Hilda

From HGL to Culture Tyrrell Info

Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:11 AM

Hilda archaeological site (Canada: Alberta)

On wikipedian list of fossil sites, it is listed without specification of era, epoch or period, so is it mixed or purely, say ... Cretaceous (after seeing the Centrosaurus in the article), or have you not yet decided between Cretaceous, Triassic or Jurassic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From Culture Tyrrell Info to HGL

07/11/13 à 23h32

Hilda archaeological site (Canada: Alberta)

Hello,

The Hilda mega-bonebed is in the Dinosaur Park Formation, which is about 76-75 million years old. So, it is from the Late Cretaceous.

Best regards,

Wendy Taylor
Information and Correspondence Coordinator
T: 403-823-7707 | F: 403-823-7131

Royal Tyrrell Museum
Box 7500, Drumheller, Alberta T0J 0Y0 Canada
www.tyrrellmuseum.com

From HGL to Culture Tyrrell Info

Friday 08/11/13 à 11h36

Hilda archaeological site (Canada: Alberta)

Thank you so much!

That was not noted in the wikipedia list of fossil sites!

Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html

Wiki list only sorted the tables after continent, so I made an extra sorting after periods, epochs, eras ... for fossil sites with only one and for such with more than one.

You helped me to correct a misplaced item!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wrote to Palaeocritti about Jonkeria

From HGL to Nobu Tamura

Date Friday, November 15, 2013 4:06 AM

Re Jonkeria

Is there anything more than skulls for all of it?

On paleocritti I saw no article or rather a white page for it under the mere word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From Nobu Tamura to HGL

Date 15/11/13 à 20h36

Re Jonkeria

I believe Jonkeria is known from several skeletons that include postcranial elements. The palaeocritti site hasn't been updated for a while and will soon go down because of a chronic shortage of editors and general lack of interest from the public...

NT

From HGL to Nobu Tamura

Date Saturday 16/11/13 à 12h25

Re Jonkeria

Oh, here is one interested public.

If you have no time to edit anew, at least let what was up stay up!

It is wonderful to be able to check what part of a creature is the fossil the modern scientific description is based on.

Thank you very much for the good work you have hitherto done, and if I can encourage you to keep on or at least let what is done stay up, I am glad to take this occasion.

Sincerely,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

From Nobu Tamura to HGL

Date Sunday 17/11/13 à 00h06

Re Jonkeria

The site will stay on as long as the domain name subscription is current. After this it will go off as I won't be renewing it...

Yeah, it's unfortunately not free :/

The site has too few viewers to justify the cost.

NT

From HGL to Nobu Tamura

Date 17/11/13 à 12h34

Re Jonkeria

How much does it cost and how many viewers do you have?

I am for myself not sending you money, for now at least (I am broke), but I am sending you viewers.

If site goes down, could some of it be salvaged onto a blog on the free platforms?

My own blogs are fortunately for free and therefore I do not have to worry.

HGL

Yacoraite

Muy Señores míos, y hoy quizás señoras y señoritas también!

La formación de Yacoraite tiene rocas en partida del Cretaceo y en partida del Paleoceno (Maastrichtiano y Daniano).

Leo eso (en wikipedia):

"The deposits of this formation mainly date from the Maastrichtian of the Upper Cretaceous, but the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–T boundary) runs right through this formation near its top, and the uppermost parts are consequently from the Danian (Lower Paleocene). "

Bueno, hay un poco de fossiles encima del "K-T boundary" que son fossiles del Daniano?* O hay fossiles del Cretaceo, el "boundary" y encima ningun fossil, peró un Daniano por definición a causa del "boundary"?

Me gustaría saberlo.

Con mucho respeto,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

*Quería decir fossiles típicos del Daniano. Bueno, quizás es por eso que no daban respuesta ...

[Universidad Nacional de Salta

Copia de: Yacoraite

03/11/13 à 17h25]

Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

me to Craig A. James

date : 05/10/13 à 15h03

objet : This blog post is about Libby Anne, but since she refers to you ...

Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/10/heard-of-libby-anne.html

Craig A. James to me

date : 06/10/13 à 06h14

objet : Re: This blog post is about Libby Anne, but since she refers to you ...

