dimanche 31 juillet 2016

Probabilities in reference to question of finding fossils all three major levels (PMC) a place

I had a debate with Tony Reed (upcoming in sorted version) in which he had said "since the chances are basically nil to get a fossil preserved anyway, just forget about finding it in two or three major levels".

Let us get to Pascal's Triangle. First of all, very unrealistically, as it works out with an equal chance of finding or not finding a fossil at any given level.

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 1 1
2 levels 1 2 1
3 levels 1 3 3 1

Now, how about 1 chance in 4? 1 chance for, 3 chances against finding a fossil at any given level?

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 3 1
2 levels 9 6 1
3 levels 27 27 9 1

Notice a thing? In first, unrealistic, example, the 1:1 for each level came back as 3:3 for 1 vs 2 levels out of three. In second, equally unrealistic, or nearly so, example, the 3:1 for each level came back as 27:9 for 1 vs 2 levels out of three.

Now, what if there were one chance in 10 or in 100? That would mean 9:1 or 99:1 against a fossil being there in each level.

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 9 1
2 levels 81 18 1
3 levels 729 243 27 1

Before reaching third line, I needed to do some counting:

 0 = 81 1 = 18 2 = 1
not next * 9 729 162 9
next * 1 81 18 1
 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
 729 162 9
  81 18 1
 729 243 27 1

And for 99:1 against a fossil?

 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
1 level 99 1
2 levels 9801 198 1
3 levels 970299 29403 297 1

Before reaching third line, I needed to do some counting:

 0 = 9801 1 = 198 2 = 1
not next * 99 970299 19602 99
next * 1 9801 198 1
 0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
 970299 19602 99
  9801 198 1
 970299 29403 297 1

For 9:1 per level we get 243:27 = 9:1 for one vs two levels.

For 99:1 per level we get 29403:297 = 99:1 for one vs two levels.

The curious thing is, when we check my older post "How Fossils Superpose"*, and look at how many you have per pure Palaeozoic, pure Mesozoic, pure Cenozoic, and how many you have on two of these levels, we are seeing a ratio not too far from 99:1 - as far as modern, Geological and Palaeontological classifications are concerned.

If these were correct, one would expect also to find about 1 in 99 places a fossil at each level.

But the problem is - does it really look like a superposition of faunas where we find two of the three major levels? No. In Yacoraite we see rather same fauna below and above a K/T boundary. In Karoo we find the Permian/Palaeozoic and Triassic/Jurassic/Mesozoic faunas ... side by side. As if they were in reality different faunas from same Pre-Flood world.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XV
XI Lord's Day after Pentecost

* Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?

Sorry for about a day, or near two, when the footnote was attached to the calendar numeric date, corrected Tuesday./HGL

mercredi 27 juillet 2016

Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

I am reading a somewhat longer article than just answering this one, and one which errs in considering that the account in Genesis were a fabrication from the times of David or Solomon to justify slavery of Canaanite neighbours.

It also adds that to Jews, towards beginning of Christian era, Canaanites were more prone to be Black (Kushim) or Slavs. And that to Christians, at first there was no predeliction of ethnic nature as to who were next in line for what was really a penal servitude, then later Slavs were to West Europeans targetted well before Negroes - but that the sugar plantations started to change this near 1500.

Now, as I already spoke about Jews, what the article has to say about Muslims is very interesting.

Black Slavery, according to William McKee Evans*, was not a Muslim priority stemming from the Quran.

It started to become so when light skinned slaves, very rich in supply up to Muhammed, had become scarce since the permanent state of internal warfare between Arab principalities had ceased with Muhammed.

This means that up to Muhammed, Arabs on the Peninsula had been hunting each other for slaves, much as Negroes in Africa up to Western Colonisation, and sometimes beyond.

This confirms a bit what St Thomas said** about what people were first to examine the credentials of Muhammed as "prophet":

[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

Let me highlight:

What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Well, if they hunted each other for slaves up to the time of Muhammed, as William McKee Evans* said, then it is not possible to deny they were so.

