…on Sodom and Onan


I had to write this against someone who had misinterpreted Hezekiel and Genesis on why God punished the city of Sodom and Onan, the son of Judah.

Hezekiel 16:49 Iniquitas Sodomae, sororis tue fuit saturitas panis…

next verse goes on to pride and ABOMINATION IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD.

In the law of Moses abomination in the sight of the Lord could mean two kinds of sin: incest and sins against nature. Also sacrificing children to Moloch, I recall.

From the KIND of gangrape the Sodomites were about to commit (Genesis 19?) it is clear that they were guilty of Sodomy, which the Prophet Hezekiel calls abomination in the sight of the Lord. Habitually. Otherwise they would not have thought of raping two strange men as the angels appeared to them.
In a Swedish Bible translation the relevant verse about Onan says that God slew him for what he DID – which was coitus interruptus ending in the spilling of his semen. That act is itself an abomination, whether a violation of levirate be involved or not. As I said, this was before the law of Moses, before the inculcation and divine sanction of that law of levirate. Onan wasn’t disobeying the law of Moses in refusing the duties of levirate marriage, but the orders of his father Judah. Your words on the beliefs of Old Testament Hebrews are not recorded in Scripture or oral Tradition, they are merely a product of modern scholarship, unless you can give patristic authority for it. You also imply that God would have punished severely and openly something that was just impious according to the false imagination of a people not knowing the truth – which is how you imagine the old Hebrews. But that is unworthy of God.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob certainly believed that they would live – or how could God, who is God of the living, not of the dead, be their God once they had died? If they did not believe Christ would save them they were not Christians nor were they saved. But they were saved because they were Christians. FurthermoreAbraham showed his belief in the resurrection in his readiness to sacrificeIsaac and still believing him to be the son of promise, through whom he would befather of an innumerable posterity, father of Christ. Isaac was therefore given mystically back to him from the dead, and a faultless animal victim was sacrificed in his stead. This sacrifice is commemorated in the Canon of the Mass.
Now Jacob was the father of Judah and grandfather of Er, Onan and eventually the sons of Thamar. The false idea the saduccees were later guilty of can hardly have been relevant then.

You are wrong, VLinvictus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Envoyé : 13/08/2002 12:44


retrieved from:

Hans G Lundahl. Sodom and Onan. . 2008-11-29. URL:http://groups.msn.com/Antimodernism/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=30&LastModified=4675384184404553325. Accessed: 2008-11-29. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5cgo9e4a9)

49 ecce haec fuit iniquitas Sodomae sororis tuae superbia saturitas panis et abundantia et otium ipsius et filiarum eius et manum egeno et pauperi non porrigebant 50 et elevatae sunt et fecerunt abominationes coram me et abstuli eas sicut vidisti

49 Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. 50 And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.


49 “This was the iniquity of Sodom”… That is, these were the steps by which the Sodomites came to fall into those abominations for which they were destroyed. For pride, gluttony, and idleness are the highroad to all kinds of lust; especially when they are accompanied with a neglect of the works of mercy.

Source: Douay-Rheims Bible Online, Latin Vulgate Bible and Douay-Rheims Bible Online (English text with explanations) – Ezekiel 16.




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6Ygpv1E0A to access the cached copy of this page

…on Tower of Babel or language evolution

Series straddling three blogs:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : …on linguistic evolution
…on Tower of Babel or language evolution
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Milk and Gollum, and Nostratic M-L-Q
Is Boromir a mimsy borogove?
“If God spoke a language” – to correct Grimm
On the “Reformed Egyptian” of the “Nephites”
side issue on previous, Theology: A Gerald Smith on the theme of “Great Apostasy” and “Restored Gospel” – answered
Is Romanides accurate?
Was Romanides accurate? Bis! Not very much at all!
Linguistics for Romanides: Greek, Latin, Patois
Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae.
Creation vs. Evolution : 32 language families for 72 nations …
To this essay:
Important note on my use of “patois”:
I mean languages you cannot immediately make literature of, my use does not include Provençal in either classic or mistralian spelling, though they are also called patois in France, even without this meaning, just because they are not standard French. Linguistically they are standards too, it is only politically they are “non-standard”.
Tower of Babel – Language origin
by: hglundahl (35/M/Malmö) 11/12/03 01:04 pm
Msg: 4700 of 4703

1 The whole world spoke the same language, using the same words.
While men were migrating in the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there.
They said to one another, “Come, let us mold bricks and harden them with fire.” They used bricks for stone, and bitumen for mortar.
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and so make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth.”
The LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men had built.
Then the LORD said: “If now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do.

dhux comments/I answer:

1. God has a physical body.

It does not say. A localised act of God is spoken of as his local presence, which therefore implies no strictly physical body.

2. God’s throne is on top of the hard dome of the firmament.

It does not say that the firmament is hard or that Gods throne is on top of only that and no higher.

3. God must come down to see the tower. He is not omniscient.

It does not say He HAD TO go down, just that he did in fact.

4. God is threatened. He is not omnipotent.

God is insulted, He does not ignore outarges against Himself.

5. Humans can build a tower which can reach the firmament, threatening God. Humans have enormous power, God thinks.

Look at the powers we are getting.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 2783 by dhux02

Twer of Babel – Language origin
by: hglundahl (35/M/Malmö)
11/12/03 01:12 pmMsg: 4701 of 4703

7 Let us then go down and there confuse their language, so that one will not understand what another says.” 8 Thus the LORD scattered them from there all over the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the speech of all the world. It was from that place that he scattered them all over the earth.

dhux comments/I answer:

6. God is not omnipresent. God must go down from the firmament in order to confuse the language.

Still no mention of having to.

7. Polytheism is at work. God says “Let us then go down.” All the gods agree to go down.

The Blessed Trinity goes down.

8. The author confuses the word Babel, which means the Gate of God or the Gate of the Gods, with the Hebrew verb which signifies “to confound.”

Or says that the braggart meaning stands for a worse real meaning.

9. The confusion of tongues is in the author who does not know the difference between words which sound the same but are different in different languages.

See above answer.

10. The languages that the confusion takes place in already exist; otherwise the confusion would not take place. This fact invalidates the story of the confusion of languages which he relates.

How? Instantaneous miraculous change of someone’s language implies that just as his old language existed before the confusion, his new language exists after it, immediately.
As God is the ultimate origin of language, it is totally possible for him. Tolkien could invent Quenya and Sindarin over some years, and they have later been learnt and adopted for fun by other writers. God could invent several more in an instant, and impose them on people by necessity, making them forget their old language. Which means the passage is a point FOR, rather than against Divine Omnipotence and Wisdom. As a linguist you should know that making a language/a grammar implies wisdom.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 2785 by dhux02
The Tower of Babel- Language Origin
by: hglundahl (35/M/Malmö)
11/12/03 01:19 pmMsg: 4703 of 4703

“The Tower of Babel:A Choctaw Legend”

dhux has also reported Babylonian and Hindoo legends about the Tower of Babel.
Now, she provides a Choktaw legend about it as well.
Common sense says: if all peoples on earth (the Choktaws are a New World people who have not heard of India or Babylonia) agree on how the different languages were separated, with reservation for minor details – such as what God did it, which is a major detail for theology, but minor for comparison of stories, every pagan nation letting some of their gods take God’s place, and the same for what people remained the original people – it is because all descend from people who were at the spot.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 2792 by dhux02
Re: Tower of Babel – Language origin
by: hglundahl (35/M/Malmö) 11/13/03 11:49 am
Msg: 4737 of 4738

As previously stated: that language evolution is responsible for degenerating civilised languages into patois, or even lower, is a fact.

That civilised language ever arose OUT of mere language evolution is a guess no one knows anything about, if limited to mere linguistic knowledge.

That language evolution was what divided French from Latin or made Anglo-Saxon English I have previously disproven.

The cut between French and Latin involved the following steps:

1 One Writing (Latin) and One Speech.

2 One Writing and Two Speeches – grammatical, imported from England by Alcuin of York under Bl Charlemagne, for ritual purposes and the ordinary as spoken by unlettered, the former including a phonetic code of basically one letter – one sound. Before 800.

3 Two Writings and Two Speeches – when the phonetic code of grammatical Speech is used the other way around, not to direct the Speech of Divine Office, but to spell Speech of Romance ulettered Speakers, in order to direct the Speech of a German to a Latin or Roman Speech the unlettered Lords CAN understand, in the Oaths of Straszburg.

4 The final separation of vernacular by permanently coupling Grammatic Speech with traditional Latin letters, and Popular Speech with a new spelling using roughly the same phonetic code to begin with.

This is not evolution, just as little as the breaking up of Bl Charlemagne’s Empire was.

So, the position that language evolution were the universal cause of languages breaking up from each other is not so much not proven as actually disproven from historic examples.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 4717 by dhux02

the following post was misplaced as to title and what post it answered to:

“Re: Talmud exposed”
by: cloke20 02/08/05 09:22 pm
Msg: 63818 of 63875

counterbalanced by imitation of older languages

That’s not how language evolution actually works.

“Posted as a reply to: Msg 61211 by luckylady_n_love”

here come relevant titles and authors:

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/09/05 01:09 pm
Msg: 63837 of 63875

“That’s not how language evolution actually works.”

Know your subject!

Latin was a fully civilised language: due to imitation of Greek, an older language.

Greek had become a fully civilised language by achieving a literature.

Both languages have so decayed in pronunciation and dropping of grammatical forms – what you call “evolution” – that their modern dialects have only become eventually again fully civilised languages by imitating their old time models.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63818 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/09/05 03:24 pm
Msg: 63849 of 63875

“On language evolution, compare old English with Middle english and modern English. If you hear recorded samples of each, in turn, the evolution of the language is inescapable.”

