Where exactly do we know from that the man who had said the famous quote "not how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was Cardinal Baronius? Do we even know it?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately? · Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10 · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Where exactly do we know from that the man who had said the famous quote "not how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was Cardinal Baronius? Do we even know it?

In Dr. Robert Sungenis' answer as second mail in the first correspondence, I got the answer, but missed it. But in the last mail, when this is published, or the first mail of the third correspondence, I question the usefulness of the info as given. Footnotes in mails when sent are presented in the same slot as the mail, simply under it, footnotes on mails, when revising, are given separate slots.

[1] Galileo wrote it quite poetically in his native Italian to Madama Cristina di Lorena: “…ciò è l’intenzione dello Spirito Santo essere d’insegnarci come si vadia al cielo, e non come vadia il cielo” (“that is the intention of the Holy Spirit which is to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go”) and attributes it as coming from “Io qui direi quello che intesi da persona ecclesiastic constituita in eminentissimo grado” (“Here I refer to the understandings of an ecclesiastical person in a very eminent position”), who most suppose is Cardinal Cesare Baronio (Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, 1968, vol 5, p. 319, lines 25-28). Stillman Drake claims that “a marginal note by Galileo assigns this epigram to Cardinal Baronius” who “vistited Padua with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1598, and Galileo probably met him at that time” (Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 186).

First Correspondence with Dr. Robert Sungenis.

Me to Robert Sungenis

11/12/2024 at 12:05 PM

1598, where is that from?

Advocates of the heliocentric theory often make a glib reference to a certain Cardinal Baronius who in 1598 is said to have made the following summation of the supposed dichotomy between science and Scripture: “The Holy Spirit tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Baronius was a holy man, disciple of San Filippo Neri, prayed most of the night and slept only 4 hours.

WHO has tracked the statement, which Galileo gave anonymously in his letter to Cristina of Tuscany, to Baronius and that year?

I'd love to see Baronius exonerated from that charge!

When Galileo introduced the quote, he actually said, I quote from my quote on my* blog:

“It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go”

Wouldn't someone still alive in 1615 have been better described as "a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position"?

I tried to look up footnote 23 on Levi Pingleton's substack, but the footnotes weren't there, so ... who exactly tracked it to 1598? It was certainly a date when Baronius was still alive, but it was also a date before Galileo became involved in Heliocentrism, just as 1998 was before I myself became involved in Geocentrism.

And, by the way, I look up some titles by Tycho Brahe, could Baronius, if it was he, simply have said that Tycho's Geocentrism was as acceptable as Ptolemy's?

De nova et nullius ævi memoria prius visa Stella. Köpenhamn 1573
Utgivare Tycho Brahe: Diarium Astrologicum et Metheorologicum. (astrologisk och meteorologisk dagbok), Uranienborg 1596, sammanställt av Brahes elev Elias Olsen Morsing. (published by Brahe, compiled by Morsing, its a diary of observations)
De mundi aetheri recentioribus phaenomenis. Uranienborg 1588.
Epistolarum Astronomicarum Liber Primus. Uranienborg 1596 (this was his own example of a Renaissance genre, which as you know I'm reviving** on Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl) and 1596 was part 1 (I'm not sure there was a book 2)
Stellarum octavi orbis inerrantium accurata restitutio, Wandsbek 1598 (obviously on the fix stars, obvious both from "eighth sphere" and from "of non-errant stars" ...)

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?

** If you answer, I'll obviously include your letter ... don't worry, the blog as such is not monetised, and if you want royalties, that can be arranged if you make yourself a paper publisher and then you divide your own and my part of the royalties ...

• A little note on further use conditions
• Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

Robert Sungenis to me

11/16/2024 at 4:57 PM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

Hans, this is what I have in GWW, Vol. 3 on Baronius.

This is the famous statement often translated as: “The Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” In some colloquial versions “Holy Scripture” replaces “Holy Spirit.” The speech says that it has been “attributed” (original: “attribuita”) to Cardinal Baronius because no exact quote exists from Baronius’ writings.[1] It is not indicative of any magisterial decree or even an authoritative statement, but a mere cliché that may have been circulating in the pro-Galilean Accademia die Lincei circles during the seventeenth century controversy. It has no more weight than any other opinion being propagated at that time, and thus it is quite inappropriate in a 1992 papal address. Cardinal Poupard’s resorting to such specious statements perhaps shows the pressure he was under to provide some plausibility for his assault on the literal interpretation of Scripture.

More to the point, however, is that Baronius’ statement is false. No one in the whole history of Catholic Scripture study up to that point had ever uttered such a denial on the domain of either the Holy Spirit’s teaching or the content of Holy Writ. Baronius’ quip can easily be countered with one that Robert Bellarmine was sure to have thought: “The Holy Spirit tells us how the heavens go, as well as how to get to heaven.” Unfortunately, however, the papal speech has made exegetical delinquents of all those of the Church who lived prior to and in the time of Baronius’ cliché. If the Bible does not concern itself with “how the heavens go” then why did the Fathers of the Church, in unanimous consent, believe it to be so, and why did Cardinal Bellarmine and his fellow cardinals, with the popes afterwards who for decades sanctioned their verdicts against Galileo, ever dare say that, because it was spoken by the Holy Spirit, a motionless Earth and a moving sun were “a matter of faith”? As we noted in Chapters 14 and 15, celestial motion rotating around an immobile Earth permeates the divine record, from the Pentateuch to the Deuterocanonicals and everything between them.
_______________________________________________
[1] Galileo wrote it quite poetically in his native Italian to Madama Cristina di Lorena: “…ciò è l’intenzione dello Spirito Santo essere d’insegnarci come si vadia al cielo, e non come vadia il cielo” (“that is the intention of the Holy Spirit which is to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go”) and attributes it as coming from “Io qui direi quello che intesi da persona ecclesiastic constituita in eminentissimo grado” (“Here I refer to the understandings of an ecclesiastical person in a very eminent position”), who most suppose is Cardinal Cesare Baronio (Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, 1968, vol 5, p. 319, lines 25-28). Stillman Drake claims that “a marginal note by Galileo assigns this epigram to Cardinal Baronius” who “vistited Padua with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1598, and Galileo probably met him at that time” (Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 186).

Me to Robert Sungenis

11/16/2024 at 5:19 PM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

The problems are two:

1) Baronius was personal disciple of St. Filippo Neri, and personally a saintly man, if the attribution were genuine, this would actually be an argument for the sentiment;
2) But while you state "attributed to" you then go on to speak of "Baronius' statement." That's also why I asked about "1598, where is that from?" since it gave the impression of a specific year and therefore an identified quote.

Thank you very much for "because no exact quote exists from Baronius’ writings"!

I was beginning to be worried there. It is first of all Galileo's statement, and behind him that of an anonymised Church man.

I think that anonymised Church man only in the 19th C. became the saintly Baronius, also known for refuting the Magdeburg centuries in his annales, and my own guess would be that such an illustrious origin of the quote could come from the 19th C, around the time one was pushing Pope Pius VII to get Settele into print. As I recall you stating things on misinformations he was exposed to, that would not have been the only lie told to him, if this were the origin of the quote attribution to Baronius.

So, again, where* did you find the attribution to "1598"? What year is that source from?

Is it based on a guess when Baronius and Galileo could have met as being in the same city?

Hans Georg Lundahl

*

Already answered in previous, apparently.

Robert Sungenis to me

11/18/2024 at 8:19 PM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

The 1598 is from the historian, Stillman Drake.

Me to Robert Sungenis

11/19/2024 at 8:21 AM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

Thank you.

He died 11 years before I arrived in Santiago: Stillman Drake (December 24, 1910 – October 6, 1993)

So, he was obviously not an eyewitness. I think historians usually give references as to their source material, what* was his?

Hans Georg Lundahl

*

The marginal note, obviously. My bad.

Robert Sungenis to me

11/19/2024 at 7:48 PM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

He doesn't give a source. Only what I put in the footnote.

Me to Robert Sungenis

11/20/2024 at 12:18 AM

Re: 1598, where is that from?

OK, he doesn't give a source ... not even a footnote?

As for your own footnote, I read you over Pingleton's substack, where that was missing.*

*

And I had apparently missed the fact that his 11/16/2024 at 4:57 PM answer involved the actual book quote with the actual footnote. No wonder Robert Sungenis did not respond.

Second (so far one-sided) correspondence with Dr. Ellen Abrams:

Me to Dr. Ellen Abrams

11/19/2024 at 8:31 AM

You are successor of Stillman Drake, I presume? I heard a thing of a book of his

Robert Sungenis had cited him* for Cardinal Baronius in 1598 stating what Galileo cited in his 1615 letter to Cristina of Tuscany.