Not by race, but by the culture in those days indigenous - somewhat like that of Swedes prior to Olof Skjötkonung or perhaps even more like that of Ashantis prior to Brazza.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Pantaleon

* Evans, William McKee. "From the Land of Canaan to the Land of Guinea: The Strange Odyssey of the "Sons of Ham"" The American Historical Review 85.1 (1980): 15-43. Web.

** Contra Gentiles, Book I, chapter 6
[quoting paragraph 4], by St Thomas Aquinas, OP.

lundi 25 juillet 2016

Reviewing Sarfati on Shallow Pre-Flood Seas

Sarfati had answered Don P. from U.S.

CMI Feedback : Noah did not take fish on the Ark!
First published: 16 July 2013 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 23 July 2016 (GMT+10)

Don P. "How did the many sessile species, from sponges and corals to anemones and barnacles, detach themselves and waddle through however brief a trip it may have been?"

Sarfati answers adequately that sea creatures remained in the sea.

Don P. "A problem analogous to that of terrestrial arctic and desert dwellers would be the exotic inhabitants of the abyssal and hadal zones of the ocean depths. To postulate only shallow seas before the deluge precludes the very existence of deep-sea dwellers."

Here Sarfati answers, less adequately, this:

"Who said anything about the seas all being shallow? Seems like you have invented your own straw men to knock down."

Actually, not quite.

If deeper seas is where Flood water was drained off into, forming after Flood, or end stage of Flood, obviously shallower seas must have been there before the Flood. Precisely as mountains were less high too, Flood water was not 15 cubits above present height of Andes or Himalaya, as these mountains were as yet not so high.

Obviously, the kinds whereof all present species are deepsea dwellers now need not have been so pre-Flood.

If Noah confindently could write or formulate orally a thing like ...

Genesis 7:[19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

... Then we must presume that Noah knew either the height of all high mountains (since he was six hundred years old, this is no problem) or at least THE highest mountain, THEN that he was, from the Ark, in a position to measure how high water had risen above one of them.

This would be the case if Noah had either gone to one of several mountains all of equal height, or to the one which was higher then the rest, and had taken a fathoming from the Ark and last fathoming was 15 cubits.

If Calvary or Mount of Olives were as high as pre-Flood mountains got, or one of them being the highest, then we can see how this works out.

But if the highest mountains were more like Mount Everest, it might have been nearly as hard to save mountains to the level of that top as to save them from the Flood after it. So, we must presume that Mont Blanc, Mount Everest, Lake Titicaca are on heights which before the Flood did not even exist.

"Another straw man is presupposing that the Ark was in the land we now call the Middle East, overlooking the drastic continental reshaping in the Flood."

Is Sarfati trying to squeeze in a case for a pre-Flood Pangea as reconstructed by today's geology and palaeontology?

I would say the different pieces of land were reshaped in different portions. Some places mud was not being slid above the river beds from the four paradisal rivers, which is why these are identified as identic - we must presume in some parts of the beds, not in their totalities - to post-Flood rivers.

On which matter, see here:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Four Rivers

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St James the Greater
Apostle and Martyr*

* Sancti Jacobi Apostoli, qui exstitit beati Joannis Evangelistae frater; et, prope festum Paschae ab Herode Agrippa decollatus, primus ex Apostolis coronam martyrii percepit. Ejus sacra ossa, ab Hierosolymis ad Hispanias hoc die translata, et in ultimis earum finibus apud Gallaeciam recondita, celeberrima illarum gentium veneratione, et frequenti Christianorum concursu, religionis et voti causa illuc adeuntium, pie coluntur.

vendredi 22 juillet 2016

Not Just Making God a Liar, But a Bungler as Paedagogue!

As Georgia Purdom, PhD, said on this video:

Confirming evidence of a literal Adam & Eve with Dr. Georgia Purdom
Answers in Genesis

About 4 minutes into the video.

Some guys think "ancient Hebrews were not very knowledgeable about science, so God accomodated his revelation to what they could understand and let them write down an account on that level, even if that is not how it happened."