That “evolution” made Middle English different from Old English/Anglo Saxon, and that it has made Modern English slightly different from Middle English in writing, not so slightly in pronunciation is indeed inescapable.

But it was imiation of Latin and Greek that made Old English a language worth reading – not its development from Primitive Germanic.

It was imitation of Latin and French that made Middle English worth reading – not its evolution from Old English.

It has been imitation of French and Latin, as well as some undeveloped traditions from Middle English that has made Modern English a language worth reading – not its evolution away from Middle English.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63841 by cloke20

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 03:26 am
Msg: 63872 of 63875

It matters a lot of a language changes gradually for the worse or rapidly, through conscious effort for the better.

Evolution makes patois out of languages, and would make gibberish out of patois, if any people could abide with gibberish.

Revolutions – like original genius in literature (as found in Greece, China, and Israel), or getting back to earlier and purer languages makes languages out of patois.

Tradition – the conscious effort of not changing – may also keep languages from degenerating into patois and patois from degenerating into gibberish.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63852 by cloke20

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 03:43 am
Msg: 63874 of 63875

But it was imiation of Latin and Greek that made Old English a language worth reading – not its development from Primitive Germanic.

You are as uninformed as somebody can get about the origins and development of language. What langauge do you think English came from? Give it a try. Make a guess.

The most basic forms, with few exception came from Primitive Germanic, if that has ever been one language. But it is not the most basic forms that make Modern English a language worth learning to read. Even Old English, that often enough preferred calques to straight loans, needed models to calque new words on, before you could get anything like the literature of bishop AElfric or Alfred the Great’s translation of Psalms and Pope Gregory.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63861 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution

by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 03:52 am
Msg: 63875 of 63875

“English, the language you are writing in tonight, has evolved from Old German, which has evolved from Indo European.”


Old High German and Old Low German (yes, German and Dutch were separate already then) are not mother but sister languages of Old English/Anglo Saxon. They MAY have all evolved from one Primitive Germanic langguage, or they MAY be a group of Indoeuropean dialects all of which were affected by certain sound laws. And all the Indoeuropean dialects MAY have evolved from Proto-Indo-European, or they MAY have been originally different languages that partly were on the way to coalesce, but never did it and stopped trying (which is the theory of Russian linguist Trubetskoy).

Only in the case of Romance languages we KNOW they all developed from Latin: that is Latin as spoken by the common man decayed into patois by development, the patois were then revitalised by contact with Latin as written and spoken by Holy Mother Church.

Of Primitive Germanic and Proto-Indo-European there is not a direct trace: all the traces are indirect i e occur in the supposed daughter languages.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63865 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/09/05 02:46 pm
Msg: 63845 of 63875

Greek had become a fully civilised language by achieving a literature

What is your point?

That it did not become so by the procedures usually labelled as language evolution.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63842 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 03:37 am
Msg: 63873 of 63875

Greek is thought of as coming from Protoindoeuropean by those who believe that was indeed one language. Language evolution means getting -osio worn down to -oio (gen. sg. of -os declinion). Language evolution means getting -ontia worn down to -ousa. Language evolution meant getting *kleptesi, *klepteti worn down to *kleptei, *kleptesi and *ekleptes *ekleptet worn down to *ekleptes, *eklepte.

It was the genius of using the latter forms to rearrange *kleptei, *kleptesi into klepteis, kleptei that gave us intelligible Greek, or kept it intelligible. It was the genius of Greek authors that gave us Greek terminology.

No, Greek as a civilised language does not come from language evolution, it comes from genius. Evolution was only making it different from what it was before, and none the more intelligible.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63859 by dhux99

Agenda behind “language evolution”
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 05:08 am
Msg: 63876 of 63876

Notice I wrote:

Agenda behind “language evolution”

and not:

“agenda behind language evolution”

I am not saying the phenomenon known as language evolution is a propagandistic plot. I am saying the kind of linguistic scholarship that says we owe our civilised languages to it IS a propagandistic plot.

A young, impressionable, even gullible English pupil, who knows English in its modern form (what philologists term Modern English) and therefore understands it, is told it has evolved from Anglo-Saxon, a language he does not understand when reading it, nor when hearing it read.

He is not told about English first degenerating into a patois, after loosing its tradition after the Norman Conquest, nor about the extent to which it owes its nature as a civilised language to the imitation of French, which already was so.

He does not properly analyse his experience.

He concludes the completely false idea that language evolution means that if one allows language to evolve freely, making no conscious effort to improve it after good models, it will become more intelligible. After all – didn’t Anglo-Saxon, which you need to be a Professor to understand, evolve into English which he understood before becoming a schoolboy? Put this way, the naiveté ought to be apparent – but apparently not to all. If one does not verbalise it, one may retain such an impression, though one knows the opposite or ought to know it, simply by not thinking the things out.

Now, having a lot of people get this idea may be a mere accident. Or there may be an agenda behind it.

Evolutionists gain from it. They gain one propagandistic example for a good, workable thing coming out of blind evolution. That the example is not truly an example thereof – the schoolboy was never told. He was indeed encouraged to conclude the opposite.

Another gain for progressivist: the schoolboy does not learn to value tradition. And therefore not to oppose progressivists.

A third gain: the schoolboy gets the impression that Up to Date Modern Usage is more advanced intellectually, whereas it may really represent a decay of language. How many arguments of Progressivists depend on quoting old saws and misinterpreting them by using the modern journalistic or even sarcastic sense of a word?

A fourth gain: the schoolboy does not acquire a sense of responsibility for speaking and thinking properly. He gets the impression that if he is a healthy specimen, his development will spontaneously take care of that. And every idea that he should stop or check spontaneous developments will be nauseating to him – that includes nearly everything traditional morality has to say on sex. “Whoa! If people like you had had their way, we would still be speaking Anglo Saxon!” – a retort behind which lurks the false idea that that would have been more cumbersome and less intelligible.

Which is the exact opposite of the truth: the mother language is not cumbersome to anyone, and if Anglo Saxon had still been spoken, if Chaucer and Shakespear and J R R Tolkien had all written in Old Mercian, we would have been able to understand a lot more of our literature without translation.

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 07:59 am
Msg: 63881 of 63888

and others combined into it

It matters a lot of a language changes gradually for the worse or rapidly, through conscious effort for the better.

Conscious effort has about as much effect on language evolution as on astronomical evolution or biological evolution. Evolution happens without conscious effort.

That is exactly the definition of evolution according to which NO language EVER became usable for civilised purposes by mere evolution.

Yet, here we are with hundreds of langauges, all evolved and all serving the needs of the people who speak them. The English consider themselves fairly civilized, yet their language is clearly the product of evolution, and those speaking and writing in early English or Anglo Saxon were able to expres themselves quite well.

The reason they are DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER is evolutionary. The reason they SERVE THEIR SPEAKERS AND WRITERS is conscious effort. [sorry for capital letters, yahoo boards do not or did not support italics]

Finally, you have accepted the concept of language evolution. Languages evolution is not the product of conscious effort or plan or design any more than is biological, geological, cosmic, or astronomical forms of evolution.

Any individual writer and speaker may have a conscious intention to make a comment or remark express his or her views. That is an entirely different matter.

The reason we have civilised languages at all – as distinct from patois – is precisely that conscious effort of individual writers. The spontaneous result of evolution as you term it is degeneration from civilised language to patois, and, unless checked by efforts from the speakers, from patois to gibberish.

Language seemingly spontaneously looses a vowel here and a consonant there. If this is not to result in the deletion of all distinctions, that is gibberish, there is need for conscious effort – like the effort to coin a new word or grammatical ending, when the old one has been too worn down to serve its purpose.

PIE something like:
*klepjoo, klepjesi, klepjeti (pres. ind. sg)
by Greek sound laws results in
*kleptoo, kleptei, kleptesi

but we actually have:
kleptoo, klepteis, kleptei


because the Greeks made an effort not to let 2 persons sg be just vocalic endings, and not to let 3 p sg end in same -si after vowel that marks 2 p sg after consonants, since that would have resulted in gibberish.

This effort was, like most such conscious efforts, modelled on a state of language less damaged by evolution, in this case the imperfects of the Greek language itself:

PIE *eklepjom, eklepjes, eklepjet (imperf. ind. sg)
by Greek sound laws became
eklepton, ekleptes, eklepte
which is exactly what we have, and is also the reason we have present tense:
kleptoo, klepteis, kleptei.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63879 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/10/05 03:17 pm
Msg: 63917 of 64064

It matters a lot of a language changes gradually for the worse or rapidly, through conscious effort for the better.

“The speed with which a language changes is not at issue. Only that the language changes over time, and that some of the changes are predictable.”

No language change is predictable beforehand. Some are probable: like IF one syllable drops, it is the one with less accent: but one cannot predict whether a language is going to drop syllables or not. By predictable I suppose you mean systematic.

“I don’t see how evolution is responsible for the jargon that develops from language, when patois and slang are consequences of the language itself.”

Please! The low function of language known as patois is below the higher level called culture language, and whenever a culture language evolves, it moves down towards the level of a patois.*

Revolutions – like original genius in literature (as found in Greece, China, and Israel), or getting back to earlier and purer languages makes languages out of patois.

“Many languages are more pure now in terms of communications ability and capability. The greater the amount of ideas and things that need to be communicated, the more flexible the language needs to be.”

Greenlandic may be more pure now. English is not more pure than Anglo Saxon. Or Classic Greek.


“1 b : uneducated or provincial speech.”

“Sounds like a variant of slang or dialectical relation. That a language changes over time is no indication of the patois of the language itself.”