However, in the letter, Galileo said nothing of who had said it, except it was a Churchman who (in English academic translations) "has been highly promoted" ... to me it sounds as if the Churchman was still alive when Galileo wrote and Baronius wasn't in his earthly life.

I am aware that it's a longstanding tradition to identify that Churchman with Baronius, and Cardinal is a high promotion. For my own part, I think Galileo had spoken to another Cardinal, known to have been his friend, namely Barberini. The future Pope Urban VIII under whom he was judged. However, Baronius in 1598 sounds like a fairly specific occasion, known from the life of Baronius. What were Stillman Drake's primary sources for that reference ?

And, bonus question, was the context sth like if it was acceptable to be Tychonian instead of Ptolemaic?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* He did not state in what book by Stillman Drake, and I accessed his own text via Levi Pingleton's substack which doesn't have the footnotes.*

*

I was wrong.

Me to Dr. Ellen Abrams

11/20/2024 at 12:47 PM

Was Stillman Drake referring to 1598 as en entry in Annales ecclesiastici ?

Robert Sungenis had cited him for Cardinal Baronius in 1598 stating what Galileo cited in his 1615 letter to Cristina of Tuscany.

Because, Sungenis just told me that Stillman Drake's book wasn't offering a specific reference on where he got it from that it was Baronius. Or that it was 1598.

I obviously mean the sentence that Galileo presents as cited from an undisclosed high-ranking clergymen, "not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

Third correspondence with Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Ellen Abrams:

Me to Robert Sungenis and to Ellen Abrams

12/1/2024 at 11:07 AM

Re: 1598, where is that from? / Stillman Drake (To Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Ellen Abrams jointly)

Wait, sometimes my lack of sleep plays pranks on me. I missed this part, where you (Robert) quoted your footnote:

Stillman Drake claims that “a marginal note by Galileo assigns this epigram to Cardinal Baronius” who “vistited Padua with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1598, and Galileo probably met him at that time” (Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 186).

Missed this.

A marginal note by Galileo on what exemplar?

The one he sent Cristina? Sounds unlikely.

Or on a copy he kept for reference? How many years afterwards did he keep it, and could the attribution to Baronius have been to protect someone else, if his papers were searched?

Like Cardinal Barberini, the future Pope Urban VIII?

And if it actually was Baronius and Bellarmine together, could they have been discussing the Giordano Bruno case? Obviously, the man was (two years later) burned for mainly other things than astronomic aberrations, but they finally did land on a longer list of what he was required to abjure. Any way, at the time we don't see Galileo himself involved in Heliocentrism. So it is definitely not as if Galileo was likely to have asked them "is it OK to be Heliocentric" since that wasn't so far on his radar.

Hans Georg Lundahl

To be continued?

we'll see.

Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

Creation vs. Evolution: Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet? · What About Providentissimus Deus? · HGL's F.B. writings: Treason of the SSPX? I Think So. · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

As on the link, I have here, on request, changed the real name of Peter Rabbit to Peter Rabbit. I must give him, he has a good taste in pseudonyms:

Peter Rabbit - Saving Cottontail | Cartoons for Kids
Peter Rabbit | 22 April 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrcGuZxERU

Now, you decide if he's good at arguing or should stick to stealing dandelions from Mr. Shrew ...

Wed 4:25 PM

30.X

You sent

I recommend you to read this link on a computer, ideally copy it to a word document and write it out and read it calmly:

Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/10/treason-of-sspx-i-think-so.html

later Wed

Peter Rabbit

Is this your blog again

Honestly your main struggle is writing White and Strunk are helpful

http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf

From what I remember they don’t discuss how to write a well organized paper* though so you’ll have to go elsewhere for that

In general you should be making direct inferences and not making big jumps in your logic to tie in random cannons from trent. They may be relevant but you should be clearly explaining your logic. By bringing in trent xxiii you’re y

You’re implying whole discussions on secondary objects of the magisterium etc it’s better to bring up those discussions and express your opinion on how I’m violating the canon** afterwards

Trent xiii*

In my experience it’s only possible to have a productive conversation with a very precise and narrow focus

Thu 1:28 AM

31.X

You sent

well, that may be the exact same experience that makes you stylistically as challenged as the guys who'd need Luce as iconography ... Science is not the best school either for writing and reading skill or for debating skills.

later Thu

Peter Rabbit

Bruh

You haven’t studied analytic philosophy have you

Thu 12:42 PM

You sent

No, I've studied CLASSIC philosophy.

Formal Logic.

Socratic / Platonic Dialogues.

Scholasticism, mainly St. Thomas and the Syllabus Errorum of late 1276 or early 1277 (depending on whether you use the then current or now current New Year, it was 11.III ... and Laetare LD before Easter 1277).

I also know from modern historians of ideas pretty well what Nicolas Oresme considered about Heliocentrism (he finished off as bishop of Lisieux, by the way)

Correction, I did study some analytic philosophy after all, even if I try to forget it.

My philosophy teacher in High School was an admirer of Bertrand Russell, and he's anyway on the Swedish curriculum.

And to be complete, I'm also into eclectic Neo-Scholastics / Neo-Socratics like Tolkien and CSL.

Thu 4:03 PM

Peter Rabbit replied to you

Yeah analytic philosophy is very different from the continental stuff you studied. There’s much less emphasis on authors and history and much more on syllogisms and precise argument. There are certainly some analytic thomists who reject categorical logic but not all analytic thomists do. In particular I think you would like Feser who’s personally my favorite analytic thomist

If you’re willing to engage in that style of dialogue focused on syllogisms I can dialogue with you

Do you know symbolic logic at all

Thu 8:45 PM

You sent

"much more on syllogisms and precise argument."

Oh, Thomism certainly involves lots of syllogisms.

I know Venn diagrams.***

Now, if YOU had offered syllogisms, I'd have responded in kind, but you didn't.

For Venn diagrams, how about these for starters:

The circle of all occasions where sense perceptions SHOULD be reinterpreted is a smaller one inside the circle where sense perceptions purely theoretically COULD be so interpreted.

Thu 10:10 PM

Peter Rabbit

You seem to be describing something else

Euler Circles

Thu 10:39 PM

You sent

In Venn*** diagrams, two circles can :

coincide
include and be included
partially overlap
not even partially overlap

If Euler circles is another name for it, so what?

Now, here are two alternative syllogisms:

Atheist syllogism:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As God and angels don't exist) there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits.
Geocentrism is impossible.

He will place Geocentrism as in the smaller circle of things that SHOULD be reinterpreted (in this case as Heliocentrism).

Christian syllogism / truly agnostic syllogism.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As sense impressions should be taken prima facie if possible) Geocentrism is not impossible.
There is a will or are wills or both to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits. (Christianity calls them God and angels, by the way).

He will place Geocentrism in the larger circle that COULD be reinterpreted, but OUTSIDE the inner circle of those that should.

To prove the conditional or disjunctive major:

A movement pattern too complexely structured or too little based in masses cannot be taken as resulting purely from gravity and inertia.
But Tychonian orbits are too complexely structured and Geocentrism too little based in masses.
Therefore Tychonian orbits and Geocentrism cannot result purely from gravity and inertia.

Add further narrowing down and you will have:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism (and Tychonian orbits) is impossible.

Peter Rabbit

You never admit it when you are wrong do you

Venn diagrams are a subset of euler circles

1.XI.2024

All Saints

Fri 9:57 AM

You sent

Indeed.

How about my syllogism?

You know I told you "one man's modus ponens" etc "think of that" ...

And how about the Euler circle I gave?

Discussing in syllogisms does not boil down to discussing what a syllogism or premiss or presentation type of the logic is called. I can use a correct Celarent without calling it a Celarent, right?

You see, I'm 56. I was taught logic in a different school system from yours. You seem a lot younger than 56 and you seem bent on making me pay for the fact of not having used your school system and not having had Euler Circles in the book on Formal Logic I borrowed. I find that bad manners, how about returning to good ones? Answering my actual arguments?

Fri 9:22 PM

Peter Rabbit

I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism, but for the sake of argument lets just pretend it holds for now

so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary

I am interested to hear your argument concerning Providentissimus Deus in syllogistic form

Here's my interpretation

major: If scripture is inerrant then everything it says is true

minor scripture is inerrant therefore etc

From Augustine

If everything scripture says is true [and here is the disjunct] either science is false or scripture is speaking figuratively therefore etc

I'm mistaken that disjunct was from another author but the logic still stands

Fri 10:02 PM

Peter Rabbit

Leo's argument: Major: disjunct from previous arg minor: scripture is speaking figuratively, therefore not the case that science is false.

this is an exclusive or

Fri 10:34 PM

Peter Rabbit

I'm sure you'll want to be more precisely what leo says vs implications I'm making base on st leo but this is a good start

Prima Pars Q 70 art 1, ad tertiam "But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (I:67:4; I:68:3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament."°

2.XI.2024

All Souls

Sat 12:16 PM

You sent

"so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary"

But I don't need to.

