Debate on Geocentrism

Quoting my opponent Esteban Maradona (possibly not the football player but a fan?):

I’d think the following statement is worded fairly, and is probably narrow enough: “Geocentrism can and should be considered a physical reality, not heliocentrism.” I’m obviously arguing against the statement, and you are arguing in favor. I’d also like to point out that I’m not going to expect hardcore quotes, references, etc., just straightforward logic… almost like the Socratic method.

I had already answered an original less specific wording with:

To begin, this post of mine:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-little-general-challenge-on.html

It is about [not identic with] one foolproof or supposedly such refutation of Geocentrism.*

I link to it* in post and the post also contains my comments.

+Esteban Maradona , if you were going to say Geocentrism means stars and galaxies moving at minimum 8760 times speed of light, I already just answered it.

We don’t know the distances to the stars by any sure empirical means.

See my link for more details, if you like.

Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect

Friend (status)

Do you believe that the biblical account of creation is the truth?

Ten

Yes (or one of them a Yep)

NP

Unless one sincerely identified the self as something other than Christian, I suppose the answer would have to be in the affirmative..,

NG

One has to, to remain Catholic.

JM (after three consecutive yes among above)

And the belief in evolution is boarding on mad!

To believe in something so absurd as life popping up from non living material by random chance, is incredible. It is not science, but an unreasonable faith.

But this is the only faith allowed in the classrooms in this insane county of ours.

GP

Central tenet of the Catholic faith. You could say the philosophic framework of the beginning of God’s work with man.

NP

Sts Aquinas and Augustine state that the account must be assented to literally

NB

Yes, evolution is a lie. How could man evolve from inferior beings? To be so like that, these inferiors beings would have to have a superior intelligence to Man. Also, matter by itself cannot transform in nothing else different than what what already is. Man is an animal, but a rational and spiritual one, raw matter does not possess any of these properties.

JM

Man has not evolved but devolved! Sin brought death into the world!

All are born into this world under the curse inherited by the fall of our first parents. Christ came to free us from that curse.

John Vennari

There is no reason not to

MO

Yep. Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis.

SB

Ask an evolutionist how we went from being dust into the first cell and they get stuck n say ” oh that’s now a separate field of study “, or something like that. Shouldn’t they have to prove these things before they ask us to prove that God exists ?

JG

Theistic evolution is a cowardly way of giving into modern social pressure. You can’t have it both ways.. Once you say God wasn’t speaking literally about creation you will start to use the same logic for issues like the Eucharist, and baptism. and before you know it you have homosexual ministers in your “church”

AK

Yes, absolutely. It is the foundation for everything else. Creation in the image and likeness of God, and the original sin explain humans quite well.

JG

Unfortunately even in traditional churches theistic evolution beliefs are rising rapidly. Read an article the other day written by a man who claims to be catholic saying theistic evolution is 100% compatible with Christians. Made me sick.

AM

The Big Bang Hypothesis and the Evolutionism Hypothesis are both Perpetual Motion Machines and thus violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are thus false.

AK

The primary scientific problem with macroevolution is the increase in complexity of information which is not observed to take place anywhere in the universe without a rational agent actin upon the information. Not sure what the Big Bang has to do with a perpetual motion machine.

MMcB

I do believe in the literal account of the creation as given in Genesis.

SC

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

“On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.”

-St. Augustine, Commentary on Genesis

St. Augustine does, of course, demand that we believe in the literal truth of the Scriptures, but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the “plain truth” of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity.

Theistic evolution is not a cop-out. It is a fine application to the findings of modern science of the principle set forth in St. Thomas’ Summa Contra Gentiles, 3a 75 & 76, in which the application of Divine Providence to all contingent singulars and to all singulars immediately is established. The notion that a Christian could believe that there are particular events occurring in nature that are not willed by God is absurd.

N., in good Thomistic thought, an instrumental cause may be lower than its effect. That’s the whole point of theistic evolution.

Sadly, AM, neither the Big Bang nor Evolution demand infinite time in either direction. With respect to evolution in particular, Earth is not a closed system, and it receives abundant energy from without in the form of solar radiation.

AK, even if you take the increase in [genetic] information to be a real problem demanding a prior complexity to explain it, the whole mechanism of evolution as willed by God could easily be viewed as a cosmic pencil, which operates according to mechanical principles, and the physical reality of whose writing is ultimately explained by these mechanical principles, but which is writing that which is meaningful as willed by the Writer. It would do no good to say that the ink in the pen could not wholly explain the words on the page just because they are information-bearing. Genes may be explained fully in a physical way by the process of evolution, directed however by Providence in such a way as to bear information.

David Bawden, alias HH Pope Michael

Creation is true as recounted in Genesis.

AM (answering SC here, but doing so much later)

SC, you don’t read too well and you are lacking in logic skills. I never said anything about the earth as a closed system. The universe however, IS a closed system. As for the earth, it’s energy gain from the sun is equal to its energy loss, and if it weren’t then the temperature would either increase or decrease. The earth however gains no biological material from space, nor expels any into space, so therefore as far as biological matter and energy is concerned, the earth IS a closed system and the overall entropy is increasing within biological matter and substances.

Five (including me)

Yes, most assuredly, the account of creation given in Genesis is to be taken literally, I believe the biblical creation is the truth, not a iota of it shall pass away.

HGL, me

“Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis.” (MO)

– Where is the dislike button? Georges Lemaître who invented BB (as it was later called) was not so literalist about first two chapters of Genesis as the 1909 Biblical Commission’s answers demanded.

[turning to SC:]

” but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the ‘plain truth’ of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity.”

– Again, where is the dislike button? He does NOT say that because it is Scripture it is automatically “obscure and far beyond our vision”. He is saying that WHEN it is of such things Scripture treats, then it may be interpreted differently.

Read all of this series (links on top of each message, numbered 1 – 12, bt actually fifteen or sixteen, since some have a/b or a/b/c), here is 1:

Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen – Eighty … er Sorry … Ninety-Four
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/newspeak-in-nineteen-eighty-er-sorry.html

And this one too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html

JCCD (to status/question, presumably)

Yes.

AD

I don’t understand why people feel the need to try and marry principles set forth specifically to undermine the traditional Catholic teachings with actual Catholic doctrine. I guess it’s the fear of possibly putting faith into something that scientism claims it can disprove? Either way, this heliocentric, (r)evolutionary thought has no place in the Church.

PK

I enjoy this analogy the best…..So, I go into an auto part store or warehouse that has every thing for all types of cars. So, I blow up the store/warehouse, and the parts miraculously fall from the sky, assembled themselves into various vehicles…..That makes as much sense as the randomness of Evolution.

SC

Hans-Georg,

No, St. Augustine does not say that Scripture is “obscure and far beyond our vision.” Nor did I. But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision. And they are matters that remain obscure and far beyond our vision, “even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture.”

Which is exactly what I said. Now, please, speak to point.

The point is that the plain sense of “speak” is what we do in conversation every day. But Augustine presses the meaning of this word. The plain sense of “light” is what is generated by the sun. But Augustine also admits that a spiritual light, the light that enlightens rational beings, could be *a possible* literal sense of the passage.

So St. Augustine is not married, as I claimed, to perspicuity or to the “plain sense” of the text, although he will certainly agree that the text is literally true—although the literal sense may have to be sought out.

[AP]

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

-Pius XII, Humani Generis

“So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution. First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes. Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development.”

-Pope Benedict XVI, a “man experienced” in sacred theology, on the present state of his field on this question, in a letter to Prof. Odifreddi

Now, please. They have a place in the Church.

[PK]

Theistic evolution does not magically do away with the doctrine of God’s providence.

Now, I will be fastforwarding along …

… my debate with SC. Sometimes. When messages start to split up in numbered arguments, I will follow each number before going back to the next number starting from same message as previously. But I will also interesperse this with other dialogue along the debate.

HGL

To SC, and

[1 2 3 see below FIRST SPLIT.]

“Schoolteacher.”

Ah, and how would you fare among colleagues or even pupils and their parents, if outing yourself as a YEC (or even Geocentric)?

I was a schoolteacher for one term. I am glad I am no more, as schools are now. Including not only this doctrinal matter, but also the moral matter of school compulsion. To a moral schoolteacher, the pupil with his parents would normally be the client and the parents would decide on their part if teacher can stay with pupil, as well as teacher deciding on his part whether pupil can stay with him.

BUT in the modern system being a schoolteacher implies earning money on DRAFTED pupils. Plus excludes expelling nasty pupils.

SC

Hans-Georg,

In my locality, the American Middle West, I would fare better and better if I held either of those opinions.

(1 2 3 – see below, as noted.)

EPISODE PREVIOUS TO START OF SPLIT

PK

SC, I am not so smart so I will believe God for things beyond my comprehension….Meanwhile, it is 7:45 a.m. in the Midwest. Don’t you guys have to get dressed and go to work, and earn a living? Or, are you all independently very wealthy?

SC

Schoolteacher.

PK

Then class must be happening soon, Eh, SC?

SC

Summer break. 🙂

PK

Oh, right. It’s Summer back at home in the States.

Living in two worlds and 2 time zones is confusing as heck.

SC

I can imagine!

PK

Is the economy getting better, worst, or staying just the same back at home?

SC

Phew, what a question. I couldn’t really say. My best guess would be that it is static. I have been very blessed to have been called for my jobs, rather than having to apply, so I don’t have a good handle on what the job market is like.