The changes that can be considered evolutionary, as opposed to artistic, when accumulating by themselves make the language less full of distinctions and therefore less useful for educated speech.** The changes that either keep a language educated or restore it to educated level are the ones that are artistic rather than evolutionary. English example: evolutionary pronouncing decay of “arse” to “ass” makes English less useful, because “ass” means “donkey”. To compensate for that change, the real “ass” has been lengthened to “jackass”, and the metaphorical to either “jackass” or “dumbass”. And the “ass” that is really “arse” has been lengthened to “asshole”, both in literal and metaphorical sense. One evolutionary change has therefore demanded three artistic changes to keep English functionable. And these are uneducated, because an educated English speaker must know that the synonym for donkey is really “ass” and the synonym for (polite) “seat” is “arse”. Why must an educated English speaker know that? Because a valid definition of educated is one who can read literature without inappropriate sviggers, due to linguistic developments making for double meanings not intended by author. This change has meant that young people snigger when they read King James about Christ riding on an ass and an ass’ foal: i e it has made speech less educated.

**The changes that can be considered evolutionary, as opposed to artistic, when accumulating by themselves make the language less full of distinctions and therefore less useful for educated speech.

“While I see your point, I disagree in certain areas. Synonyms are common in all languages and their use makes up, at least in part, the artistic aspect of the language. The other part would be how they are used. That they exist is not in any way relative to the educational aspect of the language, but of evolution in the case that we have more synonyms now than before, or less now than before. Either instance is best described by the term evolution. If the change was a direction that led to greater educational ability or lesser, more vernacular or less, more slang or not. Evolution is the progressive change in EITHER direction. The how’s and why’s are irrelevant to the noticeable change. The change being evolution.”

Not every change is evolution. Slow small changes that takes us unawares with accumulation are evolution. And the result of evolution was not a synonym, but a homonym, ass meaning both ass and arse. The replacements for ass in true sense are synonyms only to the educated: the uneducated who usually use them take them for the one normal form. And that is confusion and uneducated speech, the spontaneous result of language evolution. The changes that are made suddenly and consciously – those that restore intelligibility – do not count as evolutions but as acts.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 63910 by cloke20

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/11/05 06:22 am
Msg: 64005 of 64064

and following on thread

“You are not addressing the issue of langauge evolution completely, which involves the production of entirely new languages.”

I have adressed that. Such production involves TWO things:

1 an evolutionary decay of mutual comprehensibility

2 countermeasures to ensure such at least in a more limited area.

These counter measures are ultimately what constitute any langugage as a workable tool of communication.

“As I said, you are not addressing language evolution, which involves the creation of new languages by natural means, as new species are formed in biological evolution. Do you know what language English comes from?”

English, like so many other cultural languages, come from patois, ennobled by artistry. The patois came from Anglo Saxon, which had its own educated standards, chief of which West Saxon. They could not have formed unless the standard had decayed. The West Saxon standard itself came from such effort by Roman missionaries. The English standard came by French influence on the patois, and appeared fullfledged in Chaucer. As in French (and indeed West Saxon as found in manuscripts) the spelling was to begin with not fixed, and the creation of a fixed spelling waited till the artistic effort of Dr Johnson. The pirates’ patois on which West Saxon standard is thought to have been constructed descend no doubt from other patois – one single or one of several protogermanic (NOT Old German!!!!) patois, which would not have given anglosaxon patois but gibberish unless the linguistic evolution had been checked and rechecked on every step by reconstructing measures, based on – limited – artistry. The need for reconstruction may come from evolution as you understand it, but the languages as functional and even civilised standard entities certainly come from reconstructing measures, i e artistry.

“YOu don’t even know what langauge English evolves from.”

You do not.

“I do.”

If you identify “Old German” – incidentally there is no such language according to linguistics, there is Old High German and Old Low German, the latter further divided into Old Low Frenkish and Old Low Saxon* – rather than Protogermanic or Primitive Germanic, as parent language of Anglo Saxon, you do not.

The thing about Protogermanic is two things:

1 there is no absolutely uncontrovertible evidence it was ever one single language
2 it was very certainly not a fully civilied language but a patois, as I have stated.

*Old High German is parent language, or rather languages to Bavaria, Allemannian and High Frenkish patois, as well as Standard German;

Old Low Frenkish is parent language to Dutch, patois and standard;

Old Low Saxon (or Old Saxon) is parent language to Platt (a N German patois talked from Cologne to Berlin and anything further north – at least formerly).

Anglo Saxon is not the daughter language of any of the three.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64003 by dhux99

Re: Language evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/11/05 02:37 pm
Msg: 64073 of 64169

[If you identify “Old German” – incidentally there is no such language] according to linguistics, there is Old High German and Old Low German, [the latter further divided into Old Low Frenkish and Old Low Saxon* – rather than Protogermanic or Primitive Germanic, as parent language of Anglo Saxon, you do not.]*

The line of development for English is from Indo European, to Proto European to Germanic to West Germanic to Old English to Middle English to English.

Your second attempt is no more standard in linguistics. Usually there is no such thing as Proto European**, the Proto Indo Europeans usually thought of as splitting into peripheral Kentum and central Satem languages. And you misnamed Proto Germanic or Primitive Germanic as “Germanic” which is a term for ANY language belonging to the group, dead or modern. As for Primitive Germanic to Primitive West Germanic – both of which are reconstructions never actually found – that is indeed the usual theory. But the divisions between North, West and East Germanic could also go back to before the Germanic sound shift. Also, all Germanic languages share a lot of words not found in other Indo European languages: meaning that Germanic might be originally a non-Indo European language family adopting Indo European Grammar and Vocabulary only partly.

*the parts [left out by dhux] are such, that what was left could give impression that I rather than she was responsible for attributing English to “Old German” or its two branches.

** dhux replied:

What are you sources? My sources here include The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

If that is where you found Proto European between Indo European and Germanic, I suggest you read it again. If you have not made a reading mistake, the writer may have made such or a typo. My sources include almost anything I have read on comparative lingustics of Germanic languages – and that is much. Not that I absolutely trust it, but if we are going into modern scholarship, we might as well state its results – with whatever reservations we might have about them – correctly.

That would for instance be the series:
Proto Indo European
Proto Germanic
Proto West Germanic
(all of above reconstructed languages never actually attested)
Anglo Saxon
Middle English and Scottish
English and Braid Scots

the development of Auld Scottish tongue with poems like The Kingis Quhair into Braid Scots illustrates my point that a civilised language does not of its own develop into another one, but usually into patois.

You have avoided the question:

What are your sources?

Be specific and exact.

I cannot, since they are too many and it was too long ago I read them.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64098 by dhux99
Posted as a reply to: Msg 64077 by dhux99
Posted as a reply to: Msg 64068 by dhux99

Re: Reputable sources/lang. evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/12/05 02:35 am
Msg: 64120 of 64169

“International communication began some 6,0000 years ago when Prot-Indo-European speakers left their homeland somewhere in the Pontic-Caspian religion or the Caucasus to expand eastward and westward covering a geographical stretch from India to Iceland.”*

That would be 6,000 – not “6,0000”. I know that theory, and that is where my reservations begin. I have not misstated it, I have voiced reservations.

Trubetskoy, an Indoeuropean comparative linguist of undisputed international repute, says that there is not sufficient evidence to support that Proto-Indo-European was one language and ancestor of all Indo-European languages. He claims that the Indo-European traits common to them are “Sprachbund” phenomena, on the lines of the traits common to not so related Balcanic (or secondary traits common to Scandinavian) languages: grammatical and lexical items interchanged between neighbouring languages. Rix** as well as an Austrian*** linguist have commented upon it. The Austrian basically said then he was not going to argue either side, Rix that Indo-European languages have common traits BOTH due to common ancestry (Stammbaum) and to neighbour language interborrowing/adstrate (Sprachbund). Apart from the dispute whether the language spread from one source or the language traits from many, there is a further debate whether the speakers of Indoeuropean descend from the first speakers or that language was taken over by many other peoples – before the historical records about them begin, I mean: that this has happened in colonial times is hardly a state secret.

*If you have an online link to Shelton A. Gunaratne, please write it!
**Stammbaum oder Sprachbund – published in a Festschrift to another linguist
***Whose name I have forgot as well as the collection where I found it – as first essay or publisher’s preface

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64100 by dhux99

Re: Reputable sources/lang. evolution
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/12/05 02:52 am
Msg: 64121 of 64169

“English evolves in the following manner: Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European, Germanic, Low Germanic, to English.

Short, Dan. Family Tree of Indo-European Languages
Site of Percy, Carol. Department of English. University of Toronto.”

Two problems:

1 He placed “Indo-European” before “Proto-Indo-European” which mean FIRST Indo-European, which further means that it cannot descend from Indo-European. Or you misread his statement. Like: Indo-European is placed first, not as ancestor, but as common category. Then he states hypothetic ancestor: Proto-Indo-European.

2 He placed Low Germanic as an ancestor of English. Low and High are not divisions of Germanic, but of German. West Germanic (which he forgot immediately after Germanic) is usually thought of as dividing first into Anglo-Frisian (which palatalises: cheese, tsise) and German (which doesn’t: Kaas, Kaese), after which Anglo-Frisian divides into Frisian and Anglo-Saxon, German into High (which makes affricates: Apfel) and Low (which, as A/F, doesn’t: appel). Some scholars, however, might consider A/F a subdivison of Low German occurring after High German split from it (by the Second Soundshift marking that language with affricates). Or they use the terms more geographically than linguistically. There are further linguists to take seriously Tacitus’ division of Germans into Ingweons, Istweons and whatever the third tribe was. (Similarly there are debates about the traits common to North and East Germanic languages, as opposed to West Germanic.) But the main opinion is as stated first. My main reservation is along Trubetskoy lines.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64101 by dhux99

Language evolution, alternative view 1
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/12/05 03:36 am
Msg: 64122 of 64169

“an early ancestor of the Germanic language was closely related to Balto-Slavic, whose modern descendants include Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian, Czech and Polish.”