Geocentrism is obvious, therefore no need to be demonstrated as necessary to be certain. You don't need to syllogise to prove grass is green. You'd need a VERY good syllogism to prove grass is not green.

If Geocentrism is at all possible, it is preferrable. It is possible everything (except growing and shrinking or cut up objects) stay the same size, and it is possible everything (including the added or subtracted parts) is every day twice the size it was yesterday, including the observer, and with constants adapting so squares and cubes don't marr the impression of constancy. As long as "everything is the same size" is possible, it is preferrable, because it is what we see. If Geocentrism is possible, it is also preferrable, because it is what we see.

INTERPRETATION OF LEO:

For any issue X, given a kind of appearance of conflict between Scripture and (by his time institutional) Science (or more generally well accepted philosophemes), it is EITHER true that the Scripture is true as taken, and if so the Science is falsely so called OR true that the Science of case X necessarily follows from experience by good logic, and if so the Scripture has been exposed to wrongful exegesis.

This is a major premiss. Disjunctive. He does not give a minor, since they would vary from X1, X2, to Xn, and therefore he does not in any general way decide between the modus ponens tollens or the modus tollens ponens.

He also does NOT decide which one is the correct one for Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.

out of condescension to popular ignorance

Bad translation. Do you know German? In German it would be "aus [condescension] an das ungebildete Volk" ... I've forgotten condescension, but Latin "rudis" means "ungebildet" and not "unwissend" ... while English colloquially uses "ignorant" for both, "rudis" or "ungebildet" would be better translated as "uneducated" or "unsubtle" ...

Why does this matter? Condescension to ignorance sounds like allowing people to not know what they do not know. Condescension to lack of subtlety is allowing people not to learn the kind of things they haven't learned the intellectual effort to be able to learn.

There is a certain point in the fact that Pope Leo took this example. By this time basically no one was considering the "higher firmament" as a solid thing one could fix stars in. And also no one, I was tempted to say even fewer, was considering the planets are fixed in crystalline spheres. In other words, to a 19th C. astronomer, what Moses omitted was what factually wasn't there in the first place.

I think Pope Leo had a point in so doing.

4.XI.2024

4:45 AM

Peter Rabbit

“Geocentrism is obvious”

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

7:13 AM

Peter Rabbit

I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true

It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology

Thomistic*

7:34 AM

Peter Rabbit

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible

PD is infallible as demonstrated above

Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)

12:19 PM

You sent

I had stated: Geocentrism is obvious

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

I did not say "obvious explanation" I said "obvious" ... Geocentrism itself a raw datum.°°

My training in epistemology would include but not be quite limited to:

C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas.

"I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas"

It's not REMOTELY difficult. It's strange to a modern, but not remotely difficult.

"but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true"

Look here.

According to Thomas and Aristotle (but I didn't read the Organon independently of St. Thomas, I quit Greek at the time I started the Organon), it is impossible for certitude to depend on an infinite regress.

Sooner or later you come to the raw data that constitute the first premisses of the first syllogisms. Some of them are first principles, but most of them are sense data.

UNLESS Geocentrism is proven impossible, it is not proven false. Unless it is proven false, it stands among these sense data. Therefore among the first premisses.

"It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology"

It seems your "Thomist epistemology" is actually Aquikantian. Thomas Aquinas nominally invoked and cosplay at his terminology, but Emmanuel Kant for the essence of it.

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

The major is faulty. An Encyclical is authentic, but not always infallible. An encyclical is ordinary magisterium and yes, there is an infallible ordinary magisterium, namely whenever the magisterium of the Pope unanimously with ALL the bishops around the world teach the same thing. However, neither Leo XIII, nor St. Pius X, nor Benedict XV intended Providentissimus Deus to teach Heliocentrism or that Scripture has nothing to say on the matter. Proof, none of them said so. None of them came out as positively believing Heliocentrism.

But because of your own or someone else's (Fr. Robinson's?) disability to actually read, you miss that, and attribute to Providentissimus Deus a scope it does not claim.

Please, may I remind you that there is a condition for the infallible magisterium, it can not go against what the Church hath held (we are forbidden to go against "what the Church hath held and holds, and also against the consensus of the Fathers"). If Providentissimus Deus were teaching what you say, it would be teaching a novum. That would rather be a reason to throw doubt on the papacy of Leo XIII, than to abandon the Fathers (who were all Geocentrics, except the few Flat Earthers).

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Movement is not essence. I do not claim or claim to be taught by Scripture that the Sun's material essence makes it go around Earth, I claim it does so move, it is moved Westward each day and night by God and Eastward over the year by an angel, both of whom are OUTSIDE the essence of the Sun.

"Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible"

Or Providentissimus Deus does not ever directly touch on the question of the Sun's orbit.

"PD is infallible as demonstrated above"

Was not demonstrated. Especially it was not demonstrated as being infallible in the case of taking the Sun's orbit as a thing Scripture has nothing to say on, since the Pope himself and his first two successors did not take it that way.

"Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)"

This is so absurd that it would be better to get East of 1054 (join Caerularius) than accept this.

That is fortunately not the alternative, but the absurdity of what you say is enormous.

When the Answers in Genesis "ministry" tries to tease out what St. Paul means in Romans 1:20, they resort to the flagellum of the bacterium, and to the well-ordered complexity of DNA. But neither of these things have been under human observation since Adam and Eve. Day and night have.

St. Paul, St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas Aquinas all hold that day and night, i e God shoving the Sun West each day, prove the existence of God. This is in St. Thomas referred to as "Prima Via" and when I see the online version of Opera omnia state "Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo," I distinctly recall having seen the phrase "utputa sol" somewhere else. That butterflies move would hardly prove God is the God of the whole Universe, would it?

1:26 PM

You sent

As you mentioned "abstraction" this words does not simply mean the discarding of individual matter from the thought, but the keeping of things that are common to the individual material things. So the abstract phrase (yes, plurals are abstracts) "red cars" discards the individual red car which is a two decked bus in London, the individual red car from the Volvo Sedan commercial, the individual red car that's a VW in Austria, the individual red car that's in a street in Paris and so on, and keep only the common ground to them all "red car" ...

Yes, there are things that can be universally said about red cars.

"A red car will be visible and go fast" (visible, because red, go fast, because a car).

You pretend to superior powers of abstraction, I challenge you to give a process of abstraction from the concrete which leads to the level you pretend I'm lacking in.

2:53 PM

You sent

Some recapitulation here:

"I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism"

It is actually the common major premise both of the Atheistic and the Christian one.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.

After that, there is ponens and tollens.

So, if you rejected that one, are you saying:

**"Even if there is no will performing Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is still possible in a purely materialistic universe"?

I think that was what you were yourself arguing against?

8:31 PM

You sent

You are aware the post I linked to is a dialogue, right?

Just to prepare for this one also becoming so.

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I never consented to you posting that

You sent

Fine, you want anonymisation (JM) or you prefer it stands (Peter Rabbit)?

Because, I get people like Fr. Robinson skirting off my rebuttals, and sending loads of small fry ...

9:26 PM

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I prefer you not to post my content without asking but if you’re going to please use a pseudonym

Peter rabbit, late for dinner I don’t care just please don’t use my name or my initials

There are three basic stances on axiology

Rahner, who as you point out is doing a “creative retrieval” of saint Thomas. Hes not a kantian but imho he doesn’t escape kants problems like he thinks he does

Von Hildebrand, who I studied in school

There was another author we studied who I’ll leave out because his theory creates problems with the dogma of vatican I

Then the third position which you’ll probably be most comfortable with is Dr Feser with his famous “revenge of Aristotle”

11:11 PM

You sent

Hope you like seeing yourself as Peter Rabbit, you have been changed to that over the published post and the next one, including the screenshot.

I'm probably closer to von Hildebrand than to Rahner. I can't tell on the third one, because you leave him out.

I'm not a disciple of von Hildebrand, what I have heard of him, he didn't go far enough.

Are you sure we are speaking of the same thing, I thought we were doing epistemology and you wrote axiology (science of moral axioms, so to speak) was it a typo?

5.XI.2024

4:45 PM & 5:15 PM

Peter Rabbit.

Autocorrect changed it. Should say axiomology not axiology

My understanding is that the study of axioms is synonymous with epistemology

But others like a lot of mathematicians disagree eg as in non-euclidean geometry

8:53 PM

You sent

"Autocorrect changed it."

