samedi 9 décembre 2023
What Were the Options in 1950 ?
What Were the Options in 1950 ?
https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/posts/pfbid02S2Lpf9hoUW2VedmY5QLuJhYP5geEPzMqSoT2cDRFXxs5hmiZQnPNmH3Jq7TCT1VLl
I don’t mean about the Blessed Virgin. The Assumption is not optional, neither is the Immaculate Conception (both feast days before being pronounced as Papal dogma).
I mean about Humani Generis. One option was obviously to cling on to the traditional pov, that God had created Adam without any kind of biological ancestry. This is mentioned as sth that can be defended, and it was already held widely.
What was the other thing one could defend ?
It was not Sébastien Antoni, Assumptionist in conflict with Trent Session V, agreeing with the worst chapter (or one actually bad chapter) of The Problem of Pain. Adam definitely still was an individual man, and he definitely still was responsible, next to Satan’s temptation and more intimately than that one, for Original Sin.
It was also not the idea that Jimmy Akin has proposed. You know, Adam was not actually the ancestor of all men alive at the same time as he, except Eve for whom he was also an origin, but Adam and Eve for some other reason became representatives of an already extant mankind, and people not born of them, even alive before they were created, fell into original sin when Adam sinned, because he was for some reason their representative. That was also not an option.
The non-Creationist option was, and it was not one Pius XII explicitly said one could hold, it was one he explicitly said that learned men could defend, as much as the older idea, if they were « perit[i] in utroque campo » which according to the actual Latin doesn’t mean « experts in both fields » (or « on both sides » perhaps?) but « experienced men in both fields » (or « on both sides »), and whatever the canonists say, it’s grammatically unclear if it’s sufficient to be experienced in either Bible exegesis or natural sciences, or if you are required to be experienced in both. But, again, what was this alternative ?
« de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi »
So, what kind of living matter could that be ? I will kindly assume that Pius XII was not doing ecumenism with Odinists by portraying as licit the idea that Ask and Embla were created from two tree logs. But it is also not a very human language taken here. Indeed, in 1941 it seems he had told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that if Adam had progenitors, as they were not created in the image of God, as they were not human, they were not actually his parents in the full human sense.
I would actually congratulate both Jimmy Akin and Sébastien Antoni to not be holding that position, even if I deplore they are not taking « one of the two positions licit back then » (i e the other one). Think about it. Howevermuch someone has both a human body and a human soul, he’ll not be able to learn language if he’s not exposed to language when he’s a certain number of months old. But on the other hand, human language reflects facts about the human soul created in God’s image. This means the hypothetical progenitors of Adam could not have had any human langage on this view. Hence, this view means, quite brutally, God was making Adam get born as a human among beasts, or get born as a beast to be only transsubstantiated into a human being later, as he was adult. The former of these options obviously involves Adam not learning language from those surrounding him, including the hypothetical progenitors. So does the latter, but according to the former view, this was an abnormal situation for the nature he was already having.
God would have committed child abuse against Adam even before he had committed the first sin.
I am happy to have not been among the comparatively few victims of a certain type of priests. But I am not happy about a theology which I suspect can have misled them. I don’t think any of the first child abusers (within the modern trend) was a strict creationist about Adam’s immediate origin.
Concept of FB Abused as Contact Inhibition
I found someone was reacting with hearts to the links I shared about the Catholic Faith, and with tears to the links about abortion and the martyrdom of Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette, so, I found it was arguably a kindred soul.
Here is what happened:
Can't Send Request
It looks like you may not know this person. Send requests to people you know personally to see their updates on Facebook.
This is highly abusive, since it stops FB from serving as a platform to gain contacts for those having none or highly inadequate ones around them./HGL
There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.
There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.
https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/posts/pfbid032HXejfDpFR7cE9yTmpGPbPBMWSDBUE4V3TeW2x5JHHTmY3x51JSLNgTrWibsbV17l
Let’s say a Catholic and a Protestant are for some reasons friends or business associates and from time to time speak of religion.
- A. Protestant or Catholic brings up a topic dividing the two confessions (the Protestant one not usually being European Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but more in the range of what Europeans would term « freikirchlich » in German, « frikyrklig » in Swedish and roughly speaking « Evangelical » in US American and Canadian English, probably used the same way in England too, but on Ireland, Calvinists would do this more often then Pentecostals, I think, and you also have Calvinists who are into this). The Protestant brings up a few objections. So far, hunky dory.
- B. The Catholic then does a fine job getting into all the intricacies of interpretation and exegesis and Church history to defend the Catholic doctrine. The Protestant listens patiently and nods.
