tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post2454137060534122673..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Did Augustine and Aquinas Believe In A Literal Interpretation of GenesisDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-21717451138622290742014-04-05T05:16:31.086-04:002014-04-05T05:16:31.086-04:00I quoted your comment on this thread on my blogpos...I quoted your comment on this thread on my blogpost:<br /><br /><a href="http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/04/diverging-slightly-from-sungenis.html" rel="nofollow">HGL's F.B. writings : Diverging slightly from Sungenis<br />http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/04/diverging-slightly-from-sungenis.html</a>Hans-Georg aus Wiennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-31171806564253056012014-03-29T15:06:42.063-04:002014-03-29T15:06:42.063-04:00varve (plural varves)
1.(geology) An annual layer...<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/varve" rel="nofollow">varve</a> (plural varves)<br /> 1.(geology) An annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock. <br /><br />Etymology<br />From Swedish varv (“layer”).<br />Note, the Swedish word is actually spelled hvarf up to 1906.<br /><br />I knew there was an English word, but I did not knew it was a loan from Swedish, I thought it was a cognate. <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wharf" rel="nofollow">wharf (plural wharves or wharfs)</a> seems to be used like an alternative meaning of hvarf, since it is also used as the place where a ship is being built, a dock in English I think.<br /><br />Note further that:<br />a) the word layer is clumsy since also used for much thicker things made up of many varves, like the palaeocene layer of a rock (whether it is called so because found with palaeocene type fauna or because found above a layer with cretaceous type fauna but without, usually, fossils itself, if so found);<br />b) in Swedish hvarf/varv is used for the thinner thing and lager (cognate of layer) for the thicker thing only;<br />c) in Swedish the word per se does not imply they are formed one each year, since a common word of the language, unlike the English terminus technicus which has so to speak an Old Age argument in its very technical definition.Hans The Swedehttp://ppt.li/l8noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-75057825216224845672014-03-20T08:59:33.616-04:002014-03-20T08:59:33.616-04:00Oh, btw, how do you feel about Hornerstown Formati...Oh, btw, how do you feel about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornerstown_Formation" rel="nofollow">Hornerstown Formation?</a><br /><br /><i>The Hornerstown Formation is a Paleogene or latest Mesozoic geologic formation.[1] The age of these deposits have been controversial. While most fossils are of animals types known from the earliest Cenozoic era, several fossils of otherwise exclusively Cretaceous age have been found. These include remains of the shark Squalicorax, the teleost fish Enchodus, several species of ammonite, and marine lizards referred to the genus Mosasaurus. Some of these remains show signs of severe abrasion and erosion, however, implying that they are probably re-worked from older deposits. Most of these fossils are restricted to the lowest point in the formation, one rich in fossils and known as the Main Fossiliferous Layer, or MFL. Other explanations for the out-of-place fossils in the MFL is that they represent a time-averaged assemblage that built up and remained unburied during a time of low sediment deposition, or that they were stirred up from deeper in the sediment and deposited together during a tsunami.[2]</i><br /><br />Does very much NOT sound as if the Cretaceous beasts had been found at a deeper level than the Palaeogene ones.<br /><br />Because in that case they would not be groping for explanations like that.<br /><br />Unless of course those words were like a trap for me to see if I would fall for it. I mean, on wikipedia that is technically possible and some people agreeing with you would have a motive.<br /><br />Just another little fossil find, which I do not think is supporting your story. You can of course say "gotcha, were you stupid enough to believe a wiki" ....HGLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-1624298724722173462014-03-17T08:03:19.869-04:002014-03-17T08:03:19.869-04:00Hans-Georg,