Excellent reason to use an actual computer rather than a cell-phone with autocorrect and no time to correct that.

"axioms is synonymous with epistemology"

For epistemological axioms, that is correct.

One of them, in St. Thomas is "nihil est in ratione quod non prius erat in sensibus" ... from this it would follow, any discarding of specific sense data in their obvious immediate sense needs to be justified from other sense data which ARE taken in their obvious immediate sense.

If I step onto one train after speaking German, negotiate to pay later on the next train while speaking Dutch, as best as I can and with some help from English, and then later am asked to leave a train in French down in Belgium, and if next day (St. John the Baptist 2023) I step into a train in something purporting to be Lille and step out in well known city areas of Paris, where I can immediately find my way, that's an indication trains move.

If all through my childhood and again on the pilgrimage to Santiago I walk over hills and between trees and pass houses, stationed cars and lamp posts, that's an indication that cars sometimes don't move, and the other items simply don't move.

If I look out of the window of a train and see hills and trees fly by, I don't conclude it's the train moving just because that's theoretically a way to account for the appearances but rather because I have pretty solid knowledge from the context and all earlier experience that trains do move and hills don't move.

In the case of astronomy, which seems to have been the original context for Plato's later latinised "salvare apparentia" we don't have any similar experience of Earth moving or of Heavens not moving. The more conservative approach is to take the Earth and the Heavens as per prima facie, i e Earth as not moving and Heavens as moving.

If there were no things beyond the visible Heavens, this would be self defeating, since movement in Aristotle is of the contained in the container. However, if there IS something beyond, which at least theoretically it could be (Agnostic version) or which CHristianity tells us there is (Christian version) that thing beyond would be an even bigger container, Empyrean Heaven immobile like Earth is immobile, it would just be the visible Heavens between the two that moved. Earthly Jerusalem is in a fixed spot because it has a fixed spatial relation to Heavenly Jerusalem (this being the Christian version).

As Earth's stillness and the movements of the Heavens cannot be excluded like the trains stillness and the movements of the hills, it is the preferrable way to immediately take sense data.

"non-euclidean geometry"

A non-Euclidean triangle is NOT a triangle. The examples are no-where like disproving the universal validity of Euclidean axioms.

NOTES

* The post was not a "paper" it was a dialogue, organised after the different threads of discussion on the FB page and starting with Peter Rabbit's status. If he didn't note this, maybe he didn't follow my advise, but read it over an i-phone.
** Again, he read sloppily, as you can see on the other link, my point is, IF the Bible NEVER speaks about the intimate nature of visible reality, THEN this is against Trent Session XIII, which does not only say Christ is present, but the substance of bread is absent under the accidents of bread and wine RATHER THAN against the implication of the Bible in Helio- / Geo-debate. So, my point was "let's not overdo it" ... if the Church can have reason to state the Bible actually does such a statement in one case, and I think she had, she can also have a reason to state it in another case, especially since intimate nature of things is less involved there.
*** From the ensuing dialogue and checking, it seems my philosophy teacher used Euler circles when supposed to teach Venn diagrams.
° Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Ptolomaeum, luminaria non sunt fixa in sphaeris, sed habent motum seorsum a motu sphaerarum. Unde Chrysostomus dicit quod non ideo dicitur quod posuit ea in firmamento, quia ibi sint fixa; sed quia iusserit ut ibi essent; sicut posuit hominem in Paradiso, ut ibi esset. Sed secundum opinionem Aristotelis, stellae fixae sunt in orbibus, et non moventur nisi motu orbium, secundum rei veritatem. Tamen motus luminarium sensu percipitur, non autem motus sphaerarum. Moyses autem, rudi populo condescendens, secutus est quae sensibiliter apparent, ut dictum est. Si autem sit aliud firmamentum quod factum est secunda die, ab eo in quo posita sunt sidera, secundum distinctionem naturae, licet sensus non discernat, quem Moyses sequitur, ut dictum est; cessat obiectio. Nam firmamentum factum est secunda die, quantum ad inferiorem partem. In firmamento autem posita sunt sidera quarta die, quantum ad superiorem partem; ut totum pro uno accipiatur, secundum quod sensui apparet.
°° OK, a cohesive classification of raw data.

Mr. Campbell is Back

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate on Geology · Creation vs. Evolution: 4.5 Billion Years Worth of Nuclear Decay, Before the End of Day Three? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Continuing debate with David C. Campbell on YEC, OE, Palaeontology · Continued Debate with David C. Campbell · Mr. Campbell is Back · Mr. Campbell. Can you guess? Is. Back.

LD 14:56

13.X.2024

David C. Campbell

Think carefully about the theological, logical, and scientific content of what you write. You aren’t asking “is this a good argument?” but rather are trying to find whatever seems to support a young-earth position. Thinking up excuses is not the thinking that I am trying to encourage you to do. Are you thinking carefully about whether this is a good idea when you “publish” something without asking first? I am answering questions based on what I know; I do not have the time to research additional examples, to organize everything into well-crafted paragraphs, nor to address everything you bring up when you aren’t working to improve your arguments based on what I have already pointed out.

I do not know what, if any, scholastic thinking on the nature of our spiritual nature has been officially endorsed as Roman Catholic doctrine; naturally, as a Protestant, I am not personally concerned to follow something that is not specifically based on Scripture. Certainly scholastic thought developed many valuable insights, but it also had its own faults, as any human effort does. But it is curious that you are promoting young-earth creationism, which markets itself as purely biblical, while criticizing me for relying just on the Bible for information about spiritual questions. Also, some scholastic thinkers regarded an ancient earth as a credible possibility, yet you aren’t following them on that point. (In reality, modern young-earth creationism is not biblical in multiple senses. First, it is doubtful that one can claim to provide a “biblical” model for forming the Grand Canyon or ice ages when the Bible doesn’t mention either one. Second, the interpretation of Genesis 1, 5 and 11 as strict modernistic chronology is not soundly based on Scripture nor history; modernistic chronology did not develop as a style until much more recently. The lack of attention to sequence in other references to creation (e.g., Ps. 104) and the existence of Sabbath years and Sabbath of Sabbath years (jubilee) do not support the idea that Genesis 1 is intended to be chronological. Most seriously, modern young-earth creationism does not carefully examine itself to see if it is upholding biblical principles such as “You shall not bear false witness”; it has fallen into the Machiavellian error of thinking that the end of advancing young-earth creationism justifies the means of arguments aimed for persuasiveness rather than truthfulness.)

Again, the Bible is clear that we do have some sort of spiritual nature that survives beyond death. Association of that spirit with some sort of body is important, given the strong NT emphasis on physical resurrection both of Jesus and of believers, directly clashing with most Greek thought that saw the body as a prison of the soul. Yet at the same time our spiritual nature is not destroyed by damage to the physical body. But just how God gives each individual human our spiritual nature is not addressed in Scripture; we know the practically necessary information that everyone has it and is in need of salvation, but not all about it that we might speculate on. Given that, there is no justification for asserting that God could not have used a particular method of endowing humanity with a spiritual nature. We are not told in the Bible how He did so, nor does being spiritual make a mark on skeletons for paleoanthropologists to look for. We might identify certain behaviors as seeming to indicate a spiritual nature, but determining why someone in the distant past did something is quite challenging; it’s hard enough to figure out for someone alive right now. For example, some Neanderthals buried their dead. Did this reflect religious belief, or just preventing the bodies from stinking up the cave? Genesis 1-3 tells us that humans uniquely reflect God’s image, with the associated responsibilities and privileges, but our revolt against Him has left that image marred. Jesus serves as a new and better Adam. His work is applied to us, not by physical descent, but by the work of the Spirit. Thus, it is theologically highly imprudent to claim that Adam could not have been a representative out of an existing population of physically human-like individuals. Nor is it a good idea to deny God’s ability to apply a spiritual status to people who are not physically descended from a representative. Scholastic thought was a good academic effort, but they did not have the data that is currently available from biology, paleontology, etc. (Note, however, that many recent claims peddle naive philosophical speculations as being proven by neurological studies; I doubt that the scholastics would have been fooled.) If we are to take on the issue of the processes involved in the origins of human spirituality, we must do our best to take into account all that is known today, while also acknowledging all that remains unknown. You may notice that I am not claiming to have it figured out, merely that there are many possibilities and that the scientific data do not inherently clash with a biblical understanding.