It’s still a good time to buy a house…

PK

Not when only about 50 million to 68 million Americans have some kind of jobs, and about 146 millions are jobless….Folks don’t have money to buy much of anything these days.

SC

Well, I mean to say, it’s a buyer’s market.

PK

Yes, it does. Well, SC, if you are pretty certain that you will have your job for the next 15 to 30 years, then go for it. For goodness’ sake, please don’t take out a variable – balloon type – loan. You will be so very sorry if you do. I’m sure you already know this.

FIRST SPLIT

First split
1 – 2 – 3 above taken separately

1)

HGL

1) the answer to me:

“But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision.”

To the mechanics, yes.

To the story line no.

I have ventured a guess myself:

On day two, the “waters above the firmament” means, at least partly, H2. The firmament itself is O2, oxygen.

On day four, God used H2 from day two, but not all of it, to make sun and stars.

When windows of the firmament were opened under flood, that part was the hydrogen and the oxygen layers meeting in small overlaps (“windows”) and reacting with combustion (2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O).

Meaning some of it is now lost in the oceans (lost for star production and combustion, at any rate).

Yes, some of the mechanics may be obscure, that doesn’t mean the story line is.

SC

(1) The basic storyline that God created the Heavens and the Earth is not in dispute. The fact that whatsoever he willed, he brought about, is not in dispute. But just where does the “basic storyline” end? If I may believe equally with many of the Fathers that the world was created in seven literal days, or with St. Augustine, in an instant, and that the earth bore in itself the potency to bring forth the various species according to their kinds; if I may believe in a literal spoken word of God, in literal light or in the rational, intelligible principle having been created…

I don’t see how this passage yields to obvious scientific interpretation in any way. Particularly not when considered together with Genesis 2.

2)

HGL

2) To the answer to AD:

a) Pius XII did not forbid that Discussions take place. That does not equal him allowing Catholics to accept evolution as factually true. One can see that encyclical as shilly shally on the point.

If one stated that a Catholic may neither believe nor defend theistic evolution, but he is free to discuss it with non-Catholics believing it and not allowed, if a professor at a university, to stop in the name of the Church non-Catholics from defending it, this would not be the most plausible meaning of the words, taken by themselves, but a possible one, and theologically preferrable insofar as one accepts him as having been Pope.

b) Now to Ratzinger:

“So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution.”

I bet he had no wish to get into details, that might give the internal contradictions away. Concise he was allowed to be.

“First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes.”

What nonsense if we look at it biologically!

“Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development.”

What God had to do, and what, according to what He showed Moses or told Adam, actually did are two different things.

The syllogism “potuit, decuit, fecit” may be right about the immaculate conception (which is anyway, irrespective of syllogism, true), but in order for it to exist, there must be not only a “potuit” but also a “decuit”.

I have horrors for the kind of moral theologian who would say that it “decuit Deo” to create the species through a drawn out process of suffering and death before Adam sinned. Or that it “decuit Deo” to create Adam’s body through so many intermediates, while reserving only the soul for Himself.

Furthermore, denying that “God intervened manually in the process of evolution” can mean two very different things:

  • a) denying that there was a process of evolution which is the right meaning, but not very likely seeing the nonsense he uttered about “the tree of life”;
  • b) admitting the process of evolution, but saying He did “not have to intervene” because He had programmed it so perfectly beforehand.
SC

(2) The biologists don’t concur with your characterization of their science. If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession, I can’t stop you, but the interrelationship between all life is certainly not “nonsense” from a biological perspective.

3)

HGL

3) Answer to PK:

The latter (see my discussion of Ratzinger just above) does not deny God’s providence? It does, because it replaces providence with continual manual intervening in every aspect of the history of the entire universe with a preprogramming that excludes manual intervening.

But whether it denies or does not deny Providence, it very certainly denies Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures (as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII) as well as Patristic-Sense-Only Exegesis (as defined by Trent). Church Fathers differed on details (most notably on whether earth was round or flat or they refused to decide, on whether carnivore kinds were created carnivores or vegetarians, on whether creation of six days was six days (nearly all Fathers) or one moment (St Augustine in books Five-Six of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII). But they all differ in one single way from long age exegesis.

And they should.

SC

(3) No, as you correctly observed earlier, there is a difference between what God “had to do” and what He did do. Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both. It is all the ways in which God directs history to His purpose.

HGL (to 1 – 3)

It is one verse in Genesis 2, or maybe two or three, that made St Augustine believe that the six days were same day and hence same moment. No other canonised Church Fathers held that (Origen is not canonised). BOTH sides agree the universe was not much older than Adam. Genesis 2 is obviously a detailed account of things described more generally as day six.

“If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession”

Biologists are very certainly NOT an entire profession all agreeing on tree of life. Those who do have been through academia where pressure was that way. They are majority, but not all. And of the majority, much is lipservice due to intellectual terror from evolutionist establishment.

“the interrelationship between all life is certainly not ‘nonsense’ from a biological perspective.”

If by interrelationship you DO mean tree of life, it is at best a non-proven. One could argue even contradicted item.

If by interrelationship of all life you do NOT mean common ancestry, then “tree of life” and “evolution” are very bad names for it.

“Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both.”

Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first. The second is what God took maximum six literal days to do, according to any Church Father, including St Augustine, and it is not called providence, it is called creation.

When St Augustine brings up the question whether light created on day one was literal – i e visible – or intelligible, he certainly did not exclude the visible light from being created or from being created first instant of day one. Whether or not one should accept any time for the “and the earth was empty and void” before day one.

Two boys quarrel “pa bought the house on an auction for 30 dollars before fixing it” – “no, it was only one dollar”. Will anyone say that their pa buying it for a million from a luxurious broker is within the frame of discrepancy between the boys? I would say they agree that being excluded.

EPISODE STARTING AFTER START OF SECOND SPLIT

AD

SC, Pius XII gave permission to study it, not believe in it.

Benedict XVI, though he’s the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful.

If you believe it, or just want to defend people’s supposed “rights” to believe it, then you’re going to have to settle that with your own conscience. It’s not Catholic. It’s opposed to the Fathers of the Church. It’s absurd. It’s a waste of time. It’s scientism.

SC

How very incredible you would make the Faith.

As I do not reject wholesale similar statements of the postconciliar Magisterium, my conscience is quite at ease.

HGL

AD,

“Benedict XVI, though he’s the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful.”

Is … as in his resignation was invalid?

But actually, not only no Pope has any way of making that stupidity binding, it is a real suspicion if the man was not a heretic while uttering those words, and if that was before election of 2005 (or if he made similar ones while apparently cardinal) he was never elected, since he had made himself ineligible.

AD

I’m not passing any judgement on any pope. All I know is that Benedict XVI was elected, and is still alive. Francis was also elected. My judgement is that we have 2 living popes.

Whether or not his resignation was valid will have to be determined by the Church at some point in the future. I don’t know enough about popes resigning to know if it can even legally be done.

HGL

WHO does [have that kind of knowledge]?

But a theological position like that one is heretical, and I know that a man holding it while otherwise elected Pope was disqualified by heresy – if that position was pertinacious.

So far he has not shown otherwise.

SECOND SPLIT

1 – 6 are now the diverse parts of each word between SC and me, and we are here splitting up the dialogue according to numeration. On 3 – 6 SC will be giving me the last word. On 1/2 I will at one point give a unitary answer, which will lead up to the end.

1)

SC

(1) And what exactly is “not much older?” How old must I believe the universe to be before I am in disagreement with the Fathers?

HGL

So old that retelling the story you believe in your own words to a modern scientific public would entail not chosing the words of Genesis and the Fathers.

SC

(1) Since we have been arguing *this whole time* whether the literal sense of the words contained in Genesis are compatible with a scientific understanding of the age of the earth and the descent of living creatures, my case is that, yes, certainly the literal sense of the words of Genesis is true.

2)

SC

(2) The Creationists are building an amusement park at great cost near my house, where they have already built a museum. They are not welcome everywhere, but they are welcome in certain places, and they have money. I certainly don’t see productive research coming from their model.

HGL

I do not see productive research coming from people engaged in dating dinosaur bones to 65 million years Before Present either. And those guys have LOTS of more money.

SC

(2) To quote Pope S. John Paul II,

“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

1 and 2)

HGL

Here is where we disagree, and I do not count the pseudo-canonised previously pseudo-pope Wojtyla as an authority.

Above

Will be answered by SC at the END.

3)

SC

(3)

“One could argue even contradicted?”

It is a model that proves explanatory and even predictive of both fossil and genetic data.

HGL

Except of course the genetic data they chose to disregard.

Like impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in new pairs of chromosomes, especially in mammals.

SC

It is very weak to rest a scientific case on a negative claim. One thing I do know, however, that they do not “ignore” this problem, but study it like everything else, which is why you can find it discussed in the scientific literature.

HGL

My claim is NOT negative. It is a claim about positive obstacles making chromosome fissions (outside evil genetic engineering) as giving rise to new pairs of chromosomes, biologically impossible in mammals.

So, this is a strong argument.

So strong, when I had argued it under PZ Myers’ blog post on subject, he deleted comments after a date that by a year or so preceded my first comment, i e he deleted all my comments.

Here, SC Discussed no further.

I on my part forgot to answer his claim that the problem is discussed in the scientific literature. It is, but VERY cautiously. IN Sweden we say “like a cat around hot porridge”.