Thanks for the link. It's kind of a weird ramble. I thought of responding, but there's not much to say to someone who is unable to grasp simple logic and is a dedicated creationist.

Best,
Craig

me to Craig A. James

date : 06/10/13 à 15h54

objet : Re: This blog post is about Libby Anne, but since she refers to you ...

Oh ... I am the one unable to grasp simple logic? Because I am a dedicated creationist perhaps?

The rambling part I do acknowledge. I was responding to one piece of mainly her but also your blog posts at a time.

If you change your mind, that might give you the plan to my ramble. So it is less weird to you.

Craig A. James to me

date : 06/10/13 à 16h12

objet : Re: This blog post is about Libby Anne, but since she refers to you ...

You make no coherent points that I could even argue against. Your criticisms of my claims are vague and say little more than that you think I'm wrong, but you argue against things I didn't even say. You seem to think this "professor" and "student" are real, as though that lecture actually happened.

Craig

me to Craig A. James

date : 06/10/13 à 17h38

objet : Re: This blog post is about Libby Anne, but since she refers to you ...

I did not say they had happened.

I did not say they had not happened.

I simply said you were very rash to conclude they had not happened.

I linked to a large series of dialogues saved on a separate blog of mine (the link with text These Dialogues are for Real) between me and others that you could as easily conclude had not happened when in fact they have.

If you want my hunch about the dialogue that you debunked, it may very well be fiction based on diverse snippets of itself occurring but separately in real life. Plus the enormous assumption of an Atheist Professor actually having the patience and courage to face argument.

But apart from that enormous assmption (without which you would not have had that Socratic dialogue at all, I am afraid) nothing in it is as unrealistic as you claim.

And of course I argue against some points you did not make because I argue against points Libby Anne made as well.

Suit yourself ...

me to Craig A. James

date : 06/10/13 à 18h08

objet : Just to notify, this new one is entirely to you

And I do not think it is too rambling (even if that would not equal any logical incoherence, of course):

Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue"
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/10/further-faulty-logic-in-craig-jamess.html

me to Craig A. James

date : 08/10/13 à 11h29

objet : Further coherent point you could argue against ...

... if you have any arguments, that is:

Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/10/stupid-word-game-craig-james.html

Btw, if you already did answer previous one on a blogpost, I could of course look it up, but it would be courteous to notify me ...

The other person concerned,

Libby Anne, was notified of the series by link under her patheos blogpost.

Sin respuesta

Desde yo al Gobierno de Méjico y al eso de Chiapas

date : 22/08/13 à 10h00

objet : Libertad por el cura Manuel Pérez Gómez, párroco de Chenalhó

Ya las matanzas de curas en tiempos de represión de los Cristeros fue odiosa, también las matanzas de curas en Escocia en la Reforma.

Que no siga hoy aún más!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Desde yo a una diócesis vecina

date : 22/08/13 à 16h07

objet : al propuesto del cura secuestrado por "evangelicos" en chiapas, al obispo

1) Hé escrito a autoridades Mexicanas de gobierno central y de Chiapas invocando que las matanzas de curas en la Reforma de Escocia y después la represión de los Cristeros fue cosa azca.

2) Sinembargo, visto que hay hoy ciertos puntos de visto "teológicas" antibíblicas, como él de Teilhard de Chardin o él de Georges Lemaître, me preocupo que quizás algunos de esos han provocado apostasías al protestantismo.

Exemplo histórico: Guido de Bres hizo la conclusión que sea antibíblica la Iglesia Católica por le hecho que al lado de libros de Erasmo, de Melanchthon y otros, fueron quemados también Biblias o partidas de la Biblias en Flamenco y Francés. A esta época, la Inquisición Española hizo un poco más tarde Biblias en traducciones no heréticas. Peró Guido ya apostasió y más tarde fue pendido a muerte como hereje tras ser condenado por la Inquisición.

Hoy, no hay Inquisición, hay el pocadumbre de católicos que almenaza la Iglesia con la última persecución. Hay que hacer dos cosas:

• mostrar que el culto de imagenes y de santos es bíblico, como defendido por Nicea II y por Trento (y entre ortodoxos por Yaci y por Jerusalén)
  
  
• mostrar que el creacionismo y inerrantismo hasta mismo geocentrismo no son ni serán condenados como herejías por la Iglesia.