How do geologists know that there were multiple advances and retreats of the glaciers during the Pleistocene ice age? Of course, it’s obvious that the many pre-Pleistocene glaciations were separate events from the geologically recent ice age featuring lots of big furry mammals. Multiple glacial intervals can be observed in the distant geologic past, which are ignored by creation science. But within the Pleistocene, the earliest clue to multiple ice ages (once Agassiz and others realized that many geological features matched the effects of glaciers, at a large scale) was the fact that there are glacial deposits separated from each other by non-glacial deposits. For example, the Boxgrove fauna in England represents a warmer interval between glacial pulses. In the Caribbean, the warmer intervals between the glaciers are represented by fossil reefs above modern sea level. How long did it take each of those coral reefs to grow? The older reefs are capped by pinkish deposits of ancient soil, deposited during the glacial intervals, when sea level dropped by as much as 200 m (because so much water was in glacier ice instead of in the ocean). The pink color comes from windblown dust from the Sahara. Some land vertebrate fossils, and a lot of land snail fossils, are found in those old soil layers. A long sequence of alternating reefs and land soil can be documented around the region. In places, newer glacial features cut off older ones. Some of the older glacial features (such as terminal moraines) reach beyond some of the newer ones. Each of those features takes some time to form. There are also changes in the types of fossils found. For example, many of the early Ice Age fossils I collected yesterday are extinct, whereas marine fossils associated with younger Ice Age deposits are generally still living. More recently, measurements of stable isotope ratios (especially oxygen-18) has traced the ups and downs of temperature and ice volume through the whole ice age. The patterns of advance and retreat of the glaciers closely correlates with the pattern of Milankovitch cycles, which are long-term wobbles in the earth’s orbit. The earth’s axial tilt and the exact shape of the orbit (more circular versus more elliptical) slowly vary, with cycles ranging from almost 26,000 years to about 100,000 years to complete a cycle. In turn, these affect exactly what part of the earth gets how much sunshine when, and that drives the seasons and climate (along with other factors such as amounts of greenhouse gases). Dozens of these cycles can be counted backwards from the present. Layers can be counted in glaciers and in lake deposits (varves). Additional indications of the different ages of different glacial deposits come from sources such as carbon-14 dating (even if we ignore the many serious problems with speeding up radiometric decay, including the fact that data from tree rings, lake varves, cave deposits, and the like provide a record of changes in 14C, things deposited at the same time with similar sources of carbon ought to have matching 14C values), magnetic reversals, amino acid racemization ratios, the degree of weathering on rocks deposited by the glaciers, thermoluminescence, and amounts of cosmogenic atoms all show that the various glacial deposits represent multiple cycles of glacial advance and retreat throughout the Pleistocene. To claim that they all formed in a single brief event is not merely ignoring the data, but also slandering all the hard work of many geologists, including many Christians. But giving a reasonable amount of time for dozens of continent-scale glaciers to advance and retreat, corals to grow and then be buried, etc. requires far more time than young-earthers admit. And that’s just the most recent sliver of geological time. Each older layer, each variation in stable and radioactive isotopes, each change in the types of living things, each variation in the magnetic field, each rearrangement of the continents through plate tectonics takes time. Creation science has no honest answer to these. Making things faster takes energy; the second law of thermodynamics tells us that more energy is going to give more waste heat. The only way that creation science can possibly find explanations is to honestly admit that none of its current ideas work and that the evidence clearly points to an ancient earth from all that we can tell. Repenting of all the dishonest claims is the only way that creation science can possibly make progress in developing better ones.

Human language does evolve. We have French and Spanish and Romanian and Italian and Catalan and numerous other languages deriving from spoken Latin, for example. Modern language families can be traced back to ancestral forms. Could languages have developed gradually from simpler communication, like that of animals? Yes; there is nothing impossible in the idea of languages getting more complex over time. But we simply don't have the data to know what God's process of creating them was. They could have originated with humans being endowed with a soul; they could have been a more gradual development. There are ongoing debates as to whether Neanderthals and others who were not quite the same as modern humans had the physical and mental capacity to talk like we do. Certainly they would have sounded and thought differently, but whether that would be more like a foreign language or substantially less developed is unknown. SImilarly, we don't have a good understanding of how modern language families came to exist relative to prior languages. Although some have claimed that they all originated at Babel, the Bible does not make such a claim. You are the one who asserted that language could not possibly have been created gradually, without providing evidence.

LD 19:28

13.X.2024

Vous avez envoyé

"You aren’t asking “is this a good argument?” but rather are trying to find whatever seems to support a young-earth position."

They tend to coincide.

"Thinking up excuses is not the thinking that I am trying to encourage you to do."

Are you so debilitated by Alzheimer that you have once again forgotten, I am NOT taking you for a mentor?

You aren't supposed to encourage or discourage me to anything, you are supposed to answer my arguments as best as you can, and to argue so I'll answer as best as I can.

"Are you thinking carefully about whether this is a good idea when you “publish” something without asking first?"

It certainly beats allowing YOU to "take me aside" and "tell me how it is" and then no one but you (who are deaf) will have heard my answer.

"I am answering questions based on what I know ...when you aren’t working to improve your arguments based on what I have already pointed out."

Your "improve your arguments" = bow down before yours.

You are in fact telling me lots of times you know things and then refusing me the details when I press you.

"I do not know what, if any, scholastic thinking on the nature of our spiritual nature has been officially endorsed as Roman Catholic doctrine; naturally, as a Protestant, I am not personally concerned to follow something that is not specifically based on Scripture."

You are doing lots of half hearted Scholasticism.

"But it is curious that you are promoting young-earth creationism, which markets itself as purely biblical, while criticizing me for relying just on the Bible for information about spiritual questions."

You are NOT relying just on the Bible, you are relying on lots of false science, what your "just the Bible" actually refers to is its being the sole RELIGIOUS authority to curb your secularism.

My Young Earth Creationism, as being Roman Catholic, obviously is marketted by me as being:

• Biblical
• Patristic
• Scholastic
• and at least indirectly through implications magisterial too.

"Also, some scholastic thinkers regarded an ancient earth as a credible possibility, yet you aren’t following them on that point."

Well, no, not any you have shown me, and not any I know of. You are still relying on that book Ivano Dal Prete’s On the Edge of Eternity. The Antiquity of the Earth in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, 2022. You are still not giving actual citations from what Ivano Dal Prete actually found in some.

"First, it is doubtful that one can claim to provide a “biblical” model for forming the Grand Canyon or ice ages when the Bible doesn’t mention either one."

Therein, it is fairly akin to Scholastic models. They are Biblical in the sense of Bible compatible, not necessarily in the sense of Bible endorsed. And they are Bible compatible compared to the alternative, for instance Averroism in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas and Old Earth now.

"Second, the interpretation of Genesis 1, 5 and 11 as strict modernistic chronology is not soundly based on Scripture nor history;"

Genesis 5 and 11 are very clearly chronological, do you pretend Moses considered past events as "dream time" in some unchronological sense? That's absurd. You are mixing reasonable knowledge and guesses about older conventions differring with some very wild guesses about Israelite conventions here coinciding with Assyrian conventions.

"The lack of attention to sequence in other references to creation (e.g., Ps. 104)"

Psalm 103 (as it is in our Bibles) is not a creation account. It refers to the now already standing and established reality of created things.

"and the existence of Sabbath years and Sabbath of Sabbath years (jubilee) do not support the idea that Genesis 1 is intended to be chronological."

Weak.

"Most seriously, modern young-earth creationism does not carefully examine itself to see if it is upholding biblical principles such as “You shall not bear false witness”;"

Either you are a liar yourself, or you are sorely misled about the veracity of the people on Young Earth sites. You are at best judging them carelessly, which is already against Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOUR.

"But just how God gives each individual human our spiritual nature is not addressed in Scripture; we know the practically necessary information that everyone has it and is in need of salvation, but not all about it that we might speculate on."

There is however something called natural theology, a k a philosophy.

This means, we have natural reasons to totally exclude certain models of the mind. It's being an epiphenomenon of the body or being gradual compared with the moods of beasts, those are two non-options. Scholasticism deals with this.

"Given that, there is no justification for asserting that God could not have used a particular method of endowing humanity with a spiritual nature."

Exactly my point about your tendency. If sth in traditional Christian thought clearly jars with the model you propose for reasons you purport to be natural, you are ready to throw it out if you can't directly find it in the Bible, precisely as the Deformers did with so much other things. Meanwhile St. Thomas et al. had really solid reasons for their view of human nature.

"nor does being spiritual make a mark on skeletons for paleoanthropologists to look for."

Only spiritual beings have human language. Every being with human hearing range (which can be determined from the ear shape), human hyoids (without hooks for airsacks), human brain with Broca's area (leaves a mark on the inside of the skulls) and human FOXP2 gene is spiritual. Every being without these is not. There is in fact no clear intermediate. There are some skulls so broken one cannot see on which side they fall.

"Did this reflect religious belief, or just preventing the bodies from stinking up the cave?"