In case it's not obvious from thi...Hans-Georg,<br /><br />In case it's not obvious from this morning's clean sweep, I've decided not to let you use my comment boxes to air your opinions further. All further comments will be deleted.<br /><br />I try to allow a wide range of opinion here, but I don't think there's any point in maintaining conversation with someone who thinks that our most recent popes are probably anti-popes, goes off on bizarre rants about "Illuminati Jew bankers", etc. <br /><br />I hope that, in time, God's grace will help to bring you closer to the source of all Truth, which is Christ.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-48158267131262674472014-03-17T06:03:13.537-04:002014-03-17T06:03:13.537-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-91965246667313788662014-03-16T17:32:33.279-04:002014-03-16T17:32:33.279-04:00As I've said before: I see no point in discuss...As I've said before: I see no point in discussing these issues with you given your priors. The Church has accepted the teaching of the heliocentric model of the solar system <i>as fact</i> since 1820. <br /><br />Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all wrote about how not only the "old earth" understanding of natural history enjoyed great scientific support, but how the evolutionary account of biological history did as well -- and how it is not incompatible with the faith. I see no reason to think that the other recent popes have believed differently, and I remain confident that just as Augustine and Aquinas adopted the cosmology which was the best science of their day (with a round earth rather than a flat one) they would if presented with modern science be among the great majority of educated Catholics who see no conflict between the faith and the findings of modern cosmology and biology -- not among the few cranks who insist on supporting an overly literal view of Genesis no matter what bizarre glosses on the scientific evidence are needed to make it appear to work.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-12132909625086632032014-03-16T07:42:26.394-04:002014-03-16T07:42:26.394-04:00Copy of dialogue, most relevant part:
Akita538
N...Copy of dialogue, most relevant part:<br /><br /><b>Akita538</b><br /><br />No, no, no. What you said was that angels moved the stars in just such a way as to *exactly* match the parallax changes predicted by heliocentrism.<br /> <br />Given the non-trivial number of stars involved, that would be strong evidence of deliberate and calculated deception.<br /><br /><b>Hans-Georg Lundahl</b><br /><br />You speak as if God's Veracity involved a duty to a set of people set out on interpreting such and such a phenomenon wrongly and atheistically to prevent that set from getting any way with their false premise at all.<br /> <br />As for the rest, I copied out relevant parts of earlier dialogue from the blog post.<br /> <br /><i><b>You:</b> "The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars."<br /><br /><b>Me:</b> "Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement - which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. "<br /><br /><b>You:</b> "The 'proper movement' would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth."<br /><br /><b>Me:</b> "It would not be exactly calculated to deceive observers on earth, except if they had a clear reason to believe the stars did not move on their own.<br /> <br />But since Geocentrism is the default and common sense interpretation of our daily observations, and it involves stars moving daily around us, we would have no such reason.<br /> <br />It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss."<br /><br /><b>Maybe clearer:</b></i> by the false premise they introduce.<br /><br /><b>Akita538</b><br /><br />I'm saying calculating hypocrisy involving angels is still calculating hypocrisy. : )<br /><br /><b>Hans-Georg Lundahl</b><br /><br />Calculating a course of action justified in itself (like angels dancing in time with the Sun while holding their stars) does not become hypocrisy because one can also calculate the fact that x, y and z are going to get it wrong and use it as proof of an error.<br /> <br />For instance, God and the angels knew perfectly well how Astrologers would take Venus in the Virgo part of the Zodiak seen from Earth, yet the fact that Astrology is wrong does not make God and the angels hypocrites just because Venus is sometimes in Virgo.<br /> <br />Why should they owe more to "modern science" than to superstition? What if modern science (on this level, not those relevant for building cars or computers) is a superstition? Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-138858687720398642014-03-16T07:41:18.067-04:002014-03-16T07:41:18.067-04:00Do you recall these words, which I can charitably ...Do you recall these words, which I can charitably have some little hope you spoke in haste:<br /><br /><i>I can't prove that you're wrong that the stars and planets are actually moved about by angels who just happen to act in all observable terms as if they were following the laws of motion -- with the exception of rare miraculous occurrences which we call miraculous precisely because they are not explicable in physical terms -- but that's no reason for me to believe your angelic explanation. A mechanistic account of the solar system allows me to understand and predict everything I could need to know about it in physical terms, and in that regard in scientific terms its a perfectly good explanation.