- C. When the Catholic is done, the Protestant is then replying, « but why does it have to be so complicated ? Do you really have to know Greek and Latin Church Fathers to come to Christ ? How can you have your sins forgiven if, God forbid, you should miss a little detail in Church history ? We have a far simpler way of turning to God, you see, we are done with all these extra mediators ... »
Why does this Protestant tactic make me sick ?
On their view, probably because I have an issue with coming to Christ. They are witnessing of Christ you see, so if their tactic makes me sick, I must be under some kind of demonic influence, and therefore disgusted at Christ Himself, that being obviously ALL of their religion, and so on.
There are other reasons, if you want my opinion.
- 1) It’s dishonest. You pretend to be interested in the intellectual side so as to bait a Catholic to waste his time as an intellectual, so you can end it all of by pretending he’s an intellectual instead of being a Christian. Part of the reason that particular Catholic has a well educated and to your view even complex intellect, is, he actually grew up close enough to Protestants to need to be able to give an answer well before you asked one of him. There are Protestants who are actually interested in the answers, as I while a Protestant was in the Catholic answer to my two main objections, that being Indulgences (not too interested actually, except it kind of made the Church I was attracted to look a bit bad) and Inquisition (far more interested). Picking up habits of intellectualism when growing up as a Catholic or a near Catholic semi-Protestant interested in converting, the latter my case, but growing up near people like you (I had met your kind in Austria) or near Commie like Atheists, an act of self defense, but also of outreach. You pretend this is how WE do « how do I get saved by the Cross » which is simply not the case. Confession may be irksome, but it’s not complicated. Fasting on a vigil day or the early hours of a day you intend to receive Communion may send you to a caloric breakfast when the fast is over, but that is also not complicated. Praying the rosary is pleasant, unless you have a problem with one of the prayers, as I currently have with the Our Father, which says « as we forgive those who trespass against us » this being my main problem for these last up to ten years I have not been praying the rosary.
- 2) It’s by that dishonesty underscoring your Protestant superiority complex in a way which doesn’t cost you any intellectual effort. It allows you to feel totally smug about not being Catholic and basically pitying Catholics, without your having any need to look for any answers.
- 3) It fools yourself and any Protestant listeners (of your type), but worse, it’s intended to fool me. I’d be ashamed of such dishonesty, so I don’t intend to get fooled. But some Protestants who are around are not ashamed of such dishonesty and do intend to keep trying.
vendredi 1 décembre 2023
The Concept of Spam is Abused as Reason for Arbitrary Censorship
On June 18th, back in 2019, I wrote this article, and then shared it on FB, probably giving the link as a birthday present, same or one of the following days:
Creation vs. Evolution : "Edessa in Mesopotamia"
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/06/edessa-in-mesopotamia.html
On December 1st, 2023, more than four full years later, some person on FB does this:
The allegation is, I tried to gain likes or video views or followers in a misleading way.
If literally the only thing I posted was the link itself, or perhaps before that the words "some reading? here:" — how can that be misleading ? I have stated nothing about the text except where it is to be found, leaving the reader entirely free to like or dislike it as he prefers, to share or not share it.
Obviously, someone, more properly someoneS, have found even that misleading. Their version of a truthful and honest Hans Georg Lundahl is a Hans Georg Lundahl who doesn't try to share what they don't want him to share. Or simply shares nothing at all, because they don't want me to be a writer.
Please note, the criminal offense against freedom of speech has been ongoing manually.
The links I posted are being eliminated one by one, therefore manually. And no, it's not the one having the wall eliminating my comment, FB itself is claiming "WE removed your comment."
A few months ago, I heard of FB France having a security team who were diehard Muslims (was it of the Qatari extraction, which has some influence in France? I don't recall).
Muslims have tried to put me into weakened positions or to admit not feeling very well or so, so they could eliminate freedoms for me in the guise of "helping" me, helping "poor" me ... meanwhile I am poor in another sense, namely if not directly broke at least deprived from income by their crimes.
But also by the treason of Christians who accuse me of being a Muslim or an agent provocateur or whatever.
Their main evidence for me being a pawn of possibly perverted élites is, I am getting help, juridically against direct captivity into psychiatry, policing against vandalism of my property, while I'm away, materially as to food and clothing items, pretty much from people close to the enforcers of law and order and therefore government and socio-economic élites. The reason I need this help in the first place is that such Christians, the most likely people to re-publish my blogs on paper, have drawn conclusions from a de facto protégé situation I did not chose. And therefore they have sided with the Muslim censors of FB against me.
I think some of the Muslims on FB, certainly some elsewhere, started months ago, soon a year. What happened? Muslims have lost children in Eastern Turkey, near Edessa in Mesopotamia here mentioned. Muslims have lost children in Morocco. Muslims have recently been losing children, are perhaps still losing children, through the inhuman agression on Gaza prior to the ceasefire.