1) If they had been beasts, they could have looked for another cave;
2) There is plenty of evidence the caves were only visited intermittently, for what could well be spiritual reasons, I don't find any contemporary specialist who thinks cave dwelling was a continuous life, rather than caves being visited;
3) I'm not even sure if the burials given could have prevented the corpses from stinking.

"Genesis 1-3 tells us that humans uniquely reflect God’s image, with the associated responsibilities and privileges, but our revolt against Him has left that image marred. Jesus serves as a new and better Adam. His work is applied to us, not by physical descent, but by the work of the Spirit. Thus, it is theologically highly imprudent to claim that Adam could not have been a representative out of an existing population of physically human-like individuals."

Ouch.

Jesus is a New Adam for regenerate man.

Adam was constituted a man and constituted in grace. He only lost sanctifying grace, not manhood.

The image is not so marred that it's not solidly tied to human biology.

"Nor is it a good idea to deny God’s ability to apply a spiritual status to people who are not physically descended from a representative."

Manhood is precisely not just a spiritual status.

"Scholastic thought was a good academic effort, but they did not have the data that is currently available from biology, paleontology, etc."

Those that access both do not necessarily consider them as inadequate.

"(Note, however, that many recent claims peddle naive philosophical speculations as being proven by neurological studies; I doubt that the scholastics would have been fooled.)"

Thank you very much.

"If we are to take on the issue of the processes involved in the origins of human spirituality,"

Human spirituality as the souls being also spirits, endowed with faculties of knowledge and will is not processual.

"Human language does evolve."

Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
Therefore, no woman is rational.

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

What you are going to take up, and what you are trying to prove are very, very different things. And as a more or less linguist, I happen to know that.

"We have French and Spanish and Romanian and Italian and Catalan and numerous other languages deriving from spoken Latin, for example."

Yes. French is human. Spanish is human. Romanian is human unless you attend too much to the vampires. Italian is human unless you get the fauns involved. Catalan is human despite being abused by Revolutionaries. Latin is human despite being spoken by Nero and Agrippina. In other words, a human language has in each of these cases evolved into a slightly different human language.

"Modern language families can be traced back to ancestral forms."

Reconstructing and tracing back is not always the same thing.

"Could languages have developed gradually from simpler communication, like that of animals?"

None of the examples so far involve any increase in complexity. Animal communications are not simply simpler. They are used for a simpler purpose, involving no satisfaction of curiosity via someone else's words. An ape cannot say "I had a banana for breakfast this morning" ...

"Yes; there is nothing impossible in the idea of languages getting more complex over time."

Try tracing a Latin word into French or Spanish, as you chose. Then try tracing a series of emoticons or traffic signs into sentences expressed in words that carry notional meanings.

I'll give an example of the former, which we agree is possible. Ursum => Ursu => Orso => Oso. In each step, what means bear is sufficiently different from all other words that sound remotely similar, and in each step, it is basically a morpheme (originally two morphemes, one means "bear" and one means "accusative singular"), and in each step it will be used along other morphemes to express phrases, like "video ursum" or "yo veo el oso" = "I see the bear" ...

"There are ongoing debates as to whether Neanderthals and others who were not quite the same as modern humans had the physical and mental capacity to talk like we do."

There is no good reason to deny it.

"but whether that would be more like a foreign language or substantially less developed is unknown."

There is no good reason for anything other than "a foreign language" ...

"You are the one who asserted that language could not possibly have been created gradually, without providing evidence."

You didn't challenge me specifically individually on this item. I offered a few then and there unsupported, but sensible, claims. I was waiting to hear which one you will challenge.

I think I have started to support this one.

Let me go a bit further.

In beasts, "language" (including gestures) functions as a series of emotica, or traffic signs. They have pragmatic purpose. Beasts encourage or discourage each other to do things, whether eating or sleeping or fleeing from enemies or attacking prey or attacking an isolated predator, which the flock can deal with. In each such thing, basically one letter functions as the global sign for everything at once.

"how are you?"
"tell me how you are!"
"shall I comfort or rejoice with you?"

EACH of these things is a thing a beast can communicate, and there is basically ONE letter to say this. Perhaps repeated, perhaps prolonged, but certainly not an alternating sequence of different letters, let alone in different words.

Technically, phoneme = morpheme = phrase. Phrase = pragmatic. Phrase =/= notional.

In human phoneme + phoneme = morpheme. Morpheme + morpheme = phrase. Phoneme =/= pragmatic / notional. Morpheme / phrase = pragmatic / notional.

You have a very perfect case of irreducible complexity.

The three tier system of vocal communication cannot catch on if it does not serve notional communications (which suffice, even without religiosity, to prove spiritual nature). On the other hand, the notional communications cannot function without a three tier system.

Adding one tier without adding both, gives a skewed, incomplete and overclumsy system.

Phrases from one-phoneme morphemes only could not serve a notional purpose, because there would be too few of them.

Multi-phoneme morphemes in single-morpheme phrases, similarily.

Adding both differences at once defies graduality, which your theory posits.

There is a similar conundrum between all of this and human / non-human physiology. Broca's and Wernicke's areas, FOXP2-gene, human ear, human hyoid are all of them not much obvious use to someone who does not have a three tier system of phoneme // morpheme // phrase, and does not use notional communication, but only satisfies curiosity by verification.

A three tier system and using notional communication so that curiosity can also be verified by someone's words is not possible for a being in flesh and blood without these physiological traits.

"Of course, it’s obvious that the many pre-Pleistocene glaciations were separate events from the geologically recent ice age featuring lots of big furry mammals."

W a i t ... I have a gut feeling you will say that the ice that buried a mammoth cannot be the same ice that buried a Biarmosuchian? To be fair, frozen mammoths have been found and frozen Biarmosuchians haven't. It would be a great day for single ice age young earth creationist geology to find a frozen Biarmosuchian. If not in South Africa, at least in Perm, Russia.

"Multiple glacial intervals can be observed in the distant geologic past, which are ignored by creation science."

I get a very distinct feeling the "distant geologic past" as in for instance Permian has the chronological label because of the Permian fauna ...

"But within the Pleistocene, the earliest clue to multiple ice ages (once Agassiz and others realized that many geological features matched the effects of glaciers, at a large scale) was the fact that there are glacial deposits separated from each other by non-glacial deposits. For example, the Boxgrove fauna in England represents a warmer interval between glacial pulses."

Boxgrove fauna. If it involves, besides roe deer, rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus) and horse, and besides Ursus Deningen, Hippopotamus, Praemegaceros, which is a giant deer, on top of that some Homo Heidelbergenses, my reply would be it's pre-Flood and therefore pre-Ice Age.

How would you prove there was an Ice Age before it?

"In the Caribbean, the warmer intervals between the glaciers are represented by fossil reefs above modern sea level. How long did it take each of those coral reefs to grow? The older reefs are capped by pinkish deposits of ancient soil, deposited during the glacial intervals, when sea level dropped by as much as 200 m (because so much water was in glacier ice instead of in the ocean). The pink color comes from windblown dust from the Sahara. Some land vertebrate fossils, and a lot of land snail fossils, are found in those old soil layers. A long sequence of alternating reefs and land soil can be documented around the region."

Since the Caribbean is in the Americas, and since I hold these were in post-Flood times drifting westward, I would suggest that the tectonic plate lowered and raised the sea bottom that the reef was forming on, much faster than any glaciation or deglaciation could happen.

"In places, newer glacial features cut off older ones. Some of the older glacial features (such as terminal moraines) reach beyond some of the newer ones. Each of those features takes some time to form."

Depending on violence of ice movements, it could be short time, and therefore fall within a single post-Flood ice age.

"There are also changes in the types of fossils found. For example, many of the early Ice Age fossils I collected yesterday are extinct, whereas marine fossils associated with younger Ice Age deposits are generally still living."

So, if you had found a fossil from "younger Ice Age" (still around) you would have reevaluated the place as belonging to the younger Ice Age rather than the early Ice Age?

"More recently, measurements of stable isotope ratios (especially oxygen-18) has traced the ups and downs of temperature and ice volume through the whole ice age."

But not the time scale?

"The patterns of advance and retreat of the glaciers closely correlates with the pattern of Milankovitch cycles, which are long-term wobbles in the earth’s orbit. The earth’s axial tilt and the exact shape of the orbit (more circular versus more elliptical) slowly vary, with cycles ranging from almost 26,000 years to about 100,000 years to complete a cycle."

Here I would say, this is pure speculation. Especially as Heliocentrism is false.

"Layers can be counted in glaciers and in lake deposits (varves)."

Varves I happen to know as able to form faster than usually considered. Varves in ice could reflect weather on week or two week scales rather than the seasons of a year (credit to CMI).