</i><br /><br />For one thing, astronomers are all the time getting at new ideas to explain details about stars and planets not moving according to predictions mae by applying "laws of motion". This is indeed the main source of new ideas in astronomy, one of the latest harvests being exo-planets, not just the directly observed ones but a very much greater number.<br /><br />But there is another thing to it too. There is a kind of premade quip I have heard before to this. Behind it is the idea, quite false, that if we cannot explain ALL in exclusively naturalistic terms, if we do admit ANY non-naturalistic explanation (and an angel moving a star is to a Christian less naturalistic than a man moving a pen), there would be no point in explaining ANYTHING AT ALL in naturalistic terms.<br /><br /><a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2013/12/proximate-causes-are-not-always.html" rel="nofollow">I do believe God made secondary causes real causes.<br />http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2013/12/proximate-causes-are-not-always.html</a><br /><br />Including purely corporeal ones. It is just that I think that among created causes the spirits have precedence over matter. It reminds me of another dialogue I had with a man who seemed to be purporting to be a Catholic, I will first link to where I saved our debate, and then copy the relevant part of it:<br /><br /><a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/10/to-unbalanced-anti-yec-priest-and-his.html" rel="nofollow">Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC priest (?) and his defenders, part I<br />http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/10/to-unbalanced-anti-yec-priest-and-his.html</a><br />Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-17157167817800062612014-03-14T05:53:58.335-04:002014-03-14T05:53:58.335-04:00And as some of my understanding of St Augustine go...And as some of my understanding of St Augustine goes through English, which is not my native language, as you have liked to point out, with some gentleness, here is Andrew Sibley's take on St Augustine:<br /><br /><a href="http://creation.com/creation-millennium-church-fathers" rel="nofollow">CMI : Creationism and millennialism among the Church Fathers<br />by Andrew Sibley<br />http://creation.com/creation-millennium-church-fathers</a><br /><br />Do not get me wrong. I do not endorse his rejection of the LXX, though it is less brazen than it used to be.<br /><br />Obviously not only St Augustine but also St Jerome thought (at times at least) the LXX was more accurate. His chronology uses same method as Ussher's and is based on LXX rather than on the Vulgate he made. It is still in use in the Catholic Church every Christmas, except for those dioceses that since 1994 accept the "unknown ages" novelty.<br /><br />As to St Thomas Aquinas, he combined the One-Moment creation of St Ausgustine with the Six Day creation (literally) of other Church Fathers. Adam was created in his seminal nature in the first moment, but in a fullgrown material body less than two hundred hours later, on the literal Sixth Day, and obviously I hold with St Thomas Aquinas here.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-65517123668284617032014-03-14T03:53:33.236-04:002014-03-14T03:53:33.236-04:00This last link was in English (just in case your L...This last link was in English (just in case your Latin is rusty).<br /><br />It was also to St Thomas Aquinas.<br /><br />I think you will have to count <i>him</i> pretty definitely out as support for ideas of God creating a self contained physical universe understandable on merely physical terms in each phenomenon.<br /><br />The lack of flexibility in your English which made mine seem more odd to you than it is (apart from the possible question of what the word "wharves" means in English, have not yet looked up in OED recently) might damn you as a sufficiently good reader to be giving St Augustine's meaning, as well.<br /><br />Oh, you did look up my references to St Thomas' angelology, didn't you?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-88713830315564934982014-03-12T13:23:39.375-04:002014-03-12T13:23:39.375-04:00Capitulum XII / ibidem
Errores de celo et stellis
...<a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-xii.html" rel="nofollow">Capitulum XII / ibidem<br />Errores de celo et stellis</a><br /><br />•1 (92). Quod corpora celestia mouentur a principio intrinseco*, quod est anima ; et quod mouentur per animam et per uirtutem appetitiuam, sicut animal. Sicut enim animal appetens mouetur, ita et celum.** <br /><br />•3 (102). Quod anima celi est intelligentia, et orbes celestes non sunt instrumenta intelligentiarum set organa, sicut auris et oculus sunt organa uirtutis sensitiue.<br /><br />*Hec fuit prima positio aquinatis, set emendauit credendo, sicut restat licitum intelligentia mouens esse principium extrinsecum habens orbes ut instrumenta, non ut organa. **Appetens enim deum qui tunc esset primus mouens solum inquantum summum bonum desideratum et non actiue, quod falsum est.<br /><br />And now some St Thomas Aquinas (in English):<br /><br /><a href="http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html" rel="nofollow">Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52964462051803828502014-03-12T13:18:25.513-04:002014-03-12T13:18:25.513-04:00BARUCH - Chapter 3 : 33 - 35