After this resumé, Georgia Purdom very rightly asks - and answers:

"Do you know what that makes God? A liar!"

Well, not just that, Georgia! Not just that!

Also a clear bungler in paedagogics!

Genesis was written by Moses, right? This means it was either written during the time when he was Egyptian official (among perhaps more advanced Egyptians), or when he was alone in the desert (as a wanted criminal, or considering himself as in that risk zone) or during the walk with Israel through the Desert.

Either way, this walk was involved in Israel accepting Genesis as a book penned by Moses and a word coming from the God who had revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush.

This walk was for forty years.

Each day (with a few exceptions), the amount of work to do was collecting mannah for that day, no more. On Fridays the chore was a bit higher, they had to collect mannah for Friday and for ensuing Sabbath, no more, even if that is twice the usual chore. Each night they did some walking, behind the pillar of fire, presumably not just to get through the desert, but also to stay away from Egyptians or Amalekites.

40 years. Plenty of time for instructions to be given. Schola means "free time" and the walk through the desert was that. And in 40 years school, God would still not have been able to instruct them sufficiently as to make them realise that "thousand times thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand years" is a bit longer time than a day, and a bit longer time than the history recorded from Adam in chapters after Creation story.

But of course, this issue also comes with a vengeance on non-Geocentric Creationists.

When Joshua told Sun and Moon "stand thou still" and "move thou not" - if the real miracle had been about Earth not turning around itself, why was Joshua wording it like that?

To accomodate with the "primitive" state of Hebrew science? Right ... what was I just saying about how long God had had to give them instruction allowing them a real grasp on a Genesis written differently, if different had been the historical facts? Well, that also applies to how long God would have had to give them instructions to understand the other words of Joshua, if Joshua had spoken to Earth and its axis instead, if that something else had been the real astronomical fact of the miracle in Joshua 10.

When I was small, it didn't take ME forty years to wrap my mind around "millions of years" and "Earth turns around itself each day" and "Earth turns around Sun each year".

And my teachers were even so not God in those matters, so would normally be inferior to God.

Except, on the accomodationist view either of Genesis or of Joshua's words in Joshua X:12 (!), God would have, having forty years, been inferior to them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Mary Magdalen

vendredi 15 juillet 2016

Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Geological Column · 2) ... on Radiometric Dating · 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Guy Berthault's Results May Not Prove the Flood Factual, They Prove it Possible

I am not editing but simply quoting one piece by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. entitled Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy"* :

« The modern Principle of Superposition simply states that unless geologic materials have been overturned, folded or moved by faults, layered sediments or sedimentary rocks tend to be older than any sediments or sedimentary rocks directly above them. In the same way, before we can place the top layer on a cake, the bottom layer must already be there. »


But this does not invalidate Guy Berthault’s point that currents during Flood can have formed with virtual or relative simultaneity (obviously not absolute one, at least a few seconds or on such a scale perhaps even minutes earlier must be assumed for bottom layer) what has been attributed to millions of years by Uniformitarian dating.

It does however validate my point, against a Geologist, that it is a matter of great importance to evoluating the evidence if a Triassic fossil found « above » a Permian one is found directly above it, according to the reservation given by Dr Henke, or kilometers away, as long as geologists can think of the fossils as found in two superposed layers.**

Howard F
… Here is another example: The succession of land animals. In the late Paleozoic are Pelycosaurs, but no dinosaurs and no mammals. In the Mesozoic are dinosaurs, but never any pelycosaurs, and never mixed with ungulate mammals. In younger layers are ungulate mammals. This order is never violated, and none of these groups are ever mixed. No where in the world are elephants mixed with dinosaurs. ...

… Is there ANYWHERE where they are one on top of other? …

[Also giving sites/links]

Howard F
… I don't see any reference to pelycosaurs stratigraphically above dinosaurs or ungulates mixed with or below dinosaurs in these sites. Seriously, this is a major problem for YEC's.