I agree that Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) comes between Slavic (Russian, Czech, Polish et c) and Germanic. Baltic shares Satem features with Slavic, but vocalism more closely with Germanic. The treatment of PIE (supposed) bh, dh – all getting b, d before first vowel and v, ð between them – is common to all Northern branches of IE, as Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, but opposed to southern treatment as in Aryan (Skr bh, dh), Greek (ph, th), Italic (f before first vowels, b, d between them)languages (I know too little about Armenian and Albanian to make a statement).

However: this hardly explains the amount of words in Germanic that can neither be considered as common Indo-European or Balto-Slavic innovations. Or for that matter Finno-Ugrian or Celtic loans: sword, shield, spear, bread would all belong to this category.


Posted as a reply to: Msg 64102 by dhux99

Language evolution, alternative view 2
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/12/05 03:36 am
Msg: 64123 of 64169


“Note: Lest this be misinterpreted, there is no doubt here about language evolution, but rather a new theory of how evolution worked in Indo-European. Such is the nature of academic scholarship in which older views are challenged and sometimes replaced.”

I have not put in any doubt that language evolution occurs.* I have merely said that what Jung Grammarians thought of as unconscious evolutionary laws (the “sound laws”) do NOT produce intelligible languages if left to themselves, but the reason there is still intelligible language after so many sound laws is the artistic work of remaking language to repair the damages. NONE of the Indo-European languages is thought of as having the original conjugation intact and affected only by the sound laws. EVERY ONE of them is thought of as innovating artistically in order to repair damages. A known case in the “development” of a known language is the Latin vs Romance future tense.

Latin future
vocabo, vocabis, _vocabit, vocabimus_ …
in two forms coalesced with the perfect:
vocavi, vocavisti, _vocavit, vocavimus_…
as a sound law coalesced intervocalic b and v

the EVOLUTION made for people confusing he/she or we will call with he/she or we have called, did call.

ARTISTRY repaired the damage by replacing vocabit, vocabimus with vocare habet, vocare habemus – he/she or we “have to-call” – and similarly in the other persons. Furthermore the same could be done with the past continuous (a k a imperfect) of the new auxiliary verb: “had to-call”, vocare habebat, vocare habebamus and similarly in other persons. This replaced classic vocaturus erat, eramus and similarly other persons: “was going-to-call”. Without that artistry there would have been no Romance languages. There would have been no Romance Future, which descends in all languages from:

vocare habeo, vocare habes, vocare habet, vocare habemus…

and there would have been no Romance Conditional which descends from:

vocare habebam, vocare habebas, vocare habebat, vocare habebamus…

There is a really alternative view – supported by Jean Aitchison: Language change – progress or decay (not sure about under title), and she refers to sociolinguistic research by Labov as well as research into Chinese “sound law”s.

It is that the sound laws themselves were never unconscious events suddenly hitting speakers without their knowing it or being able to help it (as the sudden change at Tower of Babel), but that that is also conscious artistry or sloppyness – or the artistry of sloppyness. They are social habits that catch on consciously or semiconsciously and can be opposed same way – sometimes also very effectively. The new pronunciation speads from word to word or – at its most rapid – from word group to word group or environment to environment – as well as from speaker to speaker. That reorganising paradigms such as sound laws have made gibberish of is conscious artistry cannot even be doubted. I support that view of the sound laws themselves: i e the only time when language change really hit people without them being able to help it was the tower of Babel. There is of course also the phenomenon of being denied the opportunity to oppose language change, in the sense of not having the opportunity of learning the grammar of the oldest native literature belonging to a continous tradition properly.

* Re: Language evolution, alternative view
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain) 03/12/05 12:51 pm
Msg: 64166 of 64170

I have not put in any doubt that language evolution occurs.

Now you are with the program. And this is why the Tower of Babel myth is rejected by linguistics everywhere.

That is simply a non sequitur.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64162 by dhux99

Posted as a reply to: Msg 64102 by dhux99

1 comment:




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgppN0m8 to access the cached copy of this page

Voice of Principle comments on my dialogue with olblucat

…I have observed objects falling from heights and their destruction.
Practical experience says the destruction is greater as the starting point of the fall begins. The force of impact is much greater also.

You mean the destruction of falling objects is greater the higher the object falls from? I agree. Were did you find me stating the contrary? I have not denied that there is some sort of proportion between the physical work done in lifting an object, the kinetic energy (momentum) of it falling and the impact (new physical work) done when it smashes. I have stated a problem: between the lifting and the falling there is no entity internal to the object or otherwise per se actual that preserves this proportion.

====<1> Hans: Your error in understanding the nature of potential energy is due to the fact that you are looking only at the object. Potential energy involves an object + the gravitational field in which it finds itself. The distance of the object from the field’s center of gravity + the distance over which the object will free fall determines the magnitude of the potential energy. <1>====

To VoP: NB will fall. Not something that is actually but something that will potentially. Which is basically what I am saying.

That means: potential energy is not a positive real entity, the conservation of energy is rather a theoretic conservation of figures on a paper than a conservation of any positive entity.

====<1> If that were the case, then perpetual motion machines would be possible and the world’s energy problem would have been long since solved. <1>====

To VoP: how does that follow?

That means: physical energy cannot be the ultimate ground of existence, as it has been usually presented to the general public since it was discovered by Hiroshima that physical matter certainly wasn’t.

====<1> An unfounded conclusion. <1>====

To VoP: the conservation of matter as ground of existence and energy as ground of movement independently of each other seems to have been disproven by Hiroshima bomb.


The reasons for an object losing it’s energy in linear or angular momentum.

Again, as with the first part, I have observed many times this application in real time.

The above two have direct bearing on two of my own interests. Ballistics, both rockets and cannon shell, and aerodynamics as applied to both flying modelplanes and ground vehicles.

Now, I am confused as to what you believe controls all the various physical actions observed and studied and the results obtained.

If my interpretation of your beliefs are correct, then I can throw 100 years of testing and designing of airfoils out the window, as well as years of windtunnel testing.

This hasn’t considered the same effects as applied to water craft such as the America Cup ship and sail designs.

You speak of theory, while I have to apply it.

Please, Oblucat. Would you do less interpretation of what I mean and what that would mean to ballistics and more of answering the points raised? Or was that the answer to my point: what proof is there that only air friction is responsible for any loss of momentum?

====<1> The proofs are many. Changing the shape of the arrow, particularly the arrow head, can improve or degrade flight distance in a mathemtically predictable fashion based on an analysis of aerodynamic factors. The same analysis can be applied to any object traveling through the atmosphere (using an appropriate data base describing the physical characteristics of the object).

Orbiting spacecraft outside the atmosphere experience virtually no frictional effects due to collisions with air molecules (the noteworthy exception being the solar wind), and therefore remain in orbit for centuries, millenia, or millions of years (duration depending on the mass of the craft and the nature of the chance atoms and molecules it encounters, space not being a perfect vacuum).

Perhaps the best example of air resistance was the recent tragedy involving the space shuttle Columbia. As the vehicle broke up and lost aerodynamic integrity, frictional forces created by its interaction with the upper atmosphere consumed so much energy that the pieces of the vehicle ended their flight hundreds of miles short of their destination, Cape Canaveral. <1>====

To VoP: you reason mostly as if rebutting the position that air friction were not a cause for loss of momentum. That is not my position. As for satellites outside atmosphere, the artificial ones have only been up a few decades, and the millennia of the others is begging the question: how do you, not explain, but prove that lack of air fricion and momentum preserved by such lack are the causes of that movement?

Hans Georg Lundahl




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgplvTL5 to access the cached copy of this page

… on Bergoglio, Catholic and not so Catholic aspects

ChristianVoice08 : Pope Francis Shows His True Colors

(video link below)

Some corrections against the man speaking, and one at least aganst the man he is speaking about, whom I do not consider to be a true pope of the Catholic Church or even of the see of Rome.


6:11 I may not be sure that Bergoglio is truly Pope, I may even doubt it. I may consider him a very bad fraud (count BERGOGLIO in ASCII CODE, A=65 – Z=90, a=97 – z=122).

However, your saying “there is no mention Peter ever went to Rome” I suppose you mean – in the Bible.

Two things. There is no mention he died in Rome, but there is no mention he died anywhere else either. Shall we on your logic conclude he hasn’t died yet?

Or that it was immaterial to the Church where he died? Even St Lazarus the four days dead (the brother of St Mary and St Martha of Bethany) we have two rival claims on where he died, namely Marseille in what is now France, Larnaka on the island which was already then Cyprus. We have an Italian city – Bergamo, I think – claiming its bishops descend from St Barnabas, codisciple with St Paul when they were still disciples of Gamaliel. We have Ephesus claiming St John died as its bishop (if dying is the right word for what happened!). We have St Irenaeus of Lyons claiming to be direct disciple of St Polycarp of Smyrna who was direct disciple of St John. And where St Peter died is supposed to have been immaterial? No, rather I believe St Peter and St Paul died outside Rome the same day, one outside the city wall where we have San Paolo fuori le mura, one on Vatican hill where we have Saint Peter’s Basilic.

But the other thing is that we do have Biblical evidence St Peter wrote to those who had received St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans – and knew them. He knew some of them twisted parts into anomianism, like later Luther.

[I meant antinomianism, and I am not saying Luther stayed exactly in that position, but he had provoked it in others he distanced himself from.]


7:54 protecting creation and simply not destroying it are two things.