Varves in sediment can very easily form instantaneously as it deposits from supersaturated mud-water flowing at high speed, which would reflect conditions during the Flood (credit to flume experiments by Guy Berthault).

"Additional indications of the different ages of different glacial deposits come from sources such as carbon-14 dating (even if we ignore the many serious problems with speeding up radiometric decay, including the fact that data from tree rings, lake varves, cave deposits, and the like provide a record of changes in 14C, things deposited at the same time with similar sources of carbon ought to have matching 14C values),"

I would say anything within the post-Flood ice age should have radiocarbon ages between 39 000 BP and 9700 BC, also known as real years 2957 BC (Flood of Noah) and one of the years between 2633 and 2607 BC, the latter being the death of Noah and beginning of Babel.

"magnetic reversals, amino acid racemization ratios, the degree of weathering on rocks deposited by the glaciers, thermoluminescence, and amounts of cosmogenic atoms all show that the various glacial deposits represent multiple cycles of glacial advance and retreat throughout the Pleistocene."

I would say most of these methods are overrated. I'll grant that things from the same age should have the same carbon age (except that with a rising carbon 14 level the reservoir effect would be much more radical). I'll not grant that things with same thermoluminiscence age should have same age or things with different racemisation ratios very different ages.

"To claim that they all formed in a single brief event is not merely ignoring the data, but also slandering all the hard work of many geologists, including many Christians."

It's not slander to say that hard work can be misused on the wrong tracks.

"But giving a reasonable amount of time for dozens of continent-scale glaciers to advance and retreat,"

Reasonable with or without the effect of radically more radioactivity and ionising particles in between 2957 and 2607 BC?

"Each older layer, each variation in stable and radioactive isotopes, each change in the types of living things, each variation in the magnetic field, each rearrangement of the continents through plate tectonics takes time."

Unless some variations are simply variations, for instance in something else.

I'll give you an example.

If lava cools rapidly, argon will be trapped. The more rapidly it cools, the more of it will be trapped. That's how I explain the different K-Ar ages at Laetoli, where each successive lava layer is younger as it gets higher, K-Ar ages. The ones deposited later in the flood were washed by shallower flood waters and therefore less cooled.

"Creation science has no honest answer to these."

How is this not a rash judgement (I'm not going as drastic as slander) on the hard work of the RATE project (for non-carbon methods) or of myself (for radiocarbon)?

"Making things faster takes energy; the second law of thermodynamics tells us that more energy is going to give more waste heat."

I think you are alluding to the Heat Problem:

Is the Heat-Problem REALLY the Death of Creation Science? Responding to Gutsick Gibbon
Standing For Truth | 5—6.IX.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r08o4TQIOJE

"The only way that creation science can possibly find explanations is to honestly admit that none of its current ideas work and that the evidence clearly points to an ancient earth from all that we can tell. Repenting of all the dishonest claims is the only way that creation science can possibly make progress in developing better ones."

You have dared to disagree with me, repent! I spent so much time on my pilpuls, you need to bow down to them!

DO call me your father, even as I am a man on earth!

Or, perhaps rather, don't. Think Our Lord had sth to say about calling someone one's mentor for non-religious reasons.

Monday 09:36

14.X.2024

Vous avez envoyé

For the idea of Neanderthals not being the image of God, I think this video should clear that up:

How Smart Were Neanderthals? Extinct Humans
History with Kayleigh | 29 Dec. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELSEd_SpO9c

Fri 23:54

St. Luke Evangelist

18.X.2024

David C. Campbell

Interpreting the traces of behavior is not easy. The claim that a Neanderthal was buried with flowers was based on the presence of pollen, but there were rodent burrows and the pollen likely came from the plants the rodents brought in to eat. Similar challenges of interpretation apply to other evidence of Neanderthal behaviors. We don't have the data to be certain one way or the other. Some people who have researched in detail argue strongly for Neanderthals being spiritually human; others are doubtful. As an added complication, what might they have done in imitation of modern-type humans that they encountered? We don't have Neanderthals around to ask them, nor are there Scriptural references that clearly talk about them. Interesting topic for speculation, but caution is prudent about affirming one way or the other.

Facebook doesn't seem to be giving clear notices of messages, and I have a lot of work to do, so I'm not sure how long it will be before I can address problems. But there is also little incentive to address things, when your goal seems to be to argue for creation science rather than to listen and consider problems that creation science needs to address if it is going to become a viable option. If you want to actually understand a topic, you need to focus on one thing, rather than tossing out a horde of arguments. I have seen too many creation science claims to be interested in wasting time finding all the errors in a long video.

Saturday 13:08

19.X.2024

Vous avez envoyé

"The claim that a Neanderthal was buried with flowers was based on the presence of pollen, but there were rodent burrows and the pollen likely came from the plants the rodents brought in to eat."

A more wide claim is they were being buried in red ochre (my bad memory, see below). An iron ore that has the colour of blood. In fetal position.

I don't think rodents can have brought iron ore to cover a whole body.

PNAS: Use of red ochre by early Neandertals
Wil Roebroeks et al. January 23, 2012 | 109 (6) 1889-1894
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112261109

Citing:

This is a nonlocal material that was imported to the site, possibly over dozens of kilometers. Identification of the Maastricht-Belvédère finds as hematite pushes the use of red ochre by (early) Neandertals back in time significantly, to minimally 200–250 kya (i.e., to the same time range as the early ochre use in the African record).

Especially, rodents could not have brought red ochres from over dozens of kilometers away.

My bad memory, by the way.

Neanderthals have used red ochre, check. Red ochre has been used for burials, check.
Neanderthals have used red ochre in burials, no check.

The use of manganese and iron oxides by late Neandertals is well documented in Europe, especially for the period 60–40 kya. Such finds often have been interpreted as pigments even though their exact function is largely unknown.

...

From the Upper Paleolithic record, red ochre is indeed well known for its use in cave paintings and in ritual burial contexts. More “mundane” or “domestic” uses of red ochre (derived from hematite, Fe2O3) are known from the ethnographic record of modern hunter-gatherers, for instance, as (internal and external) medication, as a food preservative, in tanning of hides, and as insect repellent (3–9). Archeological studies have identified ochre powder as an ingredient in the manufacture of compound adhesives (10). Thus, the use of iron oxides for “symbolic” purposes should be viewed as a hypothesis that needs to be tested, rather than simply assumed.

But even without burial, this use of chemistry and not as a byproduct of alimentation is already human and not bestial.

And symbolic behaviour is documented in the use of crow feathers.

Similar challenges of interpretation apply to other evidence of Neanderthal behaviors.

"Some people who have researched in detail argue strongly for Neanderthals being spiritually human; others are doubtful. As an added complication, what might they have done in imitation of modern-type humans that they encountered?"

The clincher is presence of Neanderthal alleles in anatomically modern men. We have made children with Neanderthals, back then, and we are now children of Neanderthals too.

Or the complete set of anatomy and genes necessary for talking and the Kebara 2 hyoid found to have been used like the hyoid of a modern human, who is using the hyoid in a high degree while talking.

"so I'm not sure how long it will be before I can address problems."

You seem to be under the delusion that I am proposing and you are adressing problems. That I am an enquirer and you are the undisputed expert, whom I am just waiting for the right cues in order to wholeheartedly believe.

Note, I am not saying you are mad. There are such things as cultural delusions.

You seem to share one.

"and consider problems that creation science needs to address if it is going to become a viable option."

It is already a viable option in the mind of other people than the culture whose delusions you share.

And I am considering and adressing problems at the rhythm of you proposing them.

If in some cases I seem to be doing a hasty job, it may be because I have adressed the exact same problem several times before, over the years. I'm into defending creation science online since 2001.

"If you want to actually understand a topic, you need to focus on one thing, rather than tossing out a horde of arguments."

You are the one tossing a hoard of arguments, I only appear to do so because I'm adressing each one of them.

I may give ONE argument, and you will find FIVE objections, or maybe THREE. By the time I have answered yours, this has branched out to FIVE or even TEN arguments.

My understanding very much does not begin with you telling me things. I am covering ground I have covered before, most of the time.

If you were under the opposite impression, is that only due to your cultural delusion of grandeur you share in prejudices against Creationists, or did someone actually tell you how to treat me, and you are obfuscated because I'm not acting the role a third party gave me behind my back?

"I have seen too many creation science claims to be interested in wasting time finding all the errors in a long video."