… I was not asking on pelycosaurs stratigraphically below (I guess you meant) dinosaurs. I was asking about the LOCALLY below. What exact place on earth?

Give a reference from this site:


It is evolutionist, so not biassed against you.

I have been through a few countries on it, and nowhere found palaeozoic landfauna under mesozoic, nor mesozoic under cenozoic.

Howard F
… That web site does not have all the information, but of course there are many hundreds of places all over the world where rocks with Pelycosaurs are below rocks with dinosaurs. … Pelycosaurs are found only in Paleozoic rocks, and dino's in Mesozoic rocks. There is a line that separates them and anywhere there is an outcrop along that line would be an example you are looking for.

Well, the thing is, with outcrops we are NOT dealing with directly above. In the sense the words is usually used. In the sense it must be used by Henke in the above quote.

Henke admitted the right facts, but did not draw the right conclusions from the facts, namely that the proofs, supposed such, of "millions of years" are still no longer there.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library
St Henry I, Roman
Emperor, Confessor

* Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy"
by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy": Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawperson Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles, by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

The site also provides Guy Berthault's own answer, which I had missed when writing above:

Response by Guy Berthault to criticism of his "Stratigraphy"

** Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further

jeudi 7 juillet 2016

In case anyone thinks I am a Theosophist, I am not.

Again reading a Theosophist account of origin of man, again not agreeing.

« At first, it appeared as though the Cro-magnon exile was proceeding as planned, but within a thousand years it became obvious that very serious oversights and assumptions had been made. The concept of prisoners remaining in a primal state was shattered when our ancestors began creating a microcosm of interstellar civilization. Earth, for the first time in its history, became witness to art, architecture, animal husbandry, agriculture, written languages, advanced mathematics, technology, law, religion and government. It also became witness to the atrocities of modern man. And, instead of interbreeding with other species, we began the systematic manipulation and/or destruction of other life forms. »

This is very heavily indebted to :

  • thinking Neolithic revolution was earliest discovery rather than rediscovery (after Flood) of agriculture ;
  • thinking Neanderthals knew nothing of agriculture and were not mentally apt for it ;
  • thinking Neanderthals were wiped out rather than absorbed ;
  • above all, thinking Neolithic revolution was 10,000 years ago and « hominids » had been here for millions of years. Or hundreds of thousands, at least.

Against this, the Bible informs us ;

  • Adam knew of agriculture and Tubal-Cain of metals before the Flood (certain circumstances indicate that remains from « 10,000 years ago » or Neolithic revolution were in fact post-Flood ;
  • all men come from Adam, so Neanderthals, if post-Flood, certainly recalled agriculture, though they would have been living in an ice age in the time of Nimrod, and thus would have been unable to cultivate any larger pieces of land ;
  • if Neanderthals were pre-Flood, they may have been wiped out, but remains of Neanderthal genome in Europeans show at least one daughter in law of Noah would have been of them, if they were post-Flood they would be part of the table of nations and therefore probably still there, though in mixed form ;
  • above all, through chrono-genealogies, Heaven and Earth were created 5199 BC, Flood was 2957 BC, there is no time for this crap of 100,000 of years (« without agriculture ») or even 10,000 BC.

And, as it happens, I did some work on making a coherent model (if not necessarily the true one, that could need some more research I cannot do, beyond my attempt, or even be inaccessible to Doomsday) in modelising the Carbon 14 buildup.

Here is what I consider my best attempt :

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte

And other parts of same series (links to all msgs in top of each) among other things and discussions also contain other attempts. Attention, it is in French.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Sts Cyril and Method

mardi 5 juillet 2016

Ham - Nye, answering a point from Nye or two

Bill Nye in Nye-Ham debate:
You hear a lot about the Grand Canyon I imagine, which i s a remarkable place, and it has fossils, and the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers. There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there's a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did, not a single one. If you could find evidence of that my friends, you could change the world.

Actually, nearly everything in GC is water living creatures without spines. Only at the very top do you get land creatures.

Water creatures without spine do not exactly feel they are "drowning" because there is a lot of water.