Since he did not dispute my reclaim, I did not have a chance to link (in the thread, as I had intended, had he not avoided the issue) to my own contribution to the discussion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Which omission I have here before my readers corrected.

4)

SC

St. Thomas Aquinas appears to disagree with your notion of contingency in the Universe, in SCG 3a, 75.

HGL

S c G, III, 75 Chapter 75
THAT GOD’S PROVIDENCE APPLIES TO CONTINGENT SINGULARS

Which is what I said.

SC

Here is what you said, “Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first,” in response to my claim that Providence cannot *merely* mean God’s manual intervention into reality, but can also mean His good ordering of that reality, in knowledge, to direct things to their ends.

Here is what St. Thomas says:

“However, suppose someone says that God takes care of these singulars to the extent of preserving them in being, but not in regard to anything else; this is utterly impossible. In fact, all other events that occur in connection with singulars are related to their preservation or corruption. So, if God takes care of singulars as far as their preservation is concerned, He takes care of every contingent event connected with them.”

Also St. Thomas’ favorite example of the master arranging the meeting between two servants by sending them both to market at the same time. It appears a chance event to them, when in fact it was carefully planned from the beginning.

[I forgot to answer that one on thread, unless he added to the comment afterwards, but here St Thomas is not saying anything on careful providential plans from the beginning having to be subsumed in the general rules – on the contrary, a master sending both to a market would be manually working that providence outside the general rules of the household, if not against them.]

HGL

4) Your quote from St Thomas neither contradicts my position, nor any of my actual words.

My point is that ORDERING THINGS IN NECESSARY RELATIONS is what God did during the creation week, and those relations do not change.

PROVIDENCE is taking care of singulars. The passage you just cited means God is not only taking care of each singular with a view to itself, but also with a view to other singulars in view of necessary relations between such established … previous to the providence, under creation week.

5, context

[St Augustine on creation of intelligible light to exclusion or inclusion of visible light on day one]

SC

I’m not arguing for exclusion here, but inclusion.

HGL

Good, then ALL church Fathers agree God created visible light on day one. And therefore that He created it independently of the Sun.

How so? Even if to St Augustine, in the one-moment-exposition, the six days are not temporally consecutive, they are however ordered in an order of internal necessity. Meaning light necesarily comes before the sun, not the reverse.

SC

Which makes sense, given that more than the Sun in this Universe gives off light. My question was about literal days.

HGL

More than the sun gives off light? No, no, no, this is NOT what I meant.

I meant God created visible LIGHT before He created ANY light source, naturally such. Including, but NOT limited to the Sun.

A bit like bread being the natural cause of the accidents of bread, how it looks, etc. BUT in Holy Eucharist God upholds accidents of bread very much without this natural source of these accidents.

6)

SC

So, to (1) you apparently mean “less than a literal week.” Why would the first day be a space of 24 hours, when the Sun had not yet even been created?

HGL

Indeed, the Patristic Options are:

  • a) a Literal Week (all Church Fathers, incuding St Augustine in Book One of De Genesi) perhaps minus a few hours;
  • b) Less, i e a single moment (St Augustine in Books 5 – 6 of De Genesi ad Literam).

Your question was answered in Book one of the Genesi ad Literam, I think it was chapter ten. Heaven rotated before Sun rotated with it. God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun, and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along.

Actually, one could argue, all days prior to creation of Sun may have had the length of stellar days, that is the speed of rotation of the Universe. I e a few minutes less than 24 h.

SC

But, my question is not answered because that is not how day and night work.

HGL

“God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun”

That is indeed not how night and day work now.

“and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along.”

That is however how night and day work now, therefore your question is answered.

Yes, I am a Geocentric, both because this aspect of creation week warrants it AND because it takes care of Distant Starlight problem.

End of

Second split. SC answering some of above, and me replying will start the END.

EPISODE NEAR END OF SECOND SPLIT

SDKR @ friend

do you believe?

Friend

Yes.

SDKR

then why ask?

its like asking, do you believe in the blessed trinity?

of course i do. duh

Friend

Because a Catholic I know does not and I was wondering about my friends on here.

SDKR

is he or she in your fb account?

why wonder?

i know no catholic who doesnt agree with the catholic church’s teaching. solemn or ordinary. submission. we are the church taught.

if one considers himself or herself as catholic, SUBMIT!

[Editing remark: Sure, but some guys, I think SC is among them, submit to a pseudomagisterium – to acts that would not be sufficiently magisterial for that submission even if their doers were holders of magisterium.]

END

SC

We are not making any headway. We have discovered no common ground further in the course of this discussion than that with which we began. I think our principal disagreement is, as you pointed out (1) & (2).

Pius XII permitted discussion at least, and at latest John Paul II permitted belief. That cinches it for me. That will never cinch it for you.

[Editor: And therefore he thinks any discussion of what evidence is about chromosome numbers or what St Thomas said about providence is superfluous to him?]

HGL

Pius XII did not go further than permit discussion, and provisorical holding in discussions.

John Paul II did not only permit but recommend belief. That means there is an abyss separating their two doctrines.

AM

Hans-Georg Lundahl in software engineering terms, God created classes before he created instances of the classes (objects).

HGL

That would be what St Augustine was saying. And that the creating of classes took a single instant for God, but six or seven instants for angels looking on. St Thomas harmonises the views insofar as he says God THEN created the first (or with Sun/Moon and a few more: only) instances DURING A WEEK of really successive time. Thank you AM.

SC

Why permit discussion on a thing if it is impossible that it be true? One of the possible results of a discussion would in fact be the recommendation of belief in the thing that has been discussed. They exist in continuity with one another, particularly given the enormous space of decades between them.

HGL

Pius XII was stalking for time.

The one recommendation the Church COULD finally give was of the traditional doctrine.

The Church cannot define evolution to be true and revealed in Depositum Fidei any more than she can define Heliocentrism to be true and defined in Depositum Fidei.

SC

A Pontiff’s personal recommendation of scientific belief on scientific grounds and his authoritative judgment (which presumably accompanies it) that such belief is compatible with Christian doctrine are distinct.

HGL

Which PRESUMABLY accompanies it?

The problem is there was no EXPLICIT authoritative judgement that either Heliocentrism or Darwinism was compatible with Christian belief. Ever. And there might be a reason for that.

In my view, the reason is that such an authoritative statement would equal “infallible heresy” = a statement claming infallibility while being heretical as to content = a proof the one making it was not Pope while making it, and that means, acc. to most theologians WE consult, a proof he was never validly elected Pope, since a heretic and ineligible in the first place.

Meaning St Robert Bellarmine went through the theoretical worst case scenarios, and he concluded, among other things, that a man who was Catholic while elected Pope could never, while staying Pope, become a heretic.

So, if an apparently elected Pope not by slip of tongue but in the most solemn manner imaginable utters a heresy, he is proving he was never Pope.

Leo XIII, Benedict XV both AVOIDED doing that by explicitly endorsing Heliocentrism, so they only hinted indirectly Heliocentrism might just possibly be licit. So as to keep in their persons the faith, so as to keep their authority, so that persons on lower levels endorsing Heliocentrism in what they considered obedience to them would at least be subjectively obeying a real Pope. And Pius XII seems to have done sth like that about Darwinism. With JP-II, B-XVI, “Formula I” we are seeing a real break.

Even J-XXIII and P-VI where conducting a more quiet break, with acceptance of psychology.

SC

(1) Presumably may be used in many senses. Rephrased, “which it would make sense be given at the same time,” rather than, “which I presume to be understood in the first.”

(2) And what does an EXPLICIT authoritative judgment take? As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine. There are your theses, held privately, about the consensus patruum, but as I am aware, this has never been formally invoked to compel the beliefs of Catholics on a “six-day-or-less” Creation, as you would have it. There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory.

(3) The heliocentrism “problem,” if you’re going to be accurate, should be taken back past Leo XIII to Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works.

HGL

“As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine.”

Council of Trent explicitly condemns non-patristic exegesis of Genesis as well as any other parts of the Bible. You have shown no way around the Patristic explicit unity on an earth that is millennia old rather than millions or billions of years.

A bit more explicit than that: Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, had his book placed on the index.

“There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory.”

One of the non-negotiables is Adam’s soul created directly by God.

This means that if he corporeally descended from non-humans, his consciousness would have been radically different from that of his parents.

This would have made it impossible for him to honour the parent animaks of which he was a human offspring – unless he lost them before he became a human. And that again would imply death before sin.

Also, Pius XII is not alone in speaking of the first human couple. Our Lord did so too. Marc 10:6. Does NOT look pretty comparing timescales … if you take the evolutionary view.

“Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works.”

Benedict XIV permitted publication of works treating of heliocentrism as a hypothesis. NOT works treating it as real truth.

Hence the Settele case.

Father Anfossi was overridden. But – one thing Sungenis said and one thing I know myself about this affair – the then Pope had no access to the 1633 condemnations, he was even misled about their contents (thanks, Sungenis), AND the Pope did NOT explicitly state a Catholic was free to believe such printed works as that of Settele.

I studied THAT one more than a year ago:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html

So, Benedict XIV and Pius VII BOTH refused to make an explicit retraction of the 1633 ruling, and BOTH refused to make an explicit endorsement of the Copernican system as not at variance with faith. They only made lesser acts which could reasonably be presumed to imply Copernican theory was OK.