Yo quedo católico, peró no seguro que sea Francisco en Roma el papa y aún menos que Andrés Vingt-Trois sea el obispo de París.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(En otro frente de batallas: al matrimonio gay, sí, tenemos de ser contra el pseudomatrimonio entre hombre y hombre [o] entre mujer y mujer, peró de eso no resulta que personas homosexuales - psiquicamente - sean excluidos del matrimonio: hay hombres quienes pués una juventud amorosa de otros hombres son llegados al matrimonio con una mujer, como Josh Weed.

Cosa más personal: que sea por el celibado de sacerdotes, bueno, peró no me prenda por un monje, yo no busco el sacerdocio, yo busco el matrimonio, soy escritor, no pastor y tampoco profeta. Hay quienes aquí me consideran como si no tuve el derecho de casarme o de observar una chica en intención de posiblamente casarme.)

With Bubbaman about "private" discussion on common subjects

Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 17/09/13

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2013/09/three-or-ten-dimensions-with-bubbaman.html

If there is anything you like to add, feel free to do so./HGL

Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl, 20/09/13

hey dude, i am all for discussion, i think its fantastic. But i would appreciate if you didn't publicly make it available, this was a private conversation between two people, not communal. Please take it down, i don't consent to publishing of my text involved in the conversation.

Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 21/09/13

sue me

we spoke of no personal secrets, only of our positions about science and your name is not on my blog, only your username

sue me or live with it

This is on the blog too

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 21/IX/2013

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Bubbaman about "private" discussion on common subjects
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/09/with-bubbaman-about-private-discussion.html

It is funny how you, a scientist, react to your science being discussed in the open.

A bit like as if you enjoy the discussion as long as you think you are winning, when you see you are not, then you give up, but take a deep breath and sigh "after all it was just in private" ... which ones of your arguments is it that you do not want to be known to the public who are interested in science?

Or is it only their confrontation with mine, to which I have the right to consent or otherwise?

Oh, by the way, this is going to the blog too soon, lack of response will show.

So will your response.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Re:Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 21/IX/2013

thank you, for your consideration.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 21/IX/2013

You are welcome.

Debate (in short) with John Matusiak, priest of the Orthodox Church of America, on the Nature of Pagan Deities that were Supposedly Men, on Relative Reliability of Pagan Stories (except where contradicting the faith)

date : 20/09/13 à 14h20

objet : Are Krishna and Buddha Devils or Bad Men?

In Hindoo mythological theology or pseudotheology, the closest you come to the Devil showing himself as bad as he is to his worshippers would be the couple Shiva and Kali (Kali means Hell, btw). All three of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, but especially Shiva - as with Apollo (I think the tragedies where peoples' lives are ruined by his predictions or orders were preserved by the Church as a black book of accusations proving Paganism diabolic - and Apollyon is a genuine Pagan title of that "divinity" who is also called "lord of flies" and "lord of rats").

However, some deities which are the Devil insofar as wrongly worshipped, i e the worship given them is really given the Devil, are also other things. The Sun may be an angel or a piece of matter, but either way it is not the same person as who takes the worship of the Sun Worshippers.

And some Pagan Deities have had a life on earth.

I have heard of visions of Buddha and Muhammed in Hell, I was wondering if I might hear of Odin and Krishna in Hell too, seen by Asatrú and Hindoos converting. These had a carreer on Earth before going, supposedly, to Asgard or the Hindoo Heaven.

It seems some Hindoos have been upset by the words of one Archbishop Nikon about Krishna. I am not defending Hindooism, but I think Krishna might have been just a bad man before the flood (probably named "the black one" in Hebrew rather than Sanskrit, since Hebrew was the pre-Babel tongue) before Satan used the memory of him to seduce to idolatry. As with Caesar, Augustus, and a few other who were divinised.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 20/09/13 à 14h34

Dear Hans-Georg,

Thank you for your enquiry.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the perfect, final and complete revelation of God to mankind and in Whom we find the very Source of our salvation and eternal life as the only "Way, Truth, and Life" and the "Light of the world," reveals nothing concerning this, and there is nothing in the received Tradition that indicates anything of the sort concerning that about which you write.