The kind of clams and such that we find in GC survived elsewhere outside the Ark, in precisely water.

They do not climb.

They got buried in mud, they come in layers as mud of different thickness and of differently big or differently shaped content made spontaneous layers, one can presume. At least such experiments have been made for different sizes of sand grains.

Bill Nye, again:
That is unique, and here’s my concern: what keeps the United States ahead, what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology, innovation, our new ideas.

US is apparently world leading in Science. It is also world leading in - Creationism.

In France, Creationism is viewed as a US specialty, like "junk food" such as hamburgers, pop corn, potato chips and a few more.

So, US has at least a reputation for being world leading there too.

Bill Nye:
If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process, and try to divide our science into observational science and historical science, we won't move forward and embrace natural laws, we will not make discoveries, we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead.

Observational and historic science are different processes. Realising this is far from making the observational or operational one (historic too uses observations, operational reminds us historic is not giving us the means for new technologies) harder to do.

Transcript available here, I hope:


When I argue against evolutionists, it is very often under youtubes in comboxes and it very often comes directly to another blog:

Assorted retorts from Yahoo Boards and Elsewhere

On this one, I more usually argue about specific points, and it seems other Creationists have more talent than vociferous Evolutionists to raise these in trackable ways.

lundi 4 juillet 2016

Other Difference between Star Light in Transit and Creative Miracles

William asking*
... Why does it seem inconsistent with God’s nature to create the light from a supernova that never existed? It seem the Bible has the same “problem” when it speaks of Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed. Or bread from wheat that never existed, or fish too for that matter. ...

Lita replying*
... If we see its supernova, that’s an implied historical event. But if Star X never existed, and God simply created light in transit, that would mean that we could do scientific testing on a star that never actually existed. ... On Day 6, Adam was created as a fully-grown human man. If you or I were to go back in a time machine and see Adam, we might think he looked like a 20-something year old man, when in fact he was only hours old. Is this the same sort of implied history? Actually, it’s simply created maturity; when God created the universe, He did so in such a way that it could function with ecosystems, etc. ... First, the miracles were on a much smaller scale, and there were witnesses who knew them to be miracles. No woman at the feeding of the 5,000 would have been asking for the recipe for the multiplying loaves, for instance. And the miracles were intended as signs. I.e. the miracles were clearly extraordinary events intended to require a response of either belief or unbelief.

A little completion
  • Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed.
  • Or bread from wheat that never existed,
  • or fish too for that matter.

Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed.
Christ did create it from water that did exist, which is what He is using when creating wine through grapes as well.

Or bread from wheat that never existed,
Christ created the bread from the bread that did exist and the wheat in that bread, as usually He creates wheat from existing wheat through fertility in the fields. Or barley from existing barley. I think the multiplied loaves were barley loaves.

This has a connection with the Hebrew way of brewing Shekhor, I think, and therefore indirectly also with His first miracle, in Cana:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Beer and Bible

or fish too for that matter.
Not from "wheat that never existed" I hope.

By fertility, Christ as God the Son is creating new fish from existing fish. Again, the usual way was bypassed, but the basic skeleton of the process is there.

The many fish that helped to still the hunger of the crowd were created from the few which were given him.

Other completion
  • Distant starlight problem as a problem for young universe.
  • Starlight in transit and heliocentrism with its turned around reality vs appearance.

Distant starlight problem as a problem for young universe.
If that starlight is not really that distant, then there is no problem.

As distances beyond those measured with sun-shine and angles on planets have a cosmic distance ladder starting with parallax, and parallax depends for its proof certitude (not for mere possibility) on heliocentrism, if we are geocentrics, we don't have this problem.

If there is a sphere of fixed stars (roughly speaking, with some stars slightly more distant than others because covered by them, but not because of smaller parallax), the star X would have been only as far away as the sphere of fixed stars, which could be as close as one light day**, and in that case the supernova is regularly seen one day after it occurs. Which a creationist has no problem accepting as far as time scale is involved.