Both videos were short, and the one on Neanderthals was definitely not by a Creation Scientist. I value History with Kayleigh, DESPITE her belief in Evolution, not BECAUSE she supposedly somehow were Creationist. Her video is under 23 minutes. The experts YOU hanker back to on Neanderthals would probably be a generation older, if not two, than those she is citing. The other video, on the heat problem, is indeed from Creationists, and from a channel well known for very long videos, this one is no exception, and it treats the heat problem. If you have no time to watch what I refer to, I'll evidently not find it congenial of you to bring it up again. I'm on my part at least taking glances at what you refer to, to see if there is some new and unforeseen problem, there usually isn't, and sometimes there is even a point in support of my views.

Especially as you withold information on what you refer to. The book by Ivano Dal Prete, for pre-modern non-literalists, does it refer to Boethius of Dacia? Because he (apparently) argued for an eternal world, in accordance with Aristotle and Averroes, and his book was condemned by bishop Tempier for that. And he totally did not take his cues primarily from the Bible. And to you as a Protestant, it may be no big deal to be condemned in a Roman Catholic trial, but I am a Catholic, I live in the diocese, since then archdiocese of Tempier. If Boethius of Dacia was Bo of Skenninge, I'm very sure he didn't repeat things from De Eternitate Mundi in his pastoral once he was back in Sweden. Links are more helpful, I can look myself.

4 minutes later

"Both videos were short"

My bad, the short one from same channel is another video, here:

Accelerated Nuclear Decay, RATE Project, Heat "Problem", and Noah's Flood with Dr. Jason Lisle
Standing For Truth | 26 Nov. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19pQhbXksLw

LD 18:32

19.X.2024

Vous avez envoyé

As you pretend I do not engage with your input, I actually do so more than I immediately show here.

Two examples of myself going over things again are in fact still pretty detailed, compared to what I answer you off the cuff.

Creation vs. Evolution: Archibald Sayce, a Bad Guide to Biblical Genealogies
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/09/archibald-sayce-bad-guide-to-biblical.html

Creation vs. Evolution: How do Old-Earthers Take Historic Christianity?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/10/how-do-old-earthers-take-historic.html

FB will probably block you from going to them by a click, you'll have to copy and paste to another window.

Contacting Jane Gendron and Others About Mike Gendron's Uncle the Priest

New blog on the kid: Claims by Gendron · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Contacting Jane Gendron and Others About Mike Gendron's Uncle the Priest

I

Me to Jane Gendron

10/9/2024 at 10:57 AM

Mrs Gendron, your husband claimed before Allie Beth Stuckey he had an uncle who was a priest

Mike Gendron has no wikipedia page where people can fill in like where he came from.

The presentation has you coming from rural New Mexico, but your husband according to the wording could have been a Catholic on the Moon prior to 1985, when he left Catholicism.

I had intended to ask the diocese where he came from about the uncle, perhaps not a total bright move, since the uncle could have been stationed in a diocese far from home.

Have you met the priest who is your husband's uncle?

(Answers, if any, are intended for publication).

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

I received

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

and it said (inter alia)

Jane@ProclaimingTheGospel.org:
SMTP error from remote server for RCPT TO command, host: aspmx.l.google.com (142.250.113.27) reason: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Please
try ...

III

Me to Info (of same site)

10/9/2024 at 1:33 PM

Fw: Mrs Gendron, your husband claimed before Allie Beth Stuckey he had an uncle who was a priest

[forwarding text and former adressee as per I]

IV

Me to:

• Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary
• The Master's Seminary
• Redeemer Bible Church AZ

... all of which had featured Mike Gendron on videos.

10/9/2024 at 1:51 PM

Do you know who Mike Gendron's uncle the priest is?

Have you checked with the relevant diocese he even exists?

On Allie Beth Stuckeys' show, he said, quoting the transscript:

and so I did the wrong thing I called my Uncle
4:37 the priest and I said Father Charles why does the Catholic Church teach a
4:43 different way of Salvation than the Bible and he said well Mike that's just not true I said well for example in
4:50 Ephesians 2:8—9 Paul writes for by Grace you have been saved through faith it's not of
4:56 yourselves it's the gift of God not of works so that no no one may
5:02 boast and he said oh my God doesn't really mean what he's saying there

The Catholic Church doesn't believe a sinner can earn his salvation, but does believe the justified needs to keep his salvation by staying in good works that God has prepared for him. See verse 10 of the same chapter.

It's already improbable a lifelong not just Catholic but at that pious and apologetically active one like Mike pretends to have been before age 35 should not know about verse 10. It's even more unlikely, if he didn't, that he didn't read on to it and ask the priest "does verse 10 mean that the good works we must do is really God's work" and the answer would have been (normally) a resounding YES.

But it's basically impossible that a priest should have responded "oh my God doesn't really mean what he's saying there" ...

Since 1950 it has become more common to hear such things about Genesis 1 through 11. But about NT things and about salvation matters, no. Not unless you get to depths like "Father James Martin" ("father" in quotes*) or McCarrick ("Cardinal" would equally be in quotes*).

So, can someone please tell in what diocese the priest is supposed to have been active, since Mike Gendron neither states it on his website, nor has a wikipedia page (a man can apply for the anonymity of not having one, and they respect it).

Or, if you prefer, would you find it neat to discuss it among yourselves?

I mean there are fraudulent ex-Catholics. You may have heard Alberto Rivera is a fraud, and I heard one African claim God saved him from the rosary, which he claimed has 66 beads. There are 6 Our Father beads. There are not 60 but only 53 Hail Mary beads. 6 + 53 = 59. And I'm counting the medallion, which takes the place of one bead. Mike Gendron's impossible priest uncle may be another of those give-aways.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* I'm not saying a sinner looses office, that would be heretical. A man preaching heresy, however, does, unless he's covered for a short time until he can be judged. That means the man who named McCarrick Cardinal wasn't Pope and the bishop ordaining Martin had no right to ordain. Possibly even no power, if he was consecrated in the new rites.

V

Me to contact form at Tumblar House

c. 14:12 (Paris time) 9.X.2024

"If you have a question for "Off the Menu," you can also send it here."

Mike Gendron when interviewed by Allie Beth Stuckey claimed to have phones his uncle Charles, a priest, about Ephesians 2:8,9. Given the very incoherent answer he cited, is Charles A. Coulombe that uncle "the priest" and was he playing a prank on a poor nephew?

Image of form

VI

Me to Trey Talley, The Church at Pecan Creek

10/9/2024 at 2:32 PM

Fw: Do you know who Mike Gendron's uncle the priest is?

I saw you had featured Mike Gendron too.

[plus text as per IV]

VII

Mrs. Jane Gendron to me

10/9/2024 at 11:53 PM

Re: Mrs Gendron, your husband claimed before Allie Beth Stuckey he had an uncle who was a priest

Hello Hans,

Mike’s dad was a US Army Colonel so Mike literally lived all over the world wherever his Dad was stationed. It’s not so important that Mike have a Wikipedia page, is it? What is important is that he accurately gives the Gospel to those who are lost.

Father Charles Gendron died several years ago in his eighty’s. Of course I met him on several occasions.

I am from NM.

Ho[efully this helped your curiosity. How do you believe a person has hope of going to heaven?

Blessings,

[Jane,
proclaiming the Gospel]

VIII

Me to Mrs. Jane Gendron

10/10/2024 at 1:29 AM

Re: Mrs Gendron, your husband claimed before Allie Beth Stuckey he had an uncle who was a priest

What diocese was he in?

Where Mike was is less important, I'd love to verify Father Charles Gendron exists, since his reaction to your husband's question seems so inadequate for it.

I mean as your husband told it to Allie Beth Stuckey.

How could he not answer Ephesians 2:10 after confrontation with Ephesians 2:8 and 9?

So, to your question:

• God justifies
• by grace and not from works
  
  (whether from original sin, from mortal sins first time over, or from mortal sin after relapsing)
  
  
• man responds by walking in the good works that God has prepared for him to walk in now that he is justified.

He who stays faithful to the end will be saved.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IX

Me to Missionaries of La Salette

10/10/2024 at 3:39 AM

Where was Father Charles Gendron in 1982?

Burma or the US?

[Reason for request,

I had found Charles Gendron, and a story he shared:

A Sick Call to Remember
https://www.lasalette.org/article/la-salette-around-the-world/684-a-sick-call-to-remember]

X

I received

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

lsamerica@lasalette.org:

SMTP error from remote server for RCPT TO command, host: lasalette.org (69.167.169.80) reason: 550 No Such User Here

XI

Me to Missionaries of La Salette

10/10/2024 at 3:49 AM

Fw: Where was Father Charles Gendron in 1982?

Burma or the US?

XII

Me to Mrs. Gendron

10/12/2024 at 5:57 PM

Mrs Gendron, your husband sent me a thing about the Reformation

Or you did.

Either way, I think both of you should read my answer:

Claims by Gendron

Four days later

I added a sending of this post, showing our correspondence had been published.