QUOTE:

In 1829 “when a statue to Copernicus was being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the church for the celebration of the mass as part of the ceremony, at the last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor of a man whose book was on the Index.” And in the same year, a Spanish bishop consulted the Roman Inquisition about whether the Copernican system could be retained, and instead of a definite answer he was sent the recent rulings stemming from the Settele episode.

FROM

Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
Par Maurice A. Finocchiaro [p. 198]

Settele had changed a phrase before getting a first imprimatur. He claimed to have in his book a proof that the earth moves. I am afraid it is not a proof receivable for a Thomistic metaphysician.

EPILOGUE

SC

Multum videtur mihi legendum, domne! Gratias pro explicationibus tuis perplenis tibi ago. Nec do, nec concedo, sed haudquaquam plus contribuere possim nisi plus et legem.

Tuas paginas interretales maximo studio adspiciebam.

HGL

Bene est, aspice et hanc paginam:

[Hanc ipsissimam, in quam uinculum dare superfluum uidetur.]*

SC

Mirabile visu! Tot dialogos quasi Neoplatonicos! Quisnam autem sum? Sumne Timaeus?

HGL

Es “SC”.

* Actually original for this one:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/07/literal-truth-of-genesis-chapters-1-and.html

Cached under adress : http://www.webcitation.org/6YzLrpfCd

What kind of editing I did … and what kind of copy-pasting

Usually one or other message gave room for ramifications in answer, like “angryatheist” (fictitious example) saying:

The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy, biology/evolution and language history.

I would tend to answer:

The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy …

If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

… biology/evolution …

I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.

… and language history.

I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.

Then the other guy would answer:

If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.

I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.

Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?

I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.

Qué?

After which I would get back like:

If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.

No thanks, but maybe you should, Shakespear said “he who is giddy thinks the world turns around”.

I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.

Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?

Who says these 60 million years are the true age of T. Rex et al.?

I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.

Qué?

The argument (already made twice or three times by dhux) usually goes: the tower of Babel is a myth explaining the difference of languages, but now we have another explanation as the one true namely slow language change, a k a linguistic evolution. My answer is that one miraculous language change, engendering heaps of new languages, does not stop these languages from further change later on, which is what linguists have observed later on.

I have then copy-pasted (Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V):

  • a) my opponents’ arguments, also giving them credit for them as in fictitious example “angryatheist” here (if there is a real user name “angryatheist” out there who argues more intelligently, I apologise)
  • b) my own answers to them, where the idea may or may not be my own in the sense of original discovery (usually not) but where the format is about the debate, not where I got my arguments from. Anytime I have been questioned on it, I have referred to my authorities, just as faithfully as for instance dhux has referred to Ayn Rand or Albert Einstein or … – and I have not used anothers actual words without saying as much,
  • c) entire posts, from message boards to Antimodernism (where I did the kind of reediting for economy as examplified below) and from there to this blog.

I have NOT copy-pasted articles someone else wrote and called them my own.

The way this would eventually look here is:

Dialogue:

angryatheist

The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy …

HGL

If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

angryatheist

Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.

HGL

No thanks, but maybe you should, Shakespear said “he who is giddy thinks the world turns around”.

angryatheist

[The Bible is proven wrong by science, like] … biology/evolution …

HGL

I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.

angryatheist

Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?

HGL

Who says these 60 million years are the true age of T. Rex et al.?

angryatheist

[The Bible is proven wrong by science, like] … and language history.

HGL

I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.

angryatheist

Qué?

HGL

The argument (already made twice or three times by dhux) usually goes: the tower of Babel is a myth explaining the difference of languages, but now we have another explanation as the one true namely slow language change, a k a linguistic evolution. My answer is that one miraculous language change, engendering heaps of new languages, does not stop these languages from further change later on, which is what linguists have observed later on.

End of Dialogue.

Now, get back to the real examples, where I have argued against real opponents on message boards, that means the other messages on this blog./HGL

[The Assorted Retorts Blog]

I am deteriorating!

In my old good days I would not have retorted: “but maybe you should” (consider a shrink) since I do not approve of shrinks. Not even for my opponents or enemies.

Someone who really appreciated this method of reedition of a debate was SC here:

HGL’s F.B. writings : Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect

SUCCESSFULLY CACHED

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-kind-of-editing-i-did-and-what.html

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

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

As to blogposts that are my own copyright, there are conditions laid out for them on A little note on further use conditions but in some blogposts the copyright might be shared.

For instance, in Chronicle of Susan Pevensie, I share it – insofar as I do anything original with them that I can have credit for – with inheritors of Clive Staples Lewis, for the concept of Narnia and of Aslan and Tash, and for the person Susan Pevensie and what appears of other persons involved in the Narniad, also with inheritor of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien for at least Audoin Errol, his childhood in Cornwall, his time voyage (The Lost Road), also with inheritors of Enid Blyton,also marginally with inheritors of Hannah and Barbera for Velma and her parents, whereas Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s Father Brown the copyright has expired and is no longer with his inheritors. The novel I am trying to write (and have not yet fully written, there are still lots of chapters missing) is fan fiction. As such it is primarily entertainment on the internet with a kind of publicity for the original authors. Nevertheless I hope that when it is finished, these inheritors will give their consent to commercial reproduction on paper, as I have already for my part in it given mine in conditions stated above.

There is quite another category of shared copyright issues. It concerns comments made by others, where I have debated them on diverse message boards or youtube or facebook.

In those cases, one can have doubts on my right to reproduce even on my blog without asking them. I normally nowadays do ask them implicitly by publishing the link to the blogpost involving their comments under these, so they can protest. Usually they do not. As to the fact of publishing what they are saying, as in what arguments diverse sides in diverse debates are actually using, I think it is a fair scoop for me. But as to the fact of getting money by republishing these things, I would like to have any editor doing so contact them insofar as possible and give them a fair share of the voluntary royalties, insofar as any. Or, if someone decides to republish such a debate without sending me royalties (which is possible according to conditions above) to also consult the codebators and ask for their permission. But if they want to say things like « you cannot publish that, I do not want this to be published » I think they are morally and juridically wrong, as some of them are public persons in their own right (like the Christian French politician Axel de Boer), some represent a public institution, some have chosen to be public by making their comments accessible (even sometimes under their own names) on publically accessible fora or in the comments under youtubes, some have anonymised themselves and can generally be presumed not to suffer much under real names by the fact of using pseudonyms (which I have reproduced), again others, such as private persons on FB have been anonymised by me, usually by me citing only initials, sometimes by me citing a first name or a nickname (as in the case of Drake and Pat or Grima Wormtongue – named for taking an attitude to me like to the one taken by that character to King Theoden). If they want part of royalties, I and other friends will try to identify them to the editors, so that they can do so, and if they do not want the anonymity offered by me, the initials can be exchanged for full names on their request (as with Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp, A Secular Carmelite).

Such are the modifications which generally speaking occur to my conditions due to the copyright of someone else being relevant, otherwise my conditions stand as given above in the link.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Saint Angela Merici and
Translation of Saint John Chrysostom
27-I-2014

PS, in the case where I extensively cite or reproduce wikipedia articles to which I have contributed, this is not an issue, since wikipedia is open source. I am not denying them any credit, since I openly state it. As for articles I started myself but which were deleted, the copyright can be considered as having been returned to me.

 

SUCCESSFULLY CACHED

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html

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

… on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : … on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology, 2) Creation vs. Evolution : The Abiogenesis Problem, 3) Provisional Caveat to Previous

Video commented on, see below

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:14 positive claims require positive evidence.

Our eyes and inner ears (forgot what you call those curved tubes in three dimensions of curving) give us positive evidence, as far as not proven wrong, that earth is still and sun, moon, stars go around us each day, east to west, and that sun lags behind the stars a little each day, adding up to full circle west to east once a year, moon gets full circle west to east compared to stars once a month (lunar month and solar year, obviously).

Lucretius, who was an atheist did not deny this. But he was very inattentive as to mechanism behind these phenomena. When Ptolemy inquired further into the regularities, it was very obvious to everyone that although Aristotle was wrong on particulars, his proof there was a God pushing the univere around us east to west (or commanding stars to go east to west in a very perfect formation, if you go by Abraham’s observation as given in Josephus) was right and Lucretius wrong.

Have you since then any positive evidence for positive claims like:

  • Heliocentrism
  • Big Bang
  • getting from just after BB to formation of galaxies and solar system and planets around stars, especially around Sun
  • abiogenesis
  • microbes to man (or to dog or to cat) evolution?
Niels Steigenga

  • Heliocentrism, (meaning the earth goes around the sun), of course.
  • Big bang, yes.
  • getting galaxies, stars and planets, Yes.
  • abiogenesis, it has been proven to be possible.
  • microbes to man evolution, Yes.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Since you are called Niels, I suppose you are Scandinavian or of Scandinavian origin. In Scandinavia these days, Evolutionist ideology is taught in all schools and very exclusively so where I was.

I was not asking whether Evolutionists believe that this has been proven, but what their proof is if they care to share it. I would be delighted to tear it to pieces.

You stated one thing to the point, you claimed abiogenesis had been proven possible.

What has been proven in laboratories is not a full possibility of abiogenesis, but a possibility of an initial part – which in itself is insufficient. It has also been proven the result of this does not last for billions of years while nature experiments on how to continue to the next step, on the contrary the substances produced dissolve very quickly.



Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I’m from the Netherlands (I don’t take offense to that) and evolution is not an ideology. It’s a study of the biodiversity of life. Cosmology and abiogenesis are separate from evolution, though evolution and abiogenesis are loosely linked by the fact that they tackle the issue of life. About abiogenesis BTW…

ABIOTIC SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

The Miller-Urey-tye experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules (like amino acids) is possible under various assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere. There are also various other ways to get the basic organic compounds with different atmospheres , which also has been demonstrated in laboratory conditions mimicking those atmospheres. In addition to that, simulated volcanic eruptions experiments also show results of abiotic synthesis of simple organic molecules, even more molecules were produced in the volcanic than the simulated atmosphere experiments.

ABIOTIC SYNTHESIS OF MACROMOLECULES

The presence of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nitrogenous bases, is not sufficient for the emergence of life as we know it (,to be fair). Every cell has a vast assortment of macromolecules, including enzymes and other proteins and the nucleic acids that are essential for self-replication. Could such macromolecules have formed on early Earth? A 2009 study demonstrated that on key step, the abiotic synthesis of RNA monomers, can occur spontaneously (I hate to use that word and quote mining alert!) from simple precursor molecules. In addition, by dripping solution of amino acids or RNA nucleotides onto hot sand, clay, or rock, researchers have produced polymers of these molecules. The polymers formed spontaneously (damn, that word again), without the help of enzymes or ribosomes. Unlike proteins, the amino acid polymers are a complex mix of linked and cross-linked amino acids. Nevertheless, it is possible that such polymers may have acted as weak catalysts for a variety of chemical reaction on early Earth.

PROTOCELLS

All organisms must be able to carry out reproduction and energy processing (metabolism). Life cannot persist without both of these functions (again, to be fair). DNA molecules carry genetic information, including the instructions needed to replicate themselves accurately during reproduction. But the replication of DNA requires elaborate enzymatic machinery, along with a copious supply of nucleotide building blocks that are provided by the cell’s metabolism. This suggest (if abiogenesis is possible) that self replicating molecules and metabolism-like source of the building blocks may have appeared together in early protocells. How did that happen? (You may ask why I’m giving my self such strong demands about this subject).

The necessary conditions may have been met in vesicles, fluid-filled compartments bounded by a membrane-like structure. Recent experiments show that abiotically produced vesicles can exhibit certain properties of life, including simple reproduction and metabolism, as well as the maintenance of an internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings. For example, vesicles can form spontaneously when simple lipids or other organic molecules are added to water. When this occurs, the hydrophobic molecules in the mixture organize into a bilayer similar to the lipid bilayer of a plasma membrane. Adding substances such as montmorillonite, a soft mineral clay produced by the weathering of volcanic ash, greatly increases the rate of vesicle self-assembly. This clay, which is thought to have been common on early, provides surfaces on which organic molecules become concentrated, increasing the likelihood that the molecules will react withe each other and form vesicles. Abiotically produced vesicles can “reproduce” on their own, and they can increase in size (“grow”) without dilution of their contents. Vesicles also can absorb montmorillonite particles, including those on which RNA and other organic molecules have become attached. Finally, experiments have shown that some vesicles have a selectively permeable bilayer and can perform metabolic reactions using an external source of reagents (another important prerequisite for life).

SELF REPLICATING RNA AND THE DAWN OF NATURAL SELECTION

The first genetic material was most likely RNA, not DNA. Thomas Cech, of the University of Colorado, and Sidney, of Yale University, found that RNA, which plays a central role in protein synthesis, can also carry out a number of enzyme-like catalytic functions. Cech called these RNA catalysts ribozymes. Some ribozymes can make complementary copies of short pieces of RNA, provided that they are supplied with nucleotide building blocks.

Natural selection on the molecular level (not yet evolution) has produced ribozymes capable of self-replication in the laboratory. How does this occur? Unlike double-stranded DNA, which takes the form of a uniform helix, single-stranded RNA molecules assume a variety of specific three-dimensional shapes mandated by their nucleotide sequences. In a particular environment, RNA molecules with certain base sequences are more stable and replicate faster and with fewer errors than other sequences. The RNA molecule whose sequence is best suited to the surrounding environment and has the greatest ability to replicate itself will leave the most descendant molecules (this is the dawn of evolution). Occasionally, a copying error (mutation) will result in a molecule that folds into a shape that is even more stable or more adept at self replication than the ancestral sequence (a type of evolution has occurred). Similar selection events may have occurred on early Earth. Thus, the molecular biology of today may have been preceded by an “RNA world,” (some viruses still carry RNA instead of DNA as genetic information) in which small RNA molecules that carried genetic information were able to replicate and to store information about the vesicles that carried them.

A vesicle with self-replicating, catalytic RNA would differ from its many neighbors that did not carry RNA or that carried RNA without such capabilities.If that vesicle could grow, split, and pass its RNA molecules to its daughters, the daughters would be protocells that had some of the properties of their parent. Although the first such protocells must have carried only limited amounts of genetic information, specifying only a few properties, their inherited characteristics could have been acted on by natural selection. (from this point on evolution by natural selection took over). The most successful of the early protocells would have increased in number because they could exploit their resources effectively and pass their abilities on to subsequent generations.

Once RNA sequences that carried genetic information appeared in protocells, many further changes would have been possible. For example, RNA could have provided the template on which DNA nucleotides were assembled. Double-stranded DNA is a more stable repository for genetic information than the more fragile single-stranded RNA. DNA also can be replicated more accurately. Accurate replication was advantageous as genomes grew larger through gene duplication and other processes and as more properties of the protocells became coded in genetic information. After DNA appeared, perhaps RNA molecules began to take on their present-day roles as regulators and intermediates in the translation of genes. The stage was now set for a blossoming of diverse life-forms as we see today.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
source: (global edition) Campell Biology ninth edition.

Autors: (All pesky evolutionist? No, serious scientists.)
Jane B. Reece (of Berkeley, California)
Lisa A Urry (Mills College, Oakland, California)
Michael L. Cain (Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine)
Steven A. Wasserman (University of California, San Diego)
Peter V. Minorsky (Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, New York)
Robert B. Jackson (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina)

(Argument from authority or appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authorities are reliable. Yes, Authorities are not enough and that’s is why they present evidence along with their claims.)

Have I delighted you?

Of course, you don’t have to except abiogenesis, evolution or anything that I believe to be true.

“You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts”

Unlike you, I’m fine with the fact that we have a disagreement on what we believe and probably will continue to have through our lives.

[Omitting his full quote of what he answered?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Cosmology and abiogenesis are separate from evolution.”

All parts of evolutionist ideology.

“The Miller-Urey-tye experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules (like amino acids) is possible under various assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere.”

Sure. Amino acids in a very basic form. Not with any selfreplication. Not with any cell wall building. Not with any proteine building. And so on.

What you forget to mention is that the conditions under which they form are such that they very soon disintegrate if the conditions continue.

Not any time to develop anything like the things that differentiate real biochemistry from abiotically formed amino acids.

“The presence of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nitrogenous bases, is not sufficient for the emergence of life as we know it (,to be fair).”

Thanks for that fairness.

“For example, vesicles can form spontaneously when simple lipids or other organic molecules are added to water.”

In other words when fats are added to water. Or proteines.

Now, fats and proteines, as we know them are produced biologically. In other words these organic molecules would not have existed.

Besides, seeking origin of life, to be fair, in fat vesicles, I am sorry, but I really do not think so.

[Wrong step of me, the vesicles that are our cell walls are of fat.]

“Some ribozymes can make complementary copies of short pieces of RNA, provided that they are supplied with nucleotide building blocks. Natural selection on the molecular level (not yet evolution) has produced ribozymes capable of self-replication in the laboratory.”

But in the lab you have glass around them, and in the correspondence you would, as I just explained, not have vesicles to protect them.



Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Cosmology and abiogenesis are separate from evolution.”

All parts of evolutionist ideology.

No, Cosmology is a study of the universe, abiogenesis is about the origin of life, evolution is about the diversity of life. These are all different aspects of science. And you still haven’t justified the assertion that evolution is an ideology.

“The Miller-Urey-tye experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules (like amino acids) is possible under various assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere.”

“Sure. Amino acids in a very basic form. Not with any selfreplication. Not with any cell wall building. Not with any proteine building. And so on.”

I Stated that later in my argument.

“What you forget to mention is that the conditions under which they form are such that they very soon disintegrate if the conditions continue.”

You asked for possibility, so you now you say “if the conditions continue, it’s not possible” which implies that if the conditions does not continue, it is possible. Besides, the experiments of one atmosphere simulation goes like this: In the atmosphere there are ammonia, methane and numerous other gasses, apply electricity to simulate lightning, you get amino acids. Lightning is one of the conditions for the formation of amino acids. Does lightning last forever or not? If not, than the conditions does not continue and the amino acids do not disintegrate.

Not any time to develop anything like the things that differentiate real biochemistry from abiotically formed amino acids.

Again, I stated that later in my respond. Damn, do you even read the whole argument before you respond?

“The presence of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nitrogenous bases, is not sufficient for the emergence of life as we know it (,to be fair).”

“Thanks for that fairness.”

Thanks, but no thanks.

This piece of my argument includes your previous comments about “not any time to develop real biochemistry, so why didn’t you remove those?

“For example, vesicles can form spontaneously when simple lipids or other organic molecules are added to water.”