33 He that sendeth f...<a href="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1349.html" rel="nofollow">BARUCH - Chapter 3</a> : 33 - 35<br /><br /><b>33 He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling.<br /><br />34 And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced:<br /><br />35 They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.</b><br /><br />Looks to me as if perhaps either the stars were angelic beings or represented such, like for instance their angelic movers.<br /><br /><i>Ver. 33. Trembling. The sun stops, goes back, or withdraws its light, at his command, Josue x. 12., and 4 Kings xx. 9., Matthew xxvii. 45., and Job xxxvi. 30.<br /><br />Ver. 34. Watches. They are like his soldiers, Judges v. 20., and Ecclesiasticus xliii. 12. (Calmet)</i><br /><br />Here Calmet is getting closer to what I feel about the matter. Now for some Medieval lore right?<br /><br /><a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html" rel="nofollow">Capitulum VII / ex Stephani II Tempier episcopi Parisiensis condempnacionibus<br />Errores de intelligentia uel angelo</a><br /><br />•12 (77) [Twelfth error in this chapter/77th in original list]. Quod si esset aliqua substantia separata que non moueret aliquid corpus in hoc mundo sensibili, non clauderetur in uniuerso.~~ <br /><br />[My footnote:] ~~Unum est ergo dicere angelos esse motores rerum uisibilium prout res uisibiles moti sint, aliud et erroneum dicere eos esse motores rerum uisibilium inquantum sint ipsi angeli in uniuerso. Per "claudi" intellige francogallicum "être inclus".<br /><br />•25 (212). Quod intelligentia sola uoluntate mouet celum.<br /><br />[footnote] 25 (212) - Deus enim est qui sola uoluntate mouet totum celum.<br /><br /><a href="http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitulum-viii.html" rel="nofollow">Capitulum VIII / ibidem<br />Errores de anima uel intellectu</a><br /><br />•1 (7). Quod intellectus non est actus corporis, nisi sicut nauta nauis, nec est perfectio essentialis hominis.* <br /><br />•2 (8). Quod intellectus, quando uult, induit corpus, et quando non uult, non induit.**<br /><br />•3 (13). Quod ex sensitiuo et intellectiuo in homine non fit unum per essentiam, nisi sicut ex intelligentia et orbe, hoc est unum per operationem.***<br /> <br />* Quamuis inter corpus et intellectum parum est similitudo quam quod dicatur ita intellectum esse actum corporis ita se habentem, tamen dormente corpore torpet intellectus, nisi in somniis, et corpus habet animam sibi unitam sicut actum que in homine et est intellectus. Secundum uigorem et torporem set etiam secundum diuersum ingenium melius aut peius intelligimus. Nullo modo corpus est subiectum adequatum passiuum cuius actiuum esset aliud subiectum, anima. Ita homo unus est et intellectus essentialis eius perfectio, non accidens aliud perfectum.<br /> ** Iter in planitie astralis ut dicunt mystagogi ergo est illusio, et normaliter diabolica.<br /> *** Vide distinctionem: intelligentia uel angelus et orbis forsitan fiunt unum per operationem, sicut nauta et nauis, set certe non ut forma et materia, ut actus uiuus uiui corporis, set aliter est de unitate hominis, quia anima et corpus humanum sunt unum precise ut actus uiui corporis et hoc corpus uiuum, et certe non solum per operationem sicut nauta et nauis. Anima sensitiua per uoluntatem uel nutum appetiti regit membra motu mobiles quoad motum set non ita regit neque distat a membris uitales, set uegetatiue est eorum actus. Et hec anima est sensitiua sicut et uegetatiua et quidem etiam intellectiua in homine, set anime animalium irrationalium, id est sine intellectu, sunt et sensitiue neque autem intellectiue. Intellectus ergo non est aliud quiddam quam anima, quamuis sit inter eos distinctio rationum nominandi.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-14322899632391733752014-03-12T13:17:34.135-04:002014-03-12T13:17:34.135-04:00Can you count how many orbits the water droplet ma...Can you count how many orbits the water droplet makes before getting caught on knitting needle?<br /><br />It is not the same video as the one where I counted 10 - 20 (medium 15) orbits. It has a more detailed explanation.<br /><br />Astronaut specifically mentions satellites going round planets, but the gravitational explanation is the same as for planets going around sun.<br /><br />Count the orbits, then ask yourself if an analogy to this experiment could account for 4.5 billion orbits around any centre attracting in any way at a diustance.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky7wIj1aeOo" rel="nofollow">hadlock : Water Droplets in Orbit around Knitting Needle on the ISS<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky7wIj1aeOo</a><br /><br /><i>Astronaut Don Pettit aboard the ISS charges a knitting needle with static electricity and then puts water droplets "in orbit" around it. The mechanics are similar to an object orbiting a cylindrical planet, but in this case the attracting force is static electricity, not gravity.