“Who destroyeth the earth, him shall God destroy” says we must not destroy for instance environment or peace or liberty of families or lives of innocent. Pretty few persons are in a position to take such fatal decisions.

But positively protecting creation is God’s business.


8:42 all good are for the good of all mankind, but that does not mean one can take from one man unless another man starves because of him.

See Leo XIII Rerum Novarum.


It clearly says that people working on land not their own are not suffering an injustice as long as it does not stop them from living of the land they work.


Before getting on to how he means us to protect you said he did not define who Herods are … well, if he mentioned St Joseph I think he may have been comparing them to Herod the Great – the Great killer of Infants. Does that strike any bell? Noone around killing infants in our days? Unborn such too, who have not had a chance to get baptised?

Jesus does not need to be protected – any longer. But He needed it in the Flight to Egypt. Obviously one may charitably assume the man meant doing it to Jesus again in the persons who receive what we will have been doing to Himself according to the parable of the sheep and the goats. What bothers me is his taking a stance as if the Bishop of Rome was everyone’s protector. But he might just have meant that as protecting through speech, though Pius XII acted as protector of Jews rather than by speaking by hiding them.

Sure, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and yet we are in a position to do good to him. “Whatever ye have done for one of the least of my brethren”


11:47 “he called up, in prayer, dead saints”.

If they are saints they are alive. “Whoever believeth in me, he shall live even if he die” Our Lord told St Mary Magdalene (or some would insist that St Mary of Bethany was not St Mary Magdalene, I think they are wrong, as Pope St Gregory the I:st said in his Dialogues).

So, for one thing they are not dead. They are not in Sheol but in Heaven. And for another thing, he did not summon them to appear and tell him things he wanted to ask them in person, he asked for their intercession. Which is not illicit in Exodus. Or Deuteronomy.

[Deuteronomy 18:11]*

“We are to pray to God and to God alone” – Not Scriptural. We are to adore God alone, and we do not adore St Joseph, Sts Peter and Paul (both of whom died as martyrs in Rome), or Sts Francis and Dominic of Guzmán or even the Blessed Virgin Mary. Praising them and asking for their intercession does not equal adoring them.

“… as if they were divine and could hear prayers”

They are not the ones granting prayers by [doing things with any own] divine power. Interceding and granting a prayer are two different things. However, the Blessed Virgin Mary prayed for the first Miracle of Christ and for the conversion of the Thief and from then on at least for everyone who is saved. But she is not a Divine person and we do not think she is. There are three of them, Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

“That someone who purports to be a Christian leader could pray to the dead” ….

What were the Pentecostals who gave him a blessing doing? Were they thinking he was not at all confessing Catholicism in any sense, because he was being ecumenical and calling them Christians? I would rather consider them as God Fearing Pagans and say he was wrong to ask for their blessing.

But a blessing is also an intercession.


Cooperating with Muslims for the common good of humanity … now making an occasion [of such a thing] on a local level may be very right. But making it a program on a global level seems to imply one take no measures for the common good without consulting them who are wrong – which is wrong.

14:25 it is true that denying the Father and the Son, they have neither, they do not have God. Excepting individual exceptions.

The Muslim community as a whole has sufficient past occasions to realise Mohammed was a false prophet and has not taken them. Individual Muslims may however before God have their excuses for not realising this, their excuses for believing the Quran holy. Obviously Karol Wojtyla for one thing had no similar excuse himself, and for another thing had no business at all providing any individual Muslims with more excuses to not become Christian. Kissing the Quran was a sin. It was perhaps even the exterior sign of an apostasy. I am no mor really into the “perhaps” part.


It is part of an idea we must all together protect all together. Collective, solidarity based responsibility. I believe this is wrong. One person may on one occasion need the protection of one other person. Not everyone by everyone. Or even the responsibility of one other person – but not everyone all the time that of everyone else. That is where I find his first speach at fault.

Before Kain asked “am I my brother’s keeper” after killing whom he did not keep, I personally guess at the very least that he had previously been Abel’s keeper in a wrong way and been told off by Adam or Eve that his brother was grown and did not need a nanny.

If you look at how the Pharisees (darlings of Begoglio, according to pictorial evidence) did with Jesus, they had decided to “destroy” Him before deciding to “kill” him. I think the “destroy” part was a kind of very “responsable” overdoing of the protection to someone who had just taken his first step into the world by a second miracle which involved healing on the Sabbath. They very probably wanted to correct Him “for his own good”, as they would say.

[Not watching the rest of the video after about 15:00 – 15:30 minutes. At least for now.]

* Ver. 11. Charmer of serpents, Psalm lvii. 6. One who makes a compact with the devil. — Spirits. Python was the name of the serpent, which Apollo slew. It might be derived from the Hebrew patah, “to seduce,” because a serpent seduced Eve, and dealers with the devil generally deceive those who consult them. Septuagint, “a belly talker,” as these impostors muttered some sounds, intimating that a spirit gave answers from their belly, See Isaias xxix. 4. — Tellers. Hebrew, “wise men.” (Haydock) — Those who promise great knowledge from the secrets of the caballa, or magic. — Dead. Necromancy was already very common. Thus the witch of Endor made the ghost of Samuel appear to Saul, 1 Kings xxviii. 7.** The Rabbins say that the person took a bone, or the skull of the dead, when he intended to enquire into futurity. (Drusius)

From Haydock comment on Deuteronomy 18

** The Witch of Endor had no power over the real ghost of Samuel. However, God granted an exceptional real appearance of the latter, which frightened the witch wh was more accustomed to demons./HGL



Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgpeLqFx to access the cached copy of this page


ChristianVoice08 : Pope Francis Shows His True Colors

What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.

Here is a statement by a sociologist, Tom Nichols:

I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy. When I say something on those subjects, I expect that my opinion holds more weight than that of most other people.

I never thought those were particularly controversial statements.

But democracy, as I wrote in an essay about C.S. Lewis and the Snowden affair, denotes a system of government, not an actual state of equality. It means that we enjoy equal rights versus the government, and in relation to each other. Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined as the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.

The Death Of Expertise
By Tom Nichols
January 17, 2014

I do not think Tom Nichols would find CSL too supporting to his case.

In That Hideous Strength there is a real expert in a real field of science – chemistry or physics or sth – who finds out that the male hero or rather antihero Mark Studdock is a sociologist. One of these modern pseudosciences.

He gives the guy a fair scolding to pretending to expertise in such an area.

Now, IF your speciality:

a) has a medieval pedigree


b) gives you expert know-how in construction or handling of machinery such as electronics, chemical processes, combustion motors, computers ….

THEN you have a case to call yourself a specialist. Insofar as you keep within the specialty.

But if you are an expert in Eugenics, and your specialty is choosing whom to sterilise, an expert in Psychiatry and your specialty is choosing whom to lobotomise, and expert in Psychology and your specialty is choosing whom to consider immature despite his being physically apt for marriage and not a patient of Down’s syndrome, an expert in Economics and your specialty is choosing whom to put our of work, out of business, out of a loan lease before bankruptcy, out of house or home, or on larger levels like public policy your specialty is choosing what categories of society to hurt next, well, then your specialty does merit a refusal of obeissance. Then your expert status does merit the rebuke of any little ignoramus who is concerned with what you are doing to them. That is NOT like saying a boy of four (who has no chemists or chemistry books at hand) could correct a chemist on the formula of caffeine.

But also when we go to exact sciences, there is another matter. Some fields within each science are legitimately part of the expertise. If a computer specialist tells me what gates he uses (and-gate, exclusive or-gate, etc.) I would be stupid in trying to correct him, since I know next to nothing about the technology of the computers, beyond using html (where I am by now pretty expert), and knowing what kind of things admins can do to people lending their computers (where I have been a sometime victim of harrassment and spying). But if he goes on to tell me that this is also how brains work (basically, with differences of detail not yet figured out by neurologists) and that this is why we can think, no, then I must insist that the computer never actually understands what it is dealing with. I must insist on the difference between a mathematician using an abacus and the total lack of observable conscience in the abacus itself, and conclude that computer science is dealing with the abacus side, not the mathematician side of that usage.

And even within each expertise, legitimately defined, not trespassing on philosophy without telling so, I can and should cry out against obvious tomfoolery. I have never claimed that π is a rational number. I have claimed it is not an “irrational number” because it is not a number at all. It is in fact better named a non-numeric ratio. A ratio between quantities that are not numbers. The ratio of two troops can never be π – if one has 100 men, then having 314 in the other would make the ratio less than π and having 315 in it would make it greater than π. The ratio must always be of items usually one to one, and therefore measured, not counted. Hence my preference for the terminology “non-numeric ratio” even over the classical one “irrational ratio” and much more so over the modernist one of “irrational number”. Numbers are about countables.

I was seeing an astrophysician (not his work, but his studies) in a forum being treated as a dumbhead by a long time maths teacher. The reason was the maths teacher thought the trigonometry of the parallax of α Centauri works equally well as a measure of distance if earth is immobile. The astrophysician knew of course that this was trigonometrically not the case. You can roughly speaking say that if the top of a v is covered by a line the size of a hyphen, then the v is a lower case v, but if you know instead that the line covering it is the size of an underscore, it must be an uppercase V. The claim now is that if a line of the size of an underscore is under the angle of a v or a V, the fact it is itself the size of an underscore tells you the line on top of the v must be so as well and therefore it must be an uppercase V. But you can just as well put a lower case v and have its angle touching the underscore. The Geometry is NOT the same.

The math teacher was not really complaining, if he had really understood the case, of trigonometry not being understood. He was complaining of himself and Rick DeLano (by now my ex-friend on FB) not being treated as rabbis by younger and less known / less teaching folks. And that is about the reason that our just now quoted Tom has to complain of the “death of expertise” as well.