“In other words when fats are added to water. Or proteines.”

“Now, fats and proteines, as we know them are produced biologically. In other words these organic molecules would not have existed.

Besides, seeking origin of life, to be fair, in fat vesicles, I am sorry, but I really do not think so.”

fats and proteines, as we know them are produced biologically, sounds like the argument from ignorance fallacy. “As far as we know, these compounds don’t form without life, therefor it’s impossible for them to form without life.

You do relise that proteins are made of amino acids and amino acids do polymerize under heat and on montmorillonite. Also lab experiments have shown that lipids and fatty acids form on mineral rock surfaces as catalyzer.

One of your points “Besides, seeking origin of life, to be fair, in fat vesicles, I am sorry, but I really do not think so.” Is like saying “I don’t like the answer, therefor it’s not true. When you want to respond again, don’t give me such childish fallacies, use better arguments than that.

[Was actually wrong on this one.]

“Some ribozymes can make complementary copies of short pieces of RNA, provided that they are supplied with nucleotide building blocks. Natural selection on the molecular level (not yet evolution) has produced ribozymes capable of self-replication in the laboratory.”

“But in the lab you have glass around them, and in the correspondence you would, as I just explained, not have vesicles to protect them.”

Fatty acids do form a vesicle abiotically, I know you don’t like fat vesicles, but the membranes of our cells are in fact made of fat and acts as a vesicle. In the lab when we put RNA, Ribozymes, Proteins (it has been demonstrated that these polymers can form abiologically) next to one of these disliked fat vesicles, they can automatically enter the vesicle and are protected by the vesicle.

I also edited a new section in my previous reply after you replied before I could read this.

please, don’t use ” I don’t like the answer, therefor it’s not true”

C’mon. If you want to respond, give me something better.

and read the whole response before you respond. It’s quite annoying.

[As admitted, I was wrong on fat vesicles as far as when it comes to denying these are involved in our biology.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I might be out of my depth, but I do not have confidence in your answer, for reasons stated.

[Except of course the part about “fat vesicles, don’t think so”]

For right now, I am not looking it up, in greater detail, but it seems to me you want very many conditions to form in very short time.

Are the conditions in which amino acids polymerise such as can be expected just after amino acids forming by the conditions mentioned?

“You asked for possibility, so you now you say “if the conditions continue, it’s not possible” which implies that if the conditions does not continue, it is possible. Besides, the experiments of one atmosphere simulation goes like this: In the atmosphere there are ammonia, methane and numerous other gasses, apply electricity to simulate lightning, you get amino acids. Lightning is one of the conditions for the formation of amino acids. Does lightning last forever or not? If not, than the conditions does not continue and the amino acids do not disintegrate.”

They disintegrate at next lightning, if it is anything near as often as would be required to have a lot of amino acids forming in the first place. If lightnings were as rare as now, amino acids must have formed rarely and so much space between them that they would hardly add up to a cumulative condition for abiogenesis. Besides, lightning is not the only disintegrating factor, ammoniak is another one, and so are a few more of the substances you mentioned as building blocks.

Are these the conditions in which amino acids polymerise also? I should think not.

In other words, for amino acids to survive conditions, they would need vesicles, for vesicles to form from proteine, they would need to have polymerised. And therefore to have survived.

What exactly did you say about lipids and rocks? Any link?

[He gave no link about that, I have not been able to check whether one of the resources he gave earlier contains information thereon.]

Stieg

– “Cosmology and abiogenesis are separate from evolution.”

Me, HGL

– “All parts of evolutionist ideology.”

Stieg

– “No, Cosmology is a study of the universe, abiogenesis is about the origin of life, evolution is about the diversity of life. These are all different aspects of science. And you still haven’t justified the assertion that evolution is an ideology.”

Me, HGL

– “I am in the process of doing so when it comes to abiogenesis. I cannot prove it on every level at once and in one breath.”

Now, this idea is not just three separate ideas, but three moments in a whole set of them, involving other ideas about what kinds of explanations are acceptable and perhaps more importantly inacceptable.

This is in contrast with Christian ideas about origin of universe, of biological life as such, of diversity between its observed forms.

Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
(Now, this idea is not just three separate ideas, but three moments in a whole set of them, involving other ideas about what kinds of explanaions are acceptable and perhaps more importantly inacceptable.)

Yes, they are three moments in a whole set, but these moments are being investigated by studies independent from each other. Just as Quantum mechanics and Cosmology. They are more or less about the same subject, which is the nature of the universe, but they are studied separate from each other. Just like:

Cosmology: Universe and the origin of it.

Two aspects of biology:
Abiogenesis: The origin of life
Evolution: The process of all the biodiversity we have today.

(This is in contrast with Christian ideas about origin of universe, of biological life as such, of diversity between its observed forms.)

The questions are origin related and christianity has some ideas about them, but that doesn’t mean that they are one and the same in science.

I also want to ask a question, if I may: (a clear this or that question)

Can you be convinced of something, that goes against the word of God or the bible, to be true by the evidence?

Or, do you believe that evidence for something, that goes against the word of God or the bible, is by default not evidence and cannot be evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have in decades of apologetics never been confronted with any case where the evidence after investigation has gone straight against either what the Catechism or what the Bible or what Thomistic Philosophy teaches me about God. Ever. And I have been doing it since my teens, my Catholic conversion is a byproduct after learning from atheist adversaries that it is illogical to distrust Catholicism while trusting the Bible. At the very least, the consensus of Catholics, Orthodox, Copts and Nestorians against Protestantism in matters like number of Sacraments or value of Monasticism must be as important as the one Protestants accept, i e the Bible as God’s word. And the canon Protestants reject (an Old Testament with more canonical books than Masoretic Tenakh) is as much covered by that consensus as the canon they accept (no difference about number of New Testament books).

Can you be convinced by any evidence for God?

Niels, once again, protein vesicles can be ruled out as initial component of abiogenesis, since presupposing life to produce the proteins. Now as to lipid vesicles, which in the following list of lipids (wiki) could have been around before the primitive amino acids synthesised from methane, ammoniak etc, with lightnings? And which of them would have kept for long in an environment full of ammoniak? Here is the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipids

Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you be convinced by any evidence FOR God?

By the evidence, yes!

But I haven’t got a clear yes or no answer from you.

Can you be convinced of something to be true that goes against the word of God or the bible, by evidence?

Yes or No?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is as far as I can see a question without content.

Could I be convinced about a point by the presence of pink unicorns all through reality?

There is no point to the question, because reality is not strewn with pink unicorns all over the place, neither with evidence against God or the Bible.

As I am not now in a position to access the book you gave as reference, can you give any link about rocks acting as catalysts so that lipids form?

Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please, It is important for me that you give an Honest answer, not “Oh, I know already there is no evidence for God, therefore God exist” Which is an argument from ignorance.

Are you able to be convinced of something to be true, that goes against what you believe to be the word of the God or the word of the bible, by evidence?

I really want to get a Yes or No answer from you, (like I have given you with your “Can you be convinced that God exist by the evidence” question) Before we move on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have already stated the question is superfluous.

I might add an admission (already there in the blogged republishing of our debate) that I was wrong on fats. They are cell walls.

Besides you have misstated my case. It is not and has never been “Oh, I know already there is no evidence for God, therefore God exist”. But rather the following:

I have ten thousand items of evidence (often identical repeated many times over) since I started apologetics in my teens (I am fortyfive), and not one against. Very few against the Bible and none held water. It was the Bible that did it.

You can get on if you like or you can withdraw, you have a reason for it since you have a sequence problem in your scenario.

Simple amino acids formed in an atmosphere of ammoniak, sulphuric acid, carbon dioxide and all that, during lightnings. Before next lightning (or simply the unfriendly environment) could dissolve these unprotected simple amino acids they escaped into vesicles … of what?

Fats are synthesised by living creatures, and in the hypothesis we are talking of a time before these were around and able to synthesise fats. So, where did the fat come from? You mentioned rocks acting as catalysts and fats forming on them (or something), have you a link to a credible ONLINE source for that? Would that have been in the same atmosphere as described as origin of the first simple amino acids or an earlier one? Would the fats have survived the exposure to the new atmosphere with sulphuric acid and all that?

Or do you propose another sequence of events, that I forgot to reckon with?

The immense catch 22 problem with abiogenesis means life is clearly not reducible to being a product of matter and it is one pretty good (though perhaps not unequivocal as against animism) reason to believe there is a God who created life. Note: one among many others.

You said you could be convinced by evidence for God, can you be convinced by this one?

Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You asked me also a superfluous question “can you be convinced of God” to which I said yes.

Can you please, give me an yes or no to my question.

I’m not asking you what the evidence, you have already seen, points too.

I’m asking if you are able to be convinced, through evidence, of something to be true, that goes against what you believe to be the word of God or the Bible?

It’s either yes or no.

If your not going to answer it honestly, I’m not going to answer any more questions from you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would have been a superfluous question if you could honestly have said you have found ten thousand items of evidence against God or of God not existing. I do not think you have.

The short answer is no, I cannot.

The somewhat longer answer is, no, I cannot, because in fact there is no such evidence.

Oh, if you reformulate it as “that goes against what you believe to be the word of God or the Bible?” – then the answer is yes.

I have been conviced for and against and again possibly for Papacy being Biblical. By precisely argument. Evidence.