</i><br /><br />Maybe angelic movers can do a better job than blind forces? Hmm?<br /><br />Now for Scripture reference:<br /><br /><a href="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1089.html" rel="nofollow">JOB - Chapter 38</a> : 7<br /><br /><b>When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?</b><br /><br />Seems kind of parallelling "morning stars" (a title apt for at least Venus and Mercury) with "sons of God" (known from elsewhere to mean angels). What does the comment say?<br /><br />Ver. 7. Sons. Septuagint, "all my angels." Hence it appears that the angels were among the first of God's works, formed probably at the same time with the heavens, (Calmet) or light, Genesis i. 3. (Haydock) --- The praise of the stars is figurative, (Calmet) as they tend to raise our hearts to God by their beauty, (Haydock) whereas that of the angels is real. (Calmet)<br /><br />Calmet <a href="http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/12/whose-work-humanly-speaking-is-haydock.html" rel="nofollow">made his comment in 1707</a> (and Haydock extracts from it), but earlier commentators might not agree, and even Haydock (1859!) seems to have inserted an explanation he did not find in Calmet. Earlier commentators like Tirinus or St Robert Bellarmine or St Thomas Aquinas just theoretically might have disagreed.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-45886348234122787542014-03-12T12:25:05.275-04:002014-03-12T12:25:05.275-04:00It is contrary to the faith to say that events can...<i>It is contrary to the faith to say that events can only ever be explained by physical forces and objects, on the theory that only physical objects and forces exist. However, it is not contrary to the faith to say that any given physical system is explainable in strictly physical terms.</i><br /><br />Including the human body?<br /><br />I think not.<br /><br />And remember. A pen's internal working may be explained in strictly physical and chemical terms, but where it is drawn and what letters it writes cannot be explained in such terms.<br /><br /><i>I can't prove that you're wrong that the stars and planets are actually moved about by angels who just happen to act in all observable terms as if they were following the laws of motion</i> -- [exceptis exceptandis] -- <i>but that's no reason for me to believe your angelic explanation.</i><br /><br />Maybe Job and Baruch is a reason to believe it?<br /><br />Job 38, I think, Baruch 3.<br /><br /><i>A mechanistic account of the solar system allows me to understand and predict everything I could need to know about it in physical terms, and in that regard in scientific terms its a perfectly good explanation.</i><br /><br />Except insofar as it is not working when tested (NASA did a relevant test with 15 orbits of each waterdrop, medium, in conditions parallelling the gravitation+inertia model for planetary orbits).<br /><br />And except insofar as instead of believing God created Heaven less than two hundred hours before Adam, you think he did so millions of years earlier.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-71016981747162106512014-03-12T12:11:09.689-04:002014-03-12T12:11:09.689-04:00It is contrary to the faith to say that this is th...<i>It is contrary to the faith to say that this is the only possible explanation of any and every movement on the scale of a body surrounded by space larger than the probes that also have jet propulsion, and that therefore a correct model of the universe would need to assume only mechanistic causes of movements.</i><br /><br />It is contrary to the faith to say that events can only ever be explained by physical forces and objects, on the theory that only physical objects and forces exist. However, it is not contrary to the faith to say that any given physical system is explainable in strictly physical terms.<br /><br />I can't prove that you're wrong that the stars and planets are actually moved about by angels who just happen to act in all observable terms as if they were following the laws of motion -- with the exception of rare miraculous occurrences which we call miraculous precisely because they are not explicable in physical terms -- but that's no reason for me to believe your angelic explanation. A mechanistic account of the solar system allows me to understand and predict everything I could need to know about it in physical terms, and in that regard in scientific terms its a perfectly good explanation.<br /><br />And honestly, at that point, I'm not sure why there's any point in discussing any of this. Why, for instance, do you bother to try to come up with arguments as to how the fossil record could be explained by regions and floods. They could, after all, be the result of angels writing in the rocks. <br /><br />And really, at that point, I think it's clear that this conversation has become futile, so I won't be participating in it further.