happy with each other and existed when nothing else did.

God is omnipotent and omniscient in relation to everything else that exists, because He created it.

One of the Persons, the Son, became Man, and is known as Jesus Christ. His words and deeds were correctly reported by the early Church and codified in the Gospels, among other things.

Given this, what is rational to deduce from Mark 10:6 about timelines of mankind and of universe?

Matthew Hunt

"Let's take what's rational from an Atheist perspective and what's rational from a Christian one."

This is a false dichotomy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is not a dichotomy in the first place.

I never pretended those were the two only possibilities.

So, you refuse to show you can deduct logically from Christian premises what is rational for a Christian?

Matthew Hunt

You presented them as if they were.

I distinguish christian and creationist don't forget.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I did not present them as if they were the only alternatives.

I also gave premisses shared by Christians (excepting modernists) who are NOT Creationists. Only such premisses.

If you like them so much better than Creationists, you ought to know them, and if you do, you can tell me how they deal with Mark 10:6 making Adam and Eve contemporary with beginning of universe or with Matthew 24:37 / Luke 17:26 treating Noah as a historical person.

Specifically how their conclusion on these issues is supposed to square with core Christian premisses as those I gave.

Matthew Hunt

As I said before, if you don't use science to inform your worldview, then you're essentially living in a fantasy world. Science should also inform your religious beliefs as well, the Dali Lama has explicitly stated this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, Dalai Lama may be an authority to Buddhists, but I'm a Christian.

"Science should also inform your religious beliefs as well"

Pope Pius IX stated the exact contrary in Syllabus errorum.

Matthew Hunt

You're a creationist rather than christian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And, you are still at prescribing rationality for Christians from an Atheist and Science believing pov, you are still not showing how that recommendation is rational from a Christian pov.

As you state things, Creationist is the new word for what used to be called Christian.

So would you mind telling me how your "Christian" squares core Christian beliefs with not being Creationist?

Matthew Hunt

I'm just saying that people should* ignore facts when they make up their beliefs.

* [suppose he meant shouldn't]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

People do not "make up their beliefs" and especially not by ignoring what they consider as facts.

I do not consider millions or billions of years past as a fact.

Hence, I can ignore that when deciding what I believe.

However, I do consider Trinity and Incarnation as facts, and I cannot ignore these when so deciding.

Matthew Hunt

Like it or not, people do make up their beliefs. It's essentially a combination of what they were taught from a young age, what they've read and their experiences.

Like it or not, our planet is of the order of billions of years old, the science and data to back this up are irrefutable, as is evolution. You have chosen to reject this because of your preferred interpretation of your preferred religious text.

The keyword you used is "consider", that implies opinion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Knowledge is also a species of opinion.

It's an opinion that is certain, not wavering, true and not false, well grounded and not just a hunch.

You have not shown how a man believing Trinity and Incarnation can have, while such, well grounded reasons for preferring billions of years over Christ's word.

An atheist, sure. Since he doesn't believe in God, nor in Jesus being God, His view on "Hebrew myth" would not mean much.

You have still not shown how an actual Christian can consistently oppose Creationism.

"people do make up their beliefs"

Not what I would call "make up" as in the sense "invent".

What you describe doesn't involve ignoring what one considers, oneself, as facts.

You are essentially saying we should not ignore what you consider on your part as facts.

Matthew Hunt

"Knowledge is also a species of opinion."

Incorrect.

"You have still not shown how an actual Christian can consistently oppose Creationism."

I never said I would.

It's not about an opinion that they are facts, it's that the evidence for them to be facts is so overwhelming that they simply are facts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you have just gotten wrong where the evidence is overwhelming.

And also, you are using "opinion" colloquially rather than formally as used in logic.

Study some philosophy, would suit a Philosophiae doctor to know some, even if it's a bit on the late side.

"That's what a rational person would do, regardless of being religious or not." = a rational CHRISTIAN would discard Creationism = it is rational - therefore consistent - for a Christian to discard Creationism.

"I never said I would" [show this to be consistent]

Matthew Hunt

In your opinion. The mathematical proof and experimental evidence proving the Earth is of the order billions of years old is irrefutable.

I have some basic notes on maths and radiometric dating if you want.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" The mathematical proof and experimental evidence proving the Earth is of the order billions of years old is irrefutable."

With the "irrefutable" arguments you haven't dared tell me, since I could copy the debate with my refutations of them.

"I have some basic notes on maths and radiometric dating if you want."

So do I.

Matthew Hunt

Learning Materials | Dr Mat Hunt
http://www.hyperkahler.co.uk/learning-materials/

[includes a sublink on radioactive dating]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Creation vs. Evolution : General Intro to my Carbon Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/04/general-intro-to-my-carbon-tables.html

Matthew Hunt

I suggest you read and understand my notes on radiometric dating.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I just checked:

e Np(t0) - cannot be directly checked in a lab, and to do you credit, you didn't claim they could either.

"The quantities ND(t1)/ND′(t1) and NP (t1)/ND′(t1) can be measured in a lab and plotted."

yes, so, if e Np(t0) can't.

Matthew Hunt

You still haven't understood then?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Thus it is possible to determine the age of a sample by measuring the ratio of the daughter to parent atom."

You don't do that with C14. Unless daughter atom is C12 rather than N14.

You measure the ratio of C14 to C12 (normal isotope), most essentially (skipping the C13 check-up). And you measure the percentage the ratio has in a sample in terms of the present ratio, or present ratio corrected for pre-industrial values.

When you are dealing with both parent and daughter isotopes, you are dealing with very long range methods, like U-Pb, Th-Pb, Ka-Ar.

Your formula presumes that D' to D is normally a constant and that higher values of D rather than D' are always due to radioactive decay.

If I misunderstood sth, please correct it.

Matthew Hunt

It doesn't presume anything. The formula is a consequence of experimental data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is not, unless you have experimental data for original level of parent isotope, which normally you haven't.

Also, your answer was not about misunderstanding the mathematic formula, buit about its pre-maths background in measurements.