Niels Steigenga

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would like to admit that there are still unresolved questions about abiogenesis in science.

I woud also like to state that even if abiogenesis is absolutely wrong, that doesn’t mean God wins by default.

This is a website were you can find more information about abiogenesis and the claims by creationists about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Niels Steigenga , het is met plezier dat ik dit hoor!

You admit there are still unresolved question!

Good. I will take a look at talkorigins, but I am not holding my breath either for them to have solved my specific one or even to be totally fair to the creationists. They did take that trouble to find out the claims, that is something.

In return I will give you another one from talkorigins, a specific post:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

[You may after clicking have to remove a few extra-letters that appeared through a bug.]

SUCCESSFULLY CACHED

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-abiogenesis-and-evolutionist-ideology.html

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

video commented on:

AronRa : The Evolution of Morality (1-5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUxmJR9a5Y

The Abiogenesis Problem

I recently said that abiogenesis is part of the same ideology as the one which says life evolved from simple cells to very complex organisms, like us or other mammals or like birds and fish and reptiles and the rest and which also says that earth “evolved” from part of the gas cloud that “evolved” into the sun. As well as is orbitting around it each year and rotating around itself each day. As well as that the gas cloud behind the solar system came from Big Bang.

How does abiogenesis tie together with Evolution properly speaking and Evolutionist theory of how Earth came to be?

You can imagine biological life had always been there, but in that case it would be more natural to assume it had always been there in roughly the same kind of complexity as we see now. To imagine it had always – very literally always without any beginning at all – been there in the form of very simple cells but somehow started to develop to life as we know it only some billions of years ago is frankly not very credible.

So, Evolution theory has hardly any case without Abiogenesis being at least possible. At the best life could be going in circles and the start of manycelled life in Cambrian explosion or before would only have been the start of a new cycle.

And if you believe the cosmogony and cosmology of Big Bang, then you cannot have anything like eternal life as it is, nor even life going eternally in cycles. So, to this set of ideas, which do form a whole, abiogenesis is somewhat crucial.

This can be formulated as “Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.” This is listed as Creationist “Claim CB090“* in the Talkorigins list of refuted creationist claims. It gives for this particular formulation the source: Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals.*

I might have formulated it otherwise than Mastropaolo, like:

  • Evolution from a single cell presupposes a single cell did arise from non-living matter, and if that is impossible, evolution scenario cannot possibly be true.
  • And adding

  • Earth arising purely naturally from Big Bang (via gas clouds forming solar system etc) presupposes that life later arose from non-living matter, and if that is impossible, Earth cannot have arisen after non-being without a creator before that either.

However, the Talkorigins site gives us Mastropaolo’s formulation and pretends to refute it like this:

  • 1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
  • 2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

To which I answer:

  • 1. Umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology allowing for rain to exist. The theory need not be conscious, but a conscious theory that says “rain does not exist” or from which good logic could conclude “rain does not exist” is incompatible with umbrellas. The problem in the quip is that rain is observed and working umbrellas are observed, abiogenesis is not oberved and evolution from one celled mature organisms to life on a visible level is not observed “while it happens”.
  • 2. Abiogenesis does not usually refer to life arising through a creator creating it, but in any context outside this quip it refers to life arising from exclusively non-living matter without any conscious intervention behind itself. And that is not a fact. Evolutionists do not have that. They may think they can prove that indirectly through the subsequent story being true (but I have shown elsewhere on this blog they not only cannot prove that but the opposite can be proven. Or they may think they can prove that from modern cosmological theories of how earth arose, but they cannot prove those either. They have, as far as I am concerned not even proven Heliocentrism is either a fact or likely to work without divine intervention.

This leads to their claims that abiogenesis functions and to the claims on our side it doesn’t.

Complex organic molecules, such as the bases in RNA, are very fragile and unstable, except at low temperatures. They would not hold together long enough to serve as the first self-replicating proto-life.

Here I totally second the formulation given by Talkorigins (in Claim CB030) and extracted from Jerry Bergman and Harun Yahya.**

I will now give the four replies** with my replies to them:

I

Talkorigins

The source Bergman cites for the fragility of RNA bases (Levy and Miller 1998) disputes abiogenesis only at high temperatures, around 100 degrees Celsius. They also conclude, “At 0 degrees C, A, U, G, and T appear to be sufficiently stable (t1/2 greater than or equal to 106 yr) to be involved in a low-temperature origin of life.” They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 degrees Celsius (half life of 17,000 years) that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of a ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine is plausible (Reader and Joyce 2002).

HGL

But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?

II

Talkorigins (a)

If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalyzed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases (Saladino et al. 2001; Saladino et al. 2003).

HGL

But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?

Talkorigins (b)

RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses) to chew it up.

HGL

We concede that RNA would not have degraded quickly because of these enzymes in a pre-biotic scenario. But what about the chemicals like ammonia and similar that would have destroyed them?

Talkorigins (c)

Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible.

HGL

We reply that they are so fragile and that life is possible by creation only, or (disconsidering other factors) in a steady state universe, but not by abiogenesis plus evolution.

Talkorigins (d)

In fact, life exists even in boiling temperatures or at very high acidity.

HGL

But not exposing RNA directly to it without protection.

III

Talkorigins

Life need not have begun with highly stable molecules. Eigen and Schuster developed a notion of chemical hypercycles, in which many chemical components coexist; each component of the reaction leads to other components, which eventually reform the original one (Eigen and Schuster 1977). Chemicals involved in such a cycle need not persist longer than the duration of the hypercycle itself.

HGL

Their isolation from other chemicals which would have led elsewhere than to next part of cycle would however need to persist as long as any series of hypercycles lasts.

IV

Talkorigins

Organic molecules may have grown in association with stabilizing templates, such as clay templates (Ertem and Ferris 1996), or parts of the hypercycles mentioned above.

HGL

Clay templates would not have given sufficient complexity. Plus we still have the problem of how the organic molecules are protected while growing – if such a thing happened at all before life as an ongoing concern (in which the molecules are adequately protected in the cases they survive).

I heard one theory that such molecules were likely protected by vesicles of lipids or proteines. Proteine vesicles presuppose life has formed already, since proteines are synthesised in living organisms. Lipid vesicles give us that same problem, except my opponent claimed that it had been shown that lipids could form with rocks acting as catalysts. This I had not previously heard, and my immediate source gave no source for it. It was actually a few turns later in the dialogue that he gave the links to Talkorigins on Abiogenesis.

None of them adressed the problem of lipids for cell membranes, even in the form of very simple vesicles.

However, Don Batten on CMI does adress it:***

Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.

Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds).

The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.

Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube. However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions. …

In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do. The ideas were naïve in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life.

It irritates me that neither Niels Steigenga nor Don Batten have shown anything about a link as to under what conditions lipids form vesicles in test tubes. The little research I have been able to do on my own over wiki does not give any clue as to abiotic formation of lipids. So, since Don Batten links to a feedback article by J. Sarfati,° and since he links to a no longer existing article on NASA … well, finally it links to (reserving surprise for those curious enough to read the footnote).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Hilary
28-II-2014

* Claim CB090
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

It refers to:

Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199811/0040.html

** Claim CB030
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030.html

It refers to:

Bergman, Jerry. 2000. Why abiogenesis is impossible. Creation Research Society Quarterly 36(4)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html

Yahya, Harun. 2003. The secrets of DNA
http://www.harunyahya.com/dna03.php

*** CMI, Origin of life
An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis
by Don Batten
Published: 26 November 2013 (GMT+10)
First section after intro, Getting all the right ingredients, d. Lipids
http://creation.com/origin-of-life#lipids

Note 9 links to this reference:

Chadwick, A.V., Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005;
origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

° CMI Feedback archive → Feedback 2001 Self-made cells? Of course not!
http://creation.com/self-made-cells-of-course-not

Sarfati cites in note 1) “The original paper is Dworkin, J., Deamer, D., Sandford, S., and Allamandola, L., Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98(3):815–819, 30 January 2001; see online overview.” But the link under online overview is no longer functional. I also found it on the following page (also in note 2 by Sarfati):

News Release: 01-06AR NASA Scientists Find Clues That Life Began in Deep Space
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2001/01_06AR.html

Here is what happens with the nonfunctional link (present not just on CMI but also on previous by NASA! “Further information about this research is available at”):

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://web99.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/vesicle.html

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for web99.arc.nasa.gov

The dnsserver returned:

Name Error: The domain name does not exist.

This means that:

The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL.
Check if the address is correct.

Your cache administrator is webmaster.

The first substance mentioned on – as yet – functioning link by NASA is “Figure 1 and 2. Pyranene dye encapsulated in various sizes of vesicles made from a room temperature residue from the above described simulations.” But Pyranene may be a typo for also mentioned encapsulated pyranine. Which is used to make hair blonde, and which is irritating (Reizend, XI) … it is an organic compound, but if it were present in early atmosphere (no real knowledge as to how it forms) it would be likelier to destroy any budding proto-life than to be membranes for it. It is very clearly not a lipid.

Sarfati also linked to one other similarily non-existant page and to one which gave a 404 Error (“The page you’re looking for isn’t here”) on its site./HGL

SUCCESSFULLY CACHED

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2014/02/the-abiogenesis-problem.html

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

Geology Revisited

1) Geology Revisited, 2) Rats from Upper Palaeocene – Means What?