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-17782108525294394652014-03-12T04:20:38.424-04:002014-03-12T04:20:38.424-04:00But it is in no way contrary to the faith to say t...<i>But it is in no way contrary to the faith to say that our rational God has created a physical universe which behaves in predictable ways according to physical laws.<br /><br />Indeed, it is the very predictability of physical laws which makes the exceptions to them (miracles, such as the Resurrection) miraculous.</i><br /><br />Angelic movers for stars and planets do not make the universe non-predictable generally speaking.<br /><br />They do give a very easy explanation for occasions where non-predictality has occurred - if for instance recently the face on the moon was observed as rotating 90% to herald the Antichrist is here, or in a less controversial vein, when the angel of the Sun, in obedience to his Creator:<br /><br />1) stood still over Joshua's battle (along with the Moon)<br /><br />2) went back ten lines on the sundial of King Hezekiah<br /><br />3) went dark over Calvary<br /><br />4) danced over Fatima in Portugal in 1917.<br /><br />But if angels are good dancers, and have a good choreographer, their moves are as predictable generally speaking as purely mechanistic causes. However, they would not predict mechanistic impossibility of Geocentrism. Or parallax being absolutely parallactic. Or any burning star having self ignited and needing therefore a mass of hydrogen superior to that of Jupiter. In other words, they do not predict a very vast universe which gives, with a finite speed of light, a distant starlight argument against the revealed Chronology (a universe that started less than 200 hours before the first human observer).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-45203449926062160212014-03-12T04:06:52.189-04:002014-03-12T04:06:52.189-04:00However, where you're wrong is in saying that ...<i>However, where you're wrong is in saying that there's something contrary to the faith in assuming that the astronomical bodies move in a "mechanistic" fashion. There is nothing contrary to the faith in saying that the way the stars and planets move is the result of gravity.</i><br /><br />It is contrary to the faith to say that this is the <i>only possible</i> explanation of any and every movement on the scale of a body surrounded by space larger than the probes that also have jet propulsion, and that therefore a correct model of the universe would need to assume only mechanistic causes of movements.<br /><br />Here is the point where I think we ought to take a look at theology on what a Catholic Christian should assume of God as Creator and active Providence:<br /><br /><a href="http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/responding-to-miller-staying-with.html" rel="nofollow">Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1</a><br /><br />Since it is "part 1" you will know there are other parts, I link to all four of them in each uppermost part of a post and to the next one in the three non-final ones at the bottom.<br /><br />Enjoy the reading.<br /><br />As for a very minor point "point is" vs "the point is", I have been among IB students where "point is" was considered acceptable ellipsis or sloppiness.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-80481330533812686672014-03-12T03:57:56.452-04:002014-03-12T03:57:56.452-04:00Biggie first:
the biggie is that when Newton'...Biggie first:<br /><br /><i>the biggie is that when Newton's universal laws of motion came along, they could explain how the heliocentric model of the solar system worked (the Sun's gravity holds the planets in their orbits, the planets' gravity holds their moons in orbit, etc.) There is not a set of universal laws of motion which explains how a geocentric solar system works.</i><br /><br />If I hold a pen above the ground, you can predict where it will fall first if I drop it.<br /><br />If I do not drop the pen, but write with it, you can not predict where it will be a moment hence, unless I am drawing a very regular pattern with it.<br /><br />Newton never actually refuted the theory that stars and planets are moved by angels whom God put in charge of the luminaries (both selfshining like sun and fixed stars and reflecting like moon, "planets" - in modern terminology excepting earth - and comets).<br /><br />If you are an atheist your rfutation tehreof is "oh, come on, that doesn't exist". What is your refutation as a Christian?<br /><br />I have none.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-41740734022252524882014-03-11T13:26:51.846-04:002014-03-11T13:26:51.846-04:00Article: In my ears "Jews are money conscious...<i>Article: In my ears "Jews are money conscious" and "The Jews are money conscious" are equally correct. Or even a preference for the former. But then I have read more Latin than Greek.</i><br /><br />In English these constructions would both work, though they would have slightly different connotations: the former suggests you are talking about many individuals who share the characteristic of being Jewish while the latter talks about "the Jews" as some sort of unified group.