Of course, if I have stated some things can be contradicted even by non-experts, I am thereby also stating they can be contradicted by non-experts in that field, by experts in another one. As CSL also did in the essay Fernseeds and Elephants./HGL

Update, Sunday:

A man was asked to forward this. He did so but added a question:

“I do have a question though, if we agreed with HGL, would he then become our Pastor/Rabbi”

Of course not. Not any more than CSL / Jack Lewis, JRRT, GKC, Hilaire Belloc are mine.

What I was saying was that certain someones are complaining about not being treated as rabbis when they are requiring one agrees with them and ignoring very good and simple geometric refutations [see above, and diagram in link*] of what they are saying* and barging in and exacting that one deal with their argument one has already refuted before them again and again. At least in cases when that is not a question of arguing for one’s own freedom, and I am not Rick DeLano’s social worker or shrink or something.

I am rather complaining, not of not being treated as a pastor or rabbi, but of being treated as someone who needs to learn to listen to his pastor or rabbi because he is not one himself.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou

* hglwrites : Geo vs Helio
May 29, 2012




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgpaZLjT to access the cached copy of this page

… to Unbalanced Anti-YEC priest (?) and his defenders, part I

1) … to Unbalanced Anti-YEC “priest” and his defenders, part I, 2) … to Unbalanced Anti-YEC “priest” and his defenders, part II, 3) … Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC “priest” video), part I, 4) … Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC “priest” video), part II


Video commented on:
tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
(link below)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If a Hindoo wants to teach his children the earth is on the back of a turtle or a Jew that it is flat, they have a right to do so if homeschooling or if paying their own schools.

However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory.

These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis.

So far
I have go three responses (four …)
Are you brain dead or just home schooled?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Home schooled in part.

Public school tried to make me brain dead, but failed. So far.

“However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory.”

If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you mean a toy version of London Bridge, I think that can wait until I have an appartment to keep it in and children who will play with it.

Thank you very kindly!

sven svensson
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”


So there we have it — God does NOT allow creationists to enter churches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) Creationists are no bastards,

2) the fact you can allude to them as such shows what the unbalance in education is causing in terms of barbarism,

3) that rule of Deuteronomy was for Old Testament anyway. A method to keep the lineage of Our Lord unsullied. Or as clean as possible (cf Athalia and three missing generations in Gospel of St Matthew).

As to Q mark in title …
… I do not know if he (in the video) is Anglican (non-priest) or Catholic (presumably priest even if modernist).
An invisible, massless turtle would be much easier to accommodate than geocentrism or denial of the actual, demonstrable age of the earth.

I’m also pretty sure that Judaism doesn’t cling to the solid firmament, small stars and flat earth cosmology of Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do not know what you call Judaism. I do know that some Jews are in flat earth society and as long as their children are minors, they have a right to see that that is what their children are taught in schools they pay for (and making them pay by taxes for schools they do not choose is a clear evil).

Now, you presumed that Geocentrism or YEC go against what is demonstrable or are inaccomodable? Why so? What is your refutation?

Btw, I am Catholic …

Akita538 (first answer to “I do not know what you call Judaism”)
I don’t decide what is Judaism – try Wikipedia.

Lying to children as a human rights issue? I’m not impressed!

The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating and observation of geological processes. The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars. Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wikipedia may very well be accurate in what it states, insofar as inaccuracies are often deleted. It is however not complete.

A man who believes the earth is flat is not lying to his children when telling them it is flat. He is just wrong and as long as they believe him they are wrong. That includes a few Jews (far from majority) and also some Hindoos who think there is a visible and heavy turtle under it, once you look from the right angle.

Educating the young is up to parents. Right or wrong.

Except when children are baptised and the baptismal faith of children is at stake.

“The ancient age of the earth is well established by radiometric dating (a) and observation of geological processes (b).”

a) That is based on assumptions about initial state and probably too long half lives calculated according to b.

b) That is based on uniformitarian (anti-gobal-Flood) assumptions.

In both cases it is assumptions.

“The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars.”

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement – which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. … (Answers continued below after debate on this)

The ‘proper movement’ would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth. Since it is possible to imagine magic entities ‘shifting the scenery’ to back up *any* proposition, you are effectively asking for a blank cheque with that argument!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
God can have created the world any way He wanted to.

God can have made the world look any way He wanted to.

What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West.

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.

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.

It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss.

“What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West”

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think you got somewhat wrong what parallax changes were about.

Also somewhat wrong how modern astronomy pretends to demonstrate rotation of earth.

It doesn’t just rotate, it orbits the sun!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is another question.

But the point is, not only does it not look like orbitting the sun, it does not even look like rotating.

And if it does not rotate it certainly is not orbitting anything, but everything is each day orbitting it. Whatever the other relations are between the other bodies.

“God can have created the world any way He wanted to”

Try telling a ‘creationist’ that!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
They already know, that includes the Protestants.

God could have created the world over billions of years if He had wanted to.

But could He have wanted to? And if He had done so, could He have wanted to reveal what He did to Moses the way He did?

That rather than any arbitrary limits on the Omnipotence is the Creationist argument against Old Earth scenarios. [As far as theology is concerned]

(Continuing answers after debate on “parallax” made by angels).
“Now that we know the relative masses and distances of bodies in space, there is nothing to discuss without rejecting all of physics.”

One can reject Newtonian assumptions about this without rejecting the physics observed on earth.

F o a this is mostly taken out and carefully considered only in two body problems (sun – earth, earth – moon, sometimes earth – moon set into relation with sun as well).

But its “parallels” on earth involve a string or solid rim and are thus 3 body problems.

And second, the relative masses are not known per se, but deduced from this theory.

And third, it involved the kind of problems with planet Mercury that could not be resolved until Einstein introduced yet another theory.

Any decision to assume that there is different physics in different places demands justification. Since ONE physics explains all relevant observations, there is no reason to propose a different one just for the earth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem is you do not have the same physics in the supposed two body problems in the universe and their supposed parallels on earth.

Their supposed parallels uniformly involve a “parallel” to gravitation which is no force but a body.

[in parallel to above]

But the point is you do NOT have one physics on earth and for what you assume as celestial mechanics.

Stone on string is not a two body problem with your hand and the stone, but a third body, the string is sham “parallel” to gravitation.

Biker in hub is not a two body problem with biker and centre of hub, it is also a third body, the hub, which is sham “parallel” to the gravity.

For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.

Are you really basing an argument on not understanding physics? : )
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, you are.

You are basing your argument on not understanding physics any better than your teacher in school presented it.

And that is just a bit too bad.

Because a stone on a string is not a smaller body “attached” to a greater one through its gravitation. It is rather attached for real, on a string.

Answering mine
For real parallels to gravity, try magnets on ice. A big to act as centre, a small shot by it. Not seen that yet.
SpaceVidsNet : [ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere – Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A pretty close parallel to the experiment of magnets on ice. Even better, actually concerned with gravitation. [actually not as I saw when seeing full title, but electromagnetic attraction]

And better than so. It orbitted more than I expected.

However, it did not orbit billions of orbits, like some certains pretend Earth has been orbitting Sun. I am not sure it took ten or fifteen orbits, and down the drop went to the pen (or whatever the object was).

Akita538 (second answer to “I do not know what you call Judaism”)
But what when you want an ambulance and a doctor, and somebody to give a shit whether you are wrongly arrested, or expect people to respect your property?

Try ‘buying’ all those when you need them. They wouldn’t be there if somebody didn’t pay for *real* education, and the law didn’t create concepts such as ‘property’ or ‘habeus corpus’. Maybe you should stop using a language you didn’t create?

Governments and corporations love ‘individuals’ – they are so easy to control!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ambulances and doctors are made with medical education which does not at all depend on either the General Theorem of Evolution or Heliocentrism and all that.

Medicine (or the somatic part) is what some YEC have the presence of mind to call a “here-and-now-science”.

Ambulances and doctors are made with a medical education which is at university level and therefore not available to children or youngsters under the parental custody.

“Governments and corporations love ‘individuals’ – they are so easy to control!”

Except when they aren’t.

Homeschooling is not easy to control. Governments are tearing lives to pieces in the attempt to do so. Like German case with the Wunderlich family.

Actually vehicle technology and medicine *do* rely on science.

YECs make an idol of a literalist interpretation of parts of the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The literalist interpretation which you call an idol is actually the traditional of holy church.

Technology and medicine (the somatic part) do rely on science, more precisely on what can be observed here and now and everywhere and anytime.

Not on what can only be gotten about the past or the distant or the hidden.

Akita538 (i)
‘Creationism’ as such is a comparatively recent invention.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Creationist refutations of evolutionism is a recent invention.

Creationist beliefs are by contrast totally traditional.

You do Trent, you do Church Fathers, all were YEC, all were Geocentric. That was why Galileo was condemned.

Akita538 (ii)
“even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world.. ..and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian”

St Augustine ~480AD

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Wonderful. I know that quote.

But my point is what you propose as knowledge (that “even” non-Christians have) is in this case not so.

Ever checked what St Augustine did when Biblical account of Jacob and Esau contradicted what he saw as astrological knowledge?

And remember that apart from Christians everybody back then would have agreed with the Manichaeans that astrology was science.

I am afraid of a man with only one St Augustine quote.

from his answers later to someone else, but same subject:
If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God’s works, rather than men’s works? The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible – it was created by men, long after the bible was written.

Men did not create hundreds of millions of year’s worth of rock and fossils, or DNA, or light travelling from billions of light years away. All of these are facts which (unlike biblical interpretations!) would exist even if no man had ever existed.

Why wouldn’t God speak literally?

Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the million’s or years. While the fossils and rocks show flood evidence. God can create light to already be on it’s way since He is the source of light and DNA acts just like God created, it is limited to kinds.

You could just as easily condemn Newton in the same way!

“Man is trying to find a way to do without God and made up the force of gravity to explain planets staying in their orbits without God guiding them.”

You speak for ignorance and superstition. Is that what you think Christianity is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to last of Akita)
Newton is indeed behind a Deist line of thought.

His famous admirer in France was the Deist Voltaire.

He was also – Newton – an Occultist.

He also when working out the two body problems behind his theory of solar system failed to refute an alternative theory, that of angelic movers.

This has not been refuted since either.

And of God as mover behind daily movement of sky.

Not refuted since then either.

Worthless theories don’t need refuting. They are ten a penny. I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your ‘theory’ about the stars work.

Given infinite resources, anything could be true. Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your ‘memories’ two weeks ago are fake?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“I notice you had to help yourself to trillions of undetectable creatures to make your ‘theory’ about the stars work.”

Angels are no more undetectable than electrons.

Each is detected only by the work it does and usually not directly to sight.

They are also part of the Catechism (in case you care).

They were also the standard theory about the physics before Newton (he should have cared).

I am not invoking fakeness of any memory or any direct observation.

Strawmannus maximus = fail.

Try again.

Oh the irony – in falsely accusing me of using a strawman argument, you are employing one yourself.

I did not suggest that you had invoked any memory or observation.

My point was about the cheapness and insignificance of all your claims. There are an unlimited number of worthless claims that couldn’t be disproved if infinite resources were employed to make them appear true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Point is that God has infinite resources.

We do not live in a Universe of limited resources.

And invoking the resources of God is very different from invoking the fakeness of observation or memory. Hence my charge about strawman.

You asked – namely – “Maybe the world WAS created last Thursday and all your ‘memories’ two weeks ago are fake?”

Did you forget that?

“cheapness and insignificance” are an excuse for not arguing.

And once again, I am not suggesting infinite resources to make something appear true, but there are infinite resources behind what in fact is true. The infinite resources of God.

You are invoking infinite resources to support claims which are too weak to stand up on their own.

There is an endless supply of “cheapness and insignificance”. The distinctive and consistent quality of such dross is that it leads nowhere – it is terminally unproductive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Very much not.

Geocentrism stands up on observation.

It can only be explained with the infinite resources of God.

Take away those infinite resources, you get Heliocentrism. It may not be able to stand its explanation correctly without the inifinite resources of God.

And it cannot be proven (so far as I have seen for ten years of debating) without assuming Atheism or assuming that “God does not want to show off”.

As for “unproductivity”, I agree I will not build machines based on angels. So?

Akita538 I (see II below)
Geocentrism stands up on observation if infinite resources are employed to create that appearance.

True. And so does ANYTHING ELSE! An infinite number of turtles? No problem. Everything being recreated every Thursday? Well, you can’t prove it isn’t, so it must be true!?!!?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, no, no.

That is not infinite resources of a creator. Those are infinite resources of deception.

Geocentrism is not created as appearance by inifinite resources, but as physical reality by infinite resources.

As appearance it is our basic observation.

As intuitive as “everything created last thursday” is counterintuitive.

Akita538 (i)
Infinite resources are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (i)
Infinite resources of creation are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of creation.

Such as every Christian believes God has.

Infinite resources of deception are:

1. resources, and

2. infinite, and

3. of deception.

Such as no Christian believes Satan has, such as no Christian believes God would apply.

Akita538 (ij)
Everything being recreated every Thursday perfectly matches what is observed but, since it is one of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions, few bother to make it.

Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism!) is just *one* more of that infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (ij)
Geocentrism is not a perfectly pointless assumption, it is a resumé of direct observation.

And I am not saying it is either made to look like Heliocentrism or even looks like Heliocentrism remotely. Heliocentrism is simply not what reality looks like.

Akita538 (continuing ij)
But observation does *not* support geocentrism: you admitted that yourself when you claimed that angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect which is evidence for heliocentrism.

You have certainly shifted your ground if you are now pretending that observation doesn’t support heliocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I never said parallax actually supports Heliocentrism in good logic.

I did say parallax is one argument used for Heliocentrism.

I also said “parallax” is a misnomer, but not because of what it looks like, only because of what a certain interpretation wants to interpret it as.

Angels and God certainly took that into account though.

Why should they not have fun at modern “science” and its adherents, when there is so little between its observations and its conclusions as far as connexion goes?

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.

Given the non-trivial number of stars involved, that would be strong evidence of deliberate and calculated deception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
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.

As for the rest, I copied out relevant parts of earlier dialogue from the blog post.

  • You:”The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars.”
  • Me:”Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement – which it could be if each star was moved by its angel. “
  • You:”The ‘proper movement’ would have to be exactly calculated to deceive observers on the earth.”
  • Me:”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.

    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.

    It is calculated exactly to make an obnoxious minority deceive itself by introducing a false premiss.”

  • Maybe clearer: by the false premise they introduce.
I’m saying calculating hypocrisy involving angels is still calculating hypocrisy. : )
Hans-Georg Lundahl
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.

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 Astroogy is wrong does not make God and the angels hypocrites just because Venus is sometimes in Virgo.

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?

Answered twice (for original separate parts)
  • Akita538 A
  • Akita538 B
Akita538 A
Why would you of all people think that astrology is wrong? You appear to have exactly the mindset for superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit with an added touch of sophistry.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You appear to have the kind of mindset that is required for “reasoning” by association rather than by reasons – and for establishing guilt by association.

Father Brown (if you know the sacerdotal colleague of Sherlock Holmes) was asked why he did not believe the story of a curse.

“My business is to believe some things and so not to believe others”.

I am sure St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine and St Jerome whom I am basically agreeing with appreciate your assessment properly.

Akita538 B
Utter hypocrisy. They would not happen to falsify the appearance accurately by chance. The only conceivable motive would be deceit.

Since no belief about the material world is part of Christianity, then the motivation would have to have some other source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The point is it is not my version but your version of the facts which gives us a falsified appearance of the facts. Parallactic movement means “illusion of movement in other object due to unnoticed movement in observer”.

Doing it *accurately* is a matter on why it agrees with the annual movement of the sun (in a minority of stars!). And that is a matter of “dancing in time” with the sun if I am right.

Heliocentrism is no part of Christianity. Geocentrism may be so. At least in Holy Writ & CF.

You are not right.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
About which of the items and how so?

Unless you prefer to conclude your part of the debate.

You said ‘that is a matter of “dancing in time” with the sun if I am right’. Well, it isn’t so you aren’t right.

There is no evidence of the deception that you describe, so we have no reason to assume that it occurs. Your idea of geocentrism (made to look like heliocentrism by God’s deceit) is just *one* of an infinite number of possible pointless assumptions. It has nothing in particular to recommend it over the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Our main reason is that our eyes and inner ears give us a prima facie evidence for geocentrism.

Our next reason is that geocentrism philosophically entails Theism (for daily movement of all heaven) and if I may coin a word angelism for at least the planets.

Our third reason is that if planets move as observed around an earth that is still they form a floral pattern so as to indicate aesthetic motives being involved.

Hence: so called “parallax” is not mainly fake “such” but art. Of angels.

Akita also answered my earlier words:
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.
By ‘wrongly’ you mean ‘honestly’.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I mean wrongly.

People were bent on finding parallax because already – mistakenly – believing Heliocentrism. Then the phenomenon was found.

And was interpreted as parallax.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita “But observation does *not* support geocentrism”)
Parallax is evidence of angels. Don’t you know? Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons. Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth. HAZZAH! (Watch the idiot actually use this BS)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
“Nevermind that they move them in concert depending completely on the time of year. That means nothing but that they are in tune with our seasons.”

I do think angels are in tune, I do think they are good dancers.

“Evidence the whole universe conforms to earth.”

To the Sun, actually. Earth is not moving so nothing can conform to any movement of it.

And no, on a larger scale it is Sun which conforms nearly to stars rotating around Earth each day.

ExtantFrodo2 (to Akita “But observation does *not* support geocentrism” again)
“angels move the stars to fake the parallax effect”

“Daily movement of universe being a prime argument for the prime mover.”

Insanity runs deep in this one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Watch it, one of your quotes is from myself, one is from Akita’s resumé of me.

I did not say the angels faked the parallax effect. I said they did what is mistaken for a parallax effect.

Not same thing.

Sorry that you think so. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry about your logic.

They would be same thing if primary purpose of those movements would be us mistaking them for parallactic ones.

Neither I as a Geocentric nor you as an obvious atheist would agree to that.

So the only thing you object to is the “faking” part of it. How fucking sad.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The only thing I object to is the faking part.

Sad or not for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to previous of Akita)
“The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible – it was created by men, long after the bible was written.”


“Men did not create hundreds of millions of year’s worth of rock and fossils,”

Did not create rocks or fossils, but the millions of years interpretation.

“or light travelling from billions of light years away.”

Did not create the light but the billions of light years away interpretation.

The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You mean “Bible alone” is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

That is something other than “the literalist interpretation” of the Bible, which is found in it.

Jesus clearly endorsed Young Earth Creationism. Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Akita538 II (see I above)
By ‘unproductive’, I meant that it will not lead to any new knowledge, just a series of new evasions and ‘fixes’ to prop up a worthless assumption.

If we abandon your assumption that God is deceitful, then the evidence clearly denies the possibility of geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) Angels are not an ad hoc just for this.

2) I am nowhere assuming that God is deceitful.

I am assuming He allows those who wish to make overinterpretations in atheistic modes to deceive themselves.

3) Geocentrism on the contrary assumes God is truthful and gave us a view of the Universe corresponding to what it really is like.