Read today’s artricle on CMI by Paula Weston and came across this statement divided into text and footnote of a fact box:

No-one has found fossils that show a sequence of change from a non–kangaroo-rat ancestor to the kangaroo rats. The only fossils found were clearly already kangaroo rats and these almost certainly formed after the Flood. Fossils exist in rocks designated as ‘Pliocene’, which mostly have the hallmarks of being post-Flood.

This has set me on a little chase on CMI’s treatment of the Pliocene. It was not totally fruitless.

Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic
by Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/late-cenozoic-flood-boundary

Jack L., United States, 9 May 2014

Personally I find it very puzzling why creation scientists would use evolutionary names like “Cenozoic” or “K/T boundary”. I have to convert these “ages” in my head from 65 million years ago to X thousand years ago, and I can’t.

Shaun Doyle responds

Most creationists continue to use those names at least for the sake of established convention. If we did not, it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation. Of course, when one labels a particular formation ‘Jurassic’ or ‘Pleistocene’ it will often raise questions like: do creationists think Jurassic rocks occurred during Noah’s Flood or after? Creationists are not united in how to answer such questions. There are a spectrum of views, ranging from seeing little correspondence between geologic column designations and rock record realities to those who see the geologic column reflecting a genuine relative chronology in the rocks. Mike Oard is somewhere near the middle of that spectrum (see The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions). This question is the subject of the book The Geologic Column, which provides a helpful overview of the spectrum of views among Flood geologists.

George J., Canada, 9 May 2014

I agree with Jack L’s sentiments.

In answer to Shaun’s question “do creationists think Jurassic rocks occurred during Noah’s Flood or after? “. I ask what is a Jurassic rock? Let’s face it, the Jurassic is a fairy land that has no basis in reality, but it can make for a good movie. Why buy into it? A creationist may say he is using it for convenience. Convenience to do what? Discuss with an evolutionist something that the evolutionist then perceives has enough scientific support that even creationists are forced to use such terms. After having used evolutionary terminology to discuss empirical evidence, it does little good for a creationist to then say I don’t agree with your model. That’s like someone saying this is 2014, and then saying there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a man called Jesus.

I do not agree that, “it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation. ” One would simply do it by referring to the “particular rock formation”. It’s what would be done anyway, by defining the specific location. If the evolutionist subsequently sticks it into some imaginary layer, that is his choice.

Using evolutionary terms for the layers concedes a point that needs not be in any evolution/creation debate. The title Shaun referred to, “The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions” brought to my mind the image of looking at a pot of spaghetti and trying to figure out which noodle was put in first. With worldwide tidal waves depositing, eroding, depositing, etc., should one really be surprised that the “geologic” column may sometimes appear like a pot of spaghetti?

My opinion? This article has two Christians debating when an event happened in an imaginary model.

Shaun Doyle responds

And there are some creationist researchers who agree with you. My point was primarily about communication with deep time geologists; they are hardly going to abandon a model with a 200-year pedigree ultimately built on principles first enunciated by the father of geology Nicolaus Steno, who was a biblical creationist, just because a biblical creationist rejects it wholesale. This becomes all the more pertinent when some biblical creationists accept the basic global validity of the geologic column as a relative chronology, as e.g. Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Marcus Ross, and Dr Andrew Snelling do. Besides, even if the fine gradations of the secular framework are imaginary, there may still be a more general order (e.g. Precambrian-Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic-Quaternary) that remains applicable nonetheless. In other words, one doesn’t have to affirm every fine gradation of the modern geologic column to assert to a general viability of the basic idea. Therefore, as long as the geologic column remains a popular convention, and especially while it has cogent adherents within the biblical creationist community, it makes sense to have discussions on the rock record with respect to the geologic column idea.

I happen to have

a view on this one as well. Readers not new to this blog will know it. I must however first state that it could have had a somewhat fairer treatment from CMI. On one article by Tas Walker I posted a series of comments, and Tas did not publish them, but he did email me and state that he would like to assemble them into one feedback article. He never – so far – came around to it. However, CMI has more or less if not promised at least held out hopes for different ideas getting treated. See here:

CMI is more than happy when creationists embark on research in an attempt to help the creationist cause. Our Journal of Creation seeks to act as a service to the creation community where new ideas can be aired and critiqued and even refined by fellow creation researchers.

Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model
by Michael J. Oard
Published: 7 April 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

Now, I am going to take a few strokes of the pen against Shaun Doyle here. Getting back to the earlier quoted dialogue, of course. And interspersing my comments.

Doyle

Most creationists continue to use those names at least for the sake of established convention. If we did not, it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation.

Lundahl

I have tried to communicate with geologists – or one named Brian Switek and another one named Darwin (both bloggers) – while using those conventions.

With the difference that I am not accepting they form a CHRONOLOGY, I think they simply form a MAP.

I have not got any very long answers.

[This has changed lately.]

Doyle

My point was primarily about communication with deep time geologists;

Lundahl

Oh, one should – insofar as these answer back.

Doyle

they are hardly going to abandon a model with a 200-year pedigree ultimately built on principles first enunciated by the father of geology Nicolaus Steno, who was a biblical creationist, just because a biblical creationist rejects it wholesale.

Lundahl

“Based ultimately” is a large word.

The chronological column of fossil bearing strata is nowhere found (not even in GC, as far as I know, except “on top”).

As far as fossil bearing strata are concerned, we have a two dimensional map wrapped around a globe, we do not have a dimension of depth, of one fossil bearing stratum physically above the other one.

Where there are fossil bearing strata (excepting GC) they may be above or below or between non-fossil bearing strata from other periods.

And if the fossil bearing stratum does contain Jurassic type fossils (insofar as they have already elsewhere been identified as such) it will be labelled Jurassic. And a non-fossil stratum below it might be labelled Triassic or Permian or Cambrian or whatever they like, that does not make such a place an attestation of the sequence Jurassic above Triassic or Jurassic above Permian or anything like that. It just means there was something below the Jurassic deposits.

And a non-fossil stratum above it might be called Cretaceous or Palaeocene, or Miocene or anything else that is supposed to come after Jurassic, but if it has no fossils it will not be attesting logically any kind of temporal sequence with Jurassic below Cretaceous or Palaeogene.

Considering that Permian and Miocene are also used for certain types of fossils make it grossly misleading to label non-fossil layers below the Jurassic land fauna layer as Permian or non-fossil layers above it as Miocene.

If a place with one fossil bearing layer were labelled in its successive significant levels: pre-Jurassic, Jurassic, post-Jurassic, if Jurassic was the type, and this was consistently done, if furthermore the difference between land and marine fossil layers were consistently observed, one would normally get vertical series like:

1) a) pre-Jurassic, b) land-Jurassic, c) post-Jurassic
2) a) pre-Permian, b) land-Permian, c) post-Permian
3) a) pre-Cambrian, b) sea-Cambrian (with Trilobites), c) sea-Cretaceous (with Sharks), d) post-Cretaceous.

Grand Canyon is obviously the most detailed version of a nearly only shell-fish based fossil site.

This could very often be reduced very directly to a series like:

4) a) pre-Flood, b) early Flood getting life buried, c) late Flood adding mud.

And this is also basically the real system of Nicolaus Steno.

Doyle

This becomes all the more pertinent when some biblical creationists accept the basic global validity of the geologic column as a relative chronology, as e.g. Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Marcus Ross, and Dr Andrew Snelling do.

Lundahl

My problem with them is they are squeezing a million of years chronology into a one year chronology.

They should by turning it from a chronology to a map.

Any site has marina fauna, whether Jurassic or Pliocene (like – for Pliocene – the whales in Austria), it was sea before the Flood.

Any site has land fauna, whether Permian or Triassic (as in different parts of Karoo), it was land before the Flood.

Doyle

Besides, even if the fine gradations of the secular framework are imaginary, there may still be a more general order (e.g. Precambrian-Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic-Quaternary) that remains applicable nonetheless.

Lundahl

In Grand Canyon, we have – except on the very top – a Precambrian to Palaeozoic heap of basically shellfish of diverse kinds. Including huge “Ammonites” or Buck-Horn Shells.

Its “fine gradations” are probably the basis for diverse gradations within Precambrian or Palaeozoic. Its real order is the obvious one of Marine Flood burial order: fish come above shellfish.

Is CMI very likely

to take this hint from me? Not while I remain Catholic and Geocentric, as far as our relations have been up to now.

On the Galileo affair, they are content to cite Schirrmacher – a Calvinist “Theologian”. I actually thought he was a Catholic, because his accusations about the motives of Catholic Church men were so gross (that they were punishing his attitude rather than his doctrine at the end of the game!) that the Catholics I have seen cite him, I did not think there was a Catholic alive able to cite such a thesis as Schirrmacher’s, if Schirrmacher had not been a Catholic.

And of course, my turning “parallax” from geometric indication of distance mapping to angelic choreography is akin to what I am doing here too. And as obviously as I am not changing the conventional angle for proxima Centauri to anything other than 0.76 arc seconds (though that might be only the angle as compared to other stars also moving, that would be one explanation for “negative parallax”) I have no interest in changing the labels given for formations by Palaeontologists. I am indeed rather thankful for them. They underline the fact that any given place can usually be described by one single period name – meaning, as already said, that there is one fossil bearing layer, thick or thin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St William of Vercelli
Father of the Hermits of the Mount Virgin
25/VI/2014

SUCCESSFULLY CACHED

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2014/06/geology-revisited.html

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