<br /><br />The point where the use of the article becomes more key is... Well, actually, I just realized that sentence opening is a great example. The proper English construction would be "<b>The</b> point where <b>the</b> use of <b>the</b> article" while depending on his linguistic background many non-native English speakers would naturally say "Point where the use of article" instead.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-49008381513198035082014-03-11T13:22:25.266-04:002014-03-11T13:22:25.266-04:00I do not consider them parallax effects. If stars ...<i>I do not consider them parallax effects. If stars are moved by the angels and thos of all lesser stars admire the one of the Sun (for Joshua, Hezekiah, Calvary, Fatima in 1917, and simply being so close to Our Lord and Our Lady - King and Queen of all angels) they would perhaps want to "dance in time with it".<br /><br />So, since I am no atheist, I see no problem explaining, I will not say "the parallax effect" but rather "the phenomenon known as parallax to Heliocentrics".</i><br /><br />And at that point, we move out of the ability to have an argument about scientific issues. Science deals with predictable, physical actions. If you're willing to simply assert that parallax is a miracle, then we can't really discuss it.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-55192866740160485222014-03-11T13:19:26.447-04:002014-03-11T13:19:26.447-04:00Tend to. Perhaps. Need to - not sure yet. I have t...<i>Tend to. Perhaps. Need to - not sure yet. I have tried to ask on two different occasions, once in Catholic Forums (that was what I was banned for) and once from a French Astronomer what is the exact proof that the space probes have "seen from us" described the zig zags that heliocentrism would predict.<br /><br />Also, much of what might be thinking of can be dealt with simply by assuming a Tychonian Model. It leaves the Earth as centre of the Universe, of Moon, Sun, Stars, but in its turn Sun as centre of Venus and Jupiter and so on.</i><br /><br />There are multiple ways in which our observations and experiences at this point disprove a geocentric model of the solar system, but the biggie is that when Newton's universal laws of motion came along, they could explain how the heliocentric model of the solar system worked (the Sun's gravity holds the planets in their orbits, the planets' gravity holds their moons in orbit, etc.) There is not a set of universal laws of motion which explains how a geocentric solar system works. And the fact that we can send space probes through the solar system using calculations which assume that the Law of Gravity works (and that it is responsible for the way that objects move in the solar system) tends to validate that this is indeed a good descriptive model of the real universe. (Relativity corrects certain elements of the Newtonian system, but when it comes to sending something like the Voyager spacecraft through the solar system you can pretty much assume Newton and get away with it.)<br /><br /><i>The observations of Galileo were hopelessly inadequate to prove his point unless by assuming (contrary to our faith) only pure mechanics as sole possible cause of movements.</i><br /><br />Actually, even without assuming that the motion of astronomical bodies is strictly a result of mechanics, Galileo did not have good enough observations to prove his points. And some of the points he argued were actually already out of date and not in good keeping with the evidence. (He argued for a heliocentric solar system with perfectly circular orbits, rather than recognizing that Kepler was right in arguing that the motions observed were better accounted for by elliptical orbits.) Indeed, both Kepler's model and Tycho's model were, in a sense, cleaner, in that they dispensed with epicycles, which Galileo had to include.<br /><br />However, where you're wrong is in saying that there's something contrary to the faith in assuming that the astronomical bodies move in a "mechanistic" fashion. There is nothing contrary to the faith in saying that the way the stars and planets move is the result of gravity. To say that God did not create the universe would be contrary to the faith, to say that He does not constantly hold it in existence by his active creative will would be contrary to the faith. But it is in no way contrary to the faith to say that our rational God has created a physical universe which behaves in predictable ways according to physical laws.<br /><br />Indeed, it is the very predictability of physical laws which makes the exceptions to them (miracles, such as the Resurrection) miraculous. Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-75263955092334673122014-03-11T13:09:44.154-04:002014-03-11T13:09:44.154-04:00Article: In my ears "Jews are money conscious...