Sungenis and DeLano think God fixed the spheres of stars onto distances from the Sun, so that stars moving along with Sun would create same effect of parallax usable as distance measure as the Heliocentrics use for saying "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away", but there is no way of proving such a fixed distance of each star from Sun, and no way to disprove stars are instead moved around by angels. Whose fun with angles was no more intended for us to use as a distance measure than any bones from when C-14 level was 35 % of present one were meant to provide a timeline extending beyond 8000 BC.

So, parallax would still be possible, if one takes there solution, but there is no real practical gain to have from measuring parallax and therefore God is not deceiving us of anything if we don't get the right answers from the method we use. Precisely as God provided stars and star signs and planets and so, but is not deceiving us if astrology is wrong.

And of course placing stars at fixed distances from Sun (a k a neo-Tychonian system) is not a proven fact and therefore parallax is not a prove distance measure method, unlike triangulation of points where we know their distance or distances of points of observation and know all three corners or each triangle is fixed.

Starlight in transit and heliocentrism with its turned around reality vs appearance.
If God created the appearance of a Supernova occurring "billions of years ago", and the method of ascertaining the billions of years was not contestable as just shown, and it was just an appearance, none really happened, this would not be according to God's truthfulness.

I agree.

But if we were to be living on a planet that moves by rotation around itself and orbitation around Sun and this creates an appearance of being on a stationary Earth under a Sun which has a daily movement from East to West and yearly movements of higher or lower height over horizon (up to zenith as 90° over it) each year, would that be according to God's truthfulness?

The future Urban VIII while still a cardinal*** and a friend of Galileo told him "God could create the universe any way He liked and make it appear any way He liked" - I suppose the cardinal was speaking about God's power and for the moment passing over the question of God's truthfulness.

The point is, if any option which leaves reality and visual appearance as identic was open to God (and according to the cardinal's words it was), God was obliged by His truthfulness to chose one which does so.

Update 5.VII.2016
I forgot to sign the article, but it is still mine°.

I saw yesterday on FB a link to this article by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on August 1, 2001:

AiG : Geocentrism and Creation
Originally published in Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation) 15, no. 2 (August 2001): 110–121.

On the Biblical side, he misses (did Bouw miss it too) the role of Joshua's Long Day in the debate.

In the earlier trial, when Galileo was not a suspect but only his book was, both he and Bellarmine agreed the miracle had taken place.

He argued, if Earth stopped moving the effect would visibly have been the same. Bellarmine argued that not so, since Earth stopping its rotation would not have stopped the Moon from orbitting around Earth.

So, Joshua's Long Day is a Biblical key passage for the issue. So is the fact that Earth is created before Sun. If Earth was still days 1, 2, 3, why should God set it moving on day 4 just because He creates the Sun? It is possible, but it is a stretch.

On the scientific side, he is not quite alert to all implications of the parallax issue.

He does not take in that the distantial implications of the observation termed parallax depend on heliocentrism.

Also, he overdoes in history of ideas how much Ptolemaic system depended on "perfect circles". It actually depended in origin on circles, as the perfect shape (non-angular, which stretched circles or ellipses are too).

And obviously, perfect circles as opposed to ellipses can hardly to any sober commenter come off as the main reason why anyone would prefer geocentrism over heliocentrism.

Also, the concrete daily movement of any celestial body is a fragment of a kind of spiral and a fragment which is very close to a perfect circle. Say its starting an orbit zenith over meridian of Paris and closes it about 24 hours later, the gap between starting point and closing point will be minuscule compared to the radius. It's only over longer terms that it makes sense to speak of ellipses rather than circles - namely when disregarding the daily movement.

Now, today I do sign.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Antonio-Maria Zaccaria

* Taken from Saturday's article:

CMI : What is the problem with starlight in transit?
Published: 2 July 2016 (GMT+10)

** If Messenger ever gets as far as one light day without reaching any sphere of fixed stars, next option would perhaps be two light days away.

*** Maffeo Barberini, I checked on wiki.
° Excepting any intellectual property quarrel which might arise from my extensive quoting at the beginning.