For whereas they would not believe any thing before by reason of the enchantments, then first upon the destruction of the firstborn, they acknowledged the people to be of God.
Wisdom 18:13
But even in France, a very anticlerical country, Christians, specifically Catholic Christians, could have helped me. I could have been enjoying well deserved incomes from my writing, but the ones addicted to recent changes in discipline specifically on Biblical exegesis, among the Catholic population (not saying "in the Catholic Church"), have preferred to side with those Muslims, or even to egg them on to their ill deeds./HGL
PS, 10.XII.2023 (and I tried to appeal)
10 déc. 2023
Nous avons supprimé votre commentaire
Hans-Georg Lundahl
16 oct. 2018Sth to read?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/neanderthal-probably-innocent-of.html
Vous avez partagé ce contenu sur votre profil
Votre commentaire va à l’encontre de nos Standards de la communauté sur le spam.
Discussing Carbon 14
- David K. Muncie
- Admin, Principal contributor
- 27.XI.2023
- Half rates, Does this make any sense?
Let us use C-14 because it’s the fastest used in dating.
C-14 in a weed is at atmospheric equilibrium in the say 4 months of its life. Then it dies and no new C-14 can enter it, by any means, not by water or air or any means, so the time clock starts ticking in 5730 half the c-14 has decayed and by 11460 years another 50% has decayed, by 100,000 years the last c-14 element decays, why did some c-14 decay by say 100 years and other last 100,000 years they are the same, they were taken in at the same time, and why is 5730 the magic number where exactly 50% of the remainder vanishes? This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that."
5730 years can be deduced from observing the halflife in shorter periods.
5730 years is down to 50 % of original content.
So, 2865 years would be down to ... if you know the A4 related formats and can use them on a xerox machine, you have already seen it : 71 % or 70.7 % ...
1432 or 1433 years would leave what of the orignal? Sqrt of 0.707 etc is 84.09 %.
Are there objects known to be from 590 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.
716 years leaves what? 91.7 %
Are there objects from 1307 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.
Instead of a half life of 5730 years and a stable c. 100 percent modern carbon, one could theorise the possibility of for instance 11460 years and the carbon level still rising.
I think that can be excluded, as I think there are objects from 50 years ago or so, which we know the carbon 14 content in back then, and can check the carbon 14 content now. BUT ... let's suppose it couldn't. It would not do much of a difference.
I suppose, as a Young Earth Creationist, that the carbon 14 level has been roughly stable since the time when Troy fell, 1179 BC.
If the halflife were twice what it is, that would mean the level when Troy fell was 4/5 of 100 percent modern carbon instead.
We would still need a carbon 14 rise after the Flood. And not just the rate at which on that view carbon 14 had risen since the time when Troy fell. But a higher rate.
- David K. Muncie
- Author, Admin
- Hans-Georg Lundahl, How long has carbon 14 decay been under observation in a single sample?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I looked up, and the answer seems to be:
The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.
I e, the oldest sample possible (not sure if actually extant) answering to the criteria of tested then and tested now would be 78 years old between the tests. It should have 99.061 % of what it had back then. If the half life were twice as long, it should instead have the percentage for 39 years, as now counted. That's 99.529 %.
If samples from 1307 and around then, reasonably presumed to have been effectively sealed off since then, have 91.7 pmC (percent modern carbon, corrected for pre-industrial values) or around that, either it had 100 pmC or around that and a halflife of 5730 years, or if it has a significantly longer halflife, the carbon 14 content in 1307 was significantly lower than now.
- David K. Muncie
- Author, Admin
- Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is no one is interested in running another test to verify the decay rate.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Apart from measuring the decay in samples already tested, I don't think there is need of any.
THAT is a much surer test than testing the rate in one year in a lab.
My reason AGAINST decay rates of Uranium or Potassium 40 is, you cannot do this kind of over centuries test for either of them.
Btw, the difference between straight 100 pmC X half life 5730 years and carbon level rising from 80 to 100 pmC in 3000 years X half life 11460 years, for the amount of time we can have sure historic samples from is actually LESS than the deviations we actually have in calibrations, like the Hallstatt plateau, if you've heard of it.
I've done the math and I've compared to the calibrations.
So, in practise this doesn't matter.
This is in no way, shape or form an endorsement for taking carbon dates like 39 000 BP at face value. From the Flood to the Fall of Troy, carbon 14 rose very rapidly, was produced up to 10 times or a little more as fast as now, and 39 000 BP in a real Biblical calibration translates as 2957 BC, because the supervolcano explosions, including the so dated Campi Flegrei, are from the Flood, and it happened in 2957 BC. It's just that while decay happened since then at half life 5730, back then the atmospheric content was 1.625 pmC - around 1/61 or 1/62 of what it is now.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