At best, and without appearing to be flippant, we can say in this regard that that about which you write "may be, or may not be," but in any instance, it is of no consequence for those rooted in the Gospel and focused on Jesus Christ while anticipating the "life of the world to come" when He returns "to judge the living and the dead," at which time all will be revealed to us.

These matters are highly speculative; the Church does not deal in speculation but, rather, revelation alone.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 14h43

The Church as such is one thing.

Theologians are another thing. St Augustine assumed without reserve the historicity of Pagan stories. [Or rather without reserve insofar as they are human testimony.]

Can I then assume I am under no suspicion of being a syncretist because I assume the historicity of Arjuna's charioteer or Gylfi's deceiver, in their capacities of humans?

Sincerely,
Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 20/09/13 à 14h49

Dear Hans-Georg,

The Church maintains the fullness of truth -- that is, it focuses on the received Tradition, which is that which the People of God have believed at all times, throughout its 2000 year history, and in all places.

Individual members of the Church, including Augustine, may hold their own speculative, personal theological opinions. But these are not a part of the received Tradition, nor do they represent that which has been revealed by Jesus Christ since they, by nature, are "personal" and "speculative." Ultimately, theologians "speak about God" in definitive terms as He has revealed Himself to us. As such, their "function," so to speak, is to share that which Christ has revealed to His Church, His People.

With regard to whether you are a syncretist, it is impossible for me to say. I can say that, while one may hold such a personal opinion, one must also acknowledge that it is not the teaching of the Church nor an aspect of the received Tradition.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 15h29

I certainly do not blaim St Ansgar for heresy when/if he refused to acknowledge the historicity of Odin, unlike (if so) later St Olaf, who reckoned him a dead ancestor (Satan appeared to him in the shape of Odin one night, the next day he told his bishop: "Now I know Odin is dead, he is spooking").

Nor do I blame St Francis Xavier for reckoning there was no historic Buddha - the Japanese accounts he heard of him had added 9000 years of diverse incarnations before Siddharta.

While the historic existence of these cannot be even as dogmatic as the historic existence of an other idol, Caesar Augustus, who is in the Gospel, and a second one, Tiberius, who is also there, I nevertheless hold St Augustine was not merely expressing a personal opinion about the non-idolised Priam and Hecuba, and that other Church Father who called Hercules "not a god, but a strong mortal", I rather hold this was up to recent times (after Voltaire and Hume and Kant ruined European educations) the usual and most straightforward way to deal with Pagan lore - accepting as historic (in best probability, without dogmatic certainty) what was not in contradiction with the Faith.

Would you consider that syncretistic?

date : 20/09/13 à 15h38

Perhaps.

date : 20/09/13 à 15h58

If so why?

Would you consider St Jerome syncretistic for believing there was a faun around when St Anthony visited St Paul the First Hermit? And possibly a Centaur too?

date : 20/09/13 à 16h04

Dear Hang-Georg,

The purpose of our Question and Answer service, as indicated on our web site, is to answer questions about Orthodox Christianity. As such, engaging in lengthy on-line dialogues is beyond our capacity.

I answered your question according to the Orthodox Christian perspective.

All I can add is the following:

If one attempts to incorporate his or her personal opinions into the received Tradition of the Church, as if one's personal opinions are on part with the received Tradition and divine Revelation, then indeed one engages in syncretism. Just because one or two or three saints or Holy Fathers holds a particular opinion, it does not mean that those opinions are reflected in the Church's official teachings.

Early on, I explained that that about which you enquired is not a part of divine Revelation, nor the received Tradition.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 16h12

OK, I have heard a Bishop say that Evolution cannot be denied, that Creationists are bliding themselves to evidence.

He was seemingly speaking for his dioecese, of your jurisdictions.

Was he engaging in a merely personal opinion, or was he putting his merely personal opinion on par with Tradition and Official Doctrine of the Church and thereby engaging in Syncretism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What is at stake?

Of course, the answer he gave is correct insofar as the Church can never vouch for merely human histories - by Homer or by more recent writers - with the same assurance as for the Gospels. That the Church as such is not vouching for any particular story at all - except those that are part of the Church in its origin or in its historic detail.

It is also even to the point if it comes to "for him who is rooted in the Gospel" - but I have so much to do with people who are not. I am not trying to bolster my Faith against doubts of mine own, I am defending it against doubts brought up by non-believers.