<b>Article:</b> In my ears "Jews are money conscious" and "The Jews are money conscious" are equally correct. Or even a preference for the former. But then I have read more Latin than Greek.<br /><br /><i>You might just try "layers". One often speaks of "layers of sediment" or "layers of rock", though of course "stratum" works fine too and sounds more technical.</i><br /><br />I am quite aware of the usage. I wanted to promote a more precise one. If a stratum or layer is one or two millimetres thick, it is one thing. If it can be accurately seen contrasting from other layers only by stepping back, it is quite another thing.<br /><br />THe former is never assumed to be "<i>the</i> Permian layer in this rock" and it is only of the latter that you can say "the <i>Jurassic</i> layer in this rock contains vertebrate fossils".<br /><br />My point in the article is that for each rock that vertically has ten layers of the larger kind, one of them will be found to have vertebrate fossils, while other ones are empty or full of shellfish. Nearly always. And apparent exceptions are nearly always a matter of ...<br /><br /><i>Standing in the Triassic and looking back in time towards the Permian at Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. Photo by <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/04/why-im-not-tuning-in-to-the-creation-vs-evolution-debate/" rel="nofollow">Brian Switek.</a></i><br /><br />And that is what I base my argument on.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-82489799779161574062014-03-11T13:02:40.981-04:002014-03-11T13:02:40.981-04:00From wiki I did not get any list of such and such ...<i>From wiki I did not get any list of such and such a fossil has been found there, but a list of where the fossil sites are and what times they are attributed to.<br /><br />Palaeocritti specifically tells how many specimens, where holotype was found, and some other specialised knowledge, including the one of how complete skeleton was.</i><br /><br />The issue is, there's really no way of know if Wikipedia and Palaeocritti actually have all the finds of a species, or just most or some of them. I think that examined exhaustively the theory that what are believed to be geologic eras actually represents different areas of the same era is not persuasive. There's simply too much that makes sense if we think of the geologic eras as actual eras, from the apparent development of forms over time to genetic evidence in surviving species, etc. John Paul II was right when he observed:<br /><br />"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."<br /><br /><i>As to second problem, I think I have tended to answer that already. Invertebrates tend to be less easy to make very secure and typical index fossils of.</i><br /><br />That's simply not the case, though. Index fossils are virtually all invertebrates. It is not, indeed, hard for paleontologists to tell the difference between different species of invertebrates (that's how they came to be identified as different species) and because they are so plentiful and so widely found they make very good index fossils.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-36985560886632170252014-03-11T12:53:39.693-04:002014-03-11T12:53:39.693-04:001) I feel reassured about my English, it may not b...<i>1) I feel reassured about my English, it may not be idiomatic in your particular subculture of it (scientists, teachers of sciences ...) but it is to mine, or close to. If my name had been Algernon, I am not sure you would have spotted English is not my native language. I accept "such as" is a real improvement on "like".</i><br /><br />The main give-away to watch for is the use of articles, which is tricky in English. In Latin you basically never have articles. In Greek you always have articles. In English we sometimes use articles (the, a, etc.) and sometimes don't, and while there are formal rules for it's easy for non-native speakers to drop them while native speakers virtually never do.<br /><br /><i>Clarification on wharves<br /><br />I was seeking for a word meaning thin strata (lithological sense).<br /><br />Not strata wide enough to include any fossils, but rather so thin there are several decades or hundreds of them visible on a rock wall at the same height as that of a fossil which presumably is within "a stratum" (palaeontological sense).</i><br /><br />You might just try "layers". One often speaks of "layers of sediment" or "layers of rock", though of course "stratum" works fine too and sounds more technical.<br />Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52381741835437382102014-03-11T09:08:31.696-04:002014-03-11T09:08:31.696-04:00Clarification on wharves
I was seeking for a word...Clarification on wharves<br /><br />I was seeking for a word meaning thin strata (lithological sense).<br /><br />Not strata wide enough to include any fossils, but rather so thin there are several decades or hundreds of them visible on a rock wall at the same height as that of a fossil which presumably is within "a stratum" (palaeontological sense).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com