V (on my original)
“However, for Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism we have no such clear refutations as for back of turtle theory or for flat as a pancake theory.”

Joking, right?

“These should have the possibility to be discussed even in public schools if there is any interest from any party. And that means inviting Eric Hovind and Robert Sungenis.”

Seriously, why did you type this? Are you trying to get a rise out of someone?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Instead of asking “joking”, what is your refutation?
You’re not fooling me twice. Why don’t you tell me some of the basic refutations of what you typed. You can start educating people instead of pretending to be a dumb ass (which is being a dumb ass in it’s own way), and I won’t have to type them for the millionth time. How bout it? Join the productive folks that actually like to share information?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides.

The refutation against Geocentrism is … do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?

I am productive and sharing information, you are not.

“The refutation against a flat earth is basically we have seen the globe from all sides.”

OK, that one works.

“The refutation against Geocentrism is … do you count Dr Spock and Han Solo or does that strike you as fiction?”

OK, I think you mean Mr. Spock from Star Trek. Dr. Spock writes about babies. Common error, not a big deal. Yes, those are two characters from fiction, but I don’t see what they have to do with refuting geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I meant the Spock from Star Trek.

The thing is these fictional characters are the closest thing Heliocentrism has in parallel to Columbus’ and da Gamas very practical demonstration of a Globe.

And as for Eratosthenes demonstrations of globe, well, they are less direct, but what we have like that against Geocentrism is clearly more dubious than Eratosthenes once I look at it.

Did you ever look at it?

Akita538 (before trueleroix could, see below)
I notice that your own church has no problem with real astronomy or evolution.

Perhaps you are not really a catholic but part of a fantasy sect? : )

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Perhaps you are not really informed about the acts of the magisteria, but manipulated by things like interviews and allocutions of considerably less value than the judgement of 1633? 🙂

I also notice you put above not in answer to my words about Church Fathers or about the St Augustine quote, but in a totally different debate on whether I can be and have been proven wrong on a purely scientific level.

I resent that and take that as deliberate obfuscation of the debate.

The views about astronomy of the church *you* claim to belong to are highly relevant to *your* claims about astronomy. Got it now?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You should still have put the answer in the subthread where it was relevant. I dislike cluttering a debate by mixing subthreads.

St Augustine did not claim Heliocentrism was part of what even infidels know or that Christians denying it make themselves ridiculous.

He was a Geocentric like all other Church Fathers.

And if you wish to go further to St Thomas Aquinas, look up Prima Pars, Q 70 I think it was Article 3.

I am agreeing with that. And it has not been condemned by the Church.

Against geocentrism? We don’t have cases against true facts. We don’t debate true facts. You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you. Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn’t know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
“You need to explain to me that you have come to understand that heliocentrism is true before I will discuss any astronomy with you.”

You are not proving Heliocentrism true.

“Would you discuss the life cycle of stars with someone who doesn’t know a basic fact, like fusion happens in stars?”

Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a “basic fact”.

Wrong. Fusion in stars is an observation. Ever head of Spectroscopy?

Furthermore, it is an observation entirely consistent with and borne out by quantum mechanics, which is by several orders of magnitude, the most precise model we have for how matter behaves.

Stellar nucleosynthesis is by any measure you care to name a “basic fact”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would say presence of elements one of which can fuse into other (say H and He) is born out very well by spectroscopy.

Even that is a conclusion. And fusion is in itself a conclusion of that conclusion.

Now, the point was, do you have similar arguments against Geocentrism as you have for fusion in stars?

You’re an idiot. I don’t think I can add anything much more constructive than that. It’s a conclusion, borne out by the observation of your posts on this thread. Thus, by reversing your own twisted logic, that translates as being what sane people would regard as a fact.

Yep! you’re an idiot. Quod errat demonstandum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are bad at latin.

Quod non erat demonstrandum, sed quod demonstrasti.

As for the rest, I was asking you [actually someone else] to apply the distinction between “basic observation” (observation was my wording, not fact, since a fact not observed can be basic in the other realm of explanation) and “conclusion”.

Will you admit that fusion is a conclusion?

And will you defend the conclusions against Geocentrism?

Fusion is a fact. It can be performed. Don’t start with the Descartesian mumbo-jumbo about the uncertainty of existence. That is totally outside the realm of empirical science; and renders any of your arguments pointless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am very much not into Cartesian mumbo-jumbo about uncertainty of existence. You are bad at Logic as well as about Latin.

I know fusion as observed in CERN is a fact, if it has been performed (for how long, though?).

I know it involves H + H > D, D + D > He.

I know spectroscopy shows H and He are present in Sun.

Still, fusion in Sun is not observation, but conclusion (from these facts, through parallel being probable).

Now, prove Heliocentrism if you can. That was the main issue.

“You are not proving Heliocentrism true.”

Of course I am not. I already know about it. You need to do this for yourself.

“Fusion happening in stars may be true or not, but it is not a basic observation. It is a conclusion and you ought to be able to make a case for it before calling it a “basic fact”.”

Well, it is a basic fact, and I’m not going to “make a case” for something you can easily look up. Do this and we can talk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
How can a man believing Heliocentrism false “need” to prove it true?

Your stance does not make sense.

As for fusion happening in stars being a fact, someone just made a case for it. I am not rejecting it.

I was asking him and am asking you to make such a case against Geocentrism if you can.

Or one like the one I did myself against flat Earth.

You agreed you had no Columbus or da Gama, since Han Solo is fiction.

Where is your counterpart to Eratosthenes? Do you have a good one?

Look it up. Prove yourself wrong. Get back to me. I don’t have time for this. You have the internet. Don’t be lazy.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not being lazy.

I did the research (in the book and internet resources, not in the observations or calculations). You trust others did it for you.

That is what I am challenging.

“Prove yourself wrong.”

I actually tried to find out if space probes proved me wrong.

So far I have not seen they must do so.

[Catholic Answers Forum : Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism]

trueleroix also answered this one of mine
“The fact that the earth is orbiting the sun is revealed by parallax in observations of the fixed stars.”

Based on assumption the so called parallax is not a proper movement – which it could be if each star was moved by its angel.

OK, that was quite a bit of typing before you went for the certain reveal of your status. I really want to know why you do it though? You know that there are real people saying things almost as stupid as this character you are portraying. Why must you supplement them with your imitations?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My name here is Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my blogs is also Hans-Georg Lundahl.

My name on my last passport which I no longer have is Hans-Georg Mikael Elitzur Lundahl.

Do a google for Hans-Georg Lundahl with keywords like “angelic movers”, “heliocentrism”, “geocentrism”, “trigonometry” if you like. If you know French, add French translations to the searches for key words.

When you have done that, come back.

Why would I look this up? You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap. I don’t want to know all this personal stuff about you. I suggest you refute what you have written so far. It will be a good exercise for you. I am not a mental health professional. Good luck.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
“You wrote something about angels moving stars to imitate parallax, and some other really crazy crap.”

OK, with that attitude, when can the debate begin?

“I am not a mental health professional.”

I am not asking for one.

“I don’t want to know all this personal stuff about you.”

I am not writing (mostly) about me. I am for instance writing about why Geocentrism is true. Note that even if I were wrong that would not be about me, but about my arguments.

You are not near refuting them.

Me, refute geocentrism? No, you refute geocentrism. I don’t need to do this exercise.
“What the world looks like is earth being still and stars moving around us from East to West”

Not if you observe carefully enough to spot the parallax changes!

Dude, the guy said that angels do the parallax imitation movements. I’m dead serious. You can scroll down and see.
I know. I know – that just is what they are like – they make life easy for themselves by making up whatever shit happens to fit their current purpose.

Honest people, on the other hand, are expected be perfect and infallible and do all the work!

He was challenging me to refute his claims. I’m like dude, you have the internet? You want me to type whole chapters of astronomy and geology texts in these 500 character boxes? Lazy bastards.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (to Akita538)
The point is: if you had real understanding about Heliocentrism being true, it would not be work for you to refute me.

That is why I do not take you for a very honest person.

If I asked you to refute flat earth, you would have no more trouble than I had. If I asked you to prove 2+2=4, you would have no trouble.

But I ask you to prove what you believe and you go like “what a load of work” …

Hans-Georg Lundahl (to trueleroix)
No, not whole chapters.

Just the salient arguments in them – insofar as you believe them.




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgpShA58 to access the cached copy of this page

tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist

I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube – or perhaps not

I wrote that first day and sixth day of creation can have been shorter. God may have created light at an angle (if there was one) of nine o’clock rather than of six o’ clock in the morning. That might be true, sub meliori iudicio Sancte Matris Ecclesie, but I also said something else, I think: that the sixth day ended when Adam thought it was Sabbath. However, the Bible says the sixth day ended Saturday morning rather than Friday evening. So either the seventh day overlapped for twelve hours with the sixth, or it was shorter, or it was only later that evenings (liturgically referred to as First Vespers in Latin Rite or as Great Vespers in Byzantine Rite) became the beginning of each date./HGL

PS, I write it here, because I was just unable to find the youtube comment thread under which I wrote a falsehood./HGL

PPS, Genesis 2:2 in Douay Rheims with Haydock:

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: *and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.

Comment includes the words:

On the seventh day, at the beginning of this verse, must be taken exclusively, as God finished his work on the 6th, whence the same Septuagint and Syriac have here on the 6th day. (Haydock) — But the Hebrew and all the other versions agree with the Vulgate. (Calmet) — The similarity of ver. 6 and ver. 7 in Hebrew may have given rise to this variation. (Haydock)

Would that mean that God resting already on the Sixth Day thereby made its space from evening to morning part of the Sabbath?/HGL




Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YgpLkYcU to access the cached copy of this page