My problem is when he seems to say that unless I have some kind of serious doubt of any dates in Greek history, I am thereby somehow incorporating it into the Depositum Fidei, which I am not. I have for that matter no serious doubt I was born in 1968 AD, but I am not incorporating that into the Depositum Fidei either. I have no serious doubt about either general reliability of collective memory - except when it is unrealiable for a reason than about the Pythagorean Theoreme, which I am not either doubting or putting on par with Divine Tradition either.

Time after time I have been asked or seen others asked things like "if you don't believe Greek Mythology or Hindoo Mythology or Roman or Nordic or Celtic Mythology or Egyptian or Babylonic Mythology, why do you think Hebrew Mythology in Genesis is any better?"

When it comes to contradictory accounts of same or correspoding events - Flood, Creation, Eternity of the One God or Births of Several Gods - one party in the quarrel must at least be wrong.

But no more than where he is contradicting what is right - not where he is actually confirming it (like reality of Flood being vouched for, apart from the Faith, by the multitude of Pagan flood myths beside the Hebrew one, which is not to be expected if the Hebrew story were merely an aberration of the Human mind). There he need not be wrong.

Now, the rest of this is less material to the faith, and as I explained, I do not consider St Francis Xavier a Heretic for denying the historical reality of Buddha as a human person, nor those as heretics who dispute Odin reigned at Upsala. And obviously not those who deny Arjuna had a charioteer named Krishna. But if it is not exactly indispensable to the Faith, it may still be relevant to the argument.

For once the Atheist enquirer asks how far I will take believing Pagans on the Flood, and other historic realities before the relevant writer lived, I will answer "pretty far." Without concessions to Pagan theologies. Ulysses came back to his wife, sure, no problem. He blinded a one-eyed giant on the way, ok, maybe so, it could be bragging, but I cannot deny the possibility on principle. It is when we get to the debate between Athena and her father Zeus that I say : hold it, those are not the guys who decide human destinies. That said, Homer at least is no Calvinist, he does not deny freewill nor refuse responsibility to sinners in that debate put into the mouths of things that are not, the mouths of deities originally imagined by vain men.

A similar debate did take place and somehow get known to men (probably either revealed to Moses or to the person directly concerned), about another man who could be called πολυτλας or "suffering much" - Job. Only, the debate between God and Satan was before his sufferings, not when God decided to end them.

And if Agamemnon once tried to pray that the Sun stop still in the sky until he had completely routed the Trojans, he might have gotten the idea of Joshua - even if Homer does not mention him and may not even have known him. But the prayer of Agamemnon could not have been heard, since he was vengeful for merely political reasons or nearly so (nominally the war could have been about the sanctity of marriage) and since he directed it to false gods whom the sun does not obey. Whereas Joshua - the name means Jesus and the Greek Bible actually calls him Jesus Nave - served the true Lord. Whom the Sun dutifully obeys, when shining on the good and on the wicked.

But this will not make me seriously doubt that Ulysses did come home, through Divine Providence, or that Agamemnon did try a prayer that failed him.

Still less will the failures of Pagan theology make me think the Holy Bible's stories similar to Pagan ones are just imagined stuff without factual reality or with a free and non-committing relation to it.

Now, the priest from OCA, John Matusiak, did call out against agreeing too heartily with what he considered just two or three Church Fathers (as if all the rest were supposed to be firmly opposed to all truth in any Pagan story), but Lazar Puhalo agrees with no Church Father at all when he calls Young Earth Creationism a model of reality that is blind to evidence. All Church Fathers who said anything about the subject were Young Earth Creationists.

Another thing that is at stake is this: I have defended the Gospels' reliability by the fact that the Church vouches for these being from Her own origin. But this brings up how communities know their origins. By tradition.

In this context - as far as God's truth allows - I will rather say Athenians recalled Cecrops with fairly correct descriptions than say it is exceptional for a community to know its origin. And though I neither believe Romulus and Remus were lifted to heaven after dying nor that they were born to a god named Mars, I will believe the rest of it pretty closely to how Livy tells it, except where as a Christian I have a particular reason to think the old Romans were mistaken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Matthew
Ember Friday
20-IX-2013