Friday, November 28, 2014

Lo Hueco!

Leyendo la wikipedia:

Lo Hueco es un yacimiento paleontológico situado en el término municipal de Fuentes (Cuenca, España). El yacimiento se localiza en la Formación Margas, arcillas y yesos de Villalba de la Sierra y tanto la posición estratigráfica relativa como el contenido de macrovertebrados permiten atribuirlo al Cretácico Superior, más concretamente a su tramo Campaniense Superior - Maastrichtiense Inferior. La localidad ha facilitado una abundante colección de fósiles, en la que están representados distintos grupos de peces, tortugas, lepidosauromorfos, cocodrilos y dinosaurios saurópodos, terópodos y ornitópodos.


Cuantos?

El sitio de Creation Ministries International dice: 8000 o más.

The fossil site was first uncovered in June 2007 by workmen building a high-speed rail link through Lo Hueco, near the city of Cuenca.

So, what is significant as far as Noah’s Flood is concerned?

First, according to the experts excavating the site, they have recovered some 8,000 fossils to date. Of course, a fossil may represent only part of the animal, such as a limb, a rib or a skull. But 8,000 fossils is a huge number to be buried in one location. That is why the report describes the site as ‘spectacular’, ‘massive’ and a ‘graveyard’.


Según expertes quienes hace los excavaciones, hasta hora han descubierto más o menos 8000 fossiles ...

Que 8000 fossiles en un solo lugar - y no es el solo donde es como sí - implica al Diluvio, doy razón a Tas Walker. Peró hay otra cosa que parece que mismo él no vio.

Todos los fossiles son del Cretácico!

8000 fossiles son "del Campaniense" o "del Maastrichtiense" - las dos "últimas edades" del Cretácico.

No hay 4000 fossiles del Periodo Pérmico y encima 4000 del Cretácico.

Tampoco 4000 fossiles del Cretácico y encima 4000 del Paleoceno, por ejemplo de la Daniense.

Tampoco hay 2000 fossiles del Pérmico, encime 4000 del Cretácico y otra vez encima 2000 del Paleoceno.

TODOS los 8000 son del Cretácico. TODOS.

Quizás 4000 al bajo de la Campaniense y encima 4000 de la Maastrichtiense? Posíble según las palabras del texto, peró tengo dudas. Parece más probable, sea que la fauna no puede determinarse totalmente precisa como Campaniense a exclusión de Maastrichtiense o Maastrichtiense a exclusión de Campaniense, sea que parte del lugar da fossiles Campanienses que no hay en el Maastrichtiense y vice versa, peró que esas partes no son enbajo y encima, sino lado al lado.

Y eso es o sería tan típico! Casi toda la paleontología es como eso. El Gran Cañón puede parecer una excepción - peró es casi exclusivamente invertebrados marinos clasificados en el Paleozóico.

Pueden preguntar al ayuntamiento de Cuenca, voy hacerlo yo mismo.

La implicación muy limpia es que la "Columna Geológica" casi no existe en la paleontología. La Escala temporal geológica no es claramente basada en sobreposición de una fauna encima al otra. Quizás hay sobreposiciones de tipos de piedra, peró no hay sobreposiciones (o casi) de tipos de fauna. Y cada lugar donde los fossiles son TODOS del mismo Período, de la misma Época, y de la misma Edad (o casi, como en Lo Hueco dos edades vecinas) confirma eso. Peró con 8000 fossiles, Lo Hueco confirma eso con mucha claridad y émfase.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Biblioteca Universitaria
de Nanterra
San Sóstenes de Corinto
28-XI-2014

Biquipedia : Lo Hueco
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo_Hueco


CMI : Can’t see the Flood for the sediment
by Tas Walker
http://creation.com/cant-see-the-flood-for-the-sediment

Sunday, October 5, 2014

How Susan met Rose E. Pole


Meanwhile, Aunt Alberta had seen the corpse of Jill, and gone to it, since she had been a close friend to Eustace those last years, especially that last year. She was not alone, there was a man with a girl, probably his daughter, since she reminded of him. They also reminded her of Jill Pole.

"Relatives of Jill, I presume? You must be the uncle and cousin, Paul Edward and Rose Ellen, I presume? My condoleances!"

"And you are," said Paul Edward, "the mother of Eustace, Alberta?"

"Indeed."

"Condoleances."

And Alberta insisted on inviting them to a treat, then and there, nearest tea room, an ice cream and soda for Rose and tea with cake for herself and Paul. THey simply had "to take a pause from the grieving" as she put it. Strictly vegetarian and the tea room chosen as very certainly not a pub were they served any strong drink. You know her principles, and keeping low calory intake was not one of her strictest. As she was asked where Harold was, she explained there was some chance she was staying in Sevenoaks for the night, so he had been sent to arrange with the hotel - including for Susan.

Paul Edward was the divorced father of one daughter, he had also been lodging Jill and giving her an English as opposed to exotic education, while her parents were digging for bones somewhere all over the world, whereever there was a good dig to be made. Later they were among the veteran staff of Mary Leakey when she was a widow. This arrangement, while Experiment House was still open, lasted during holidays - hols as they said back then - but after it closed during terms too.

Jill had taken archery lessons for Susan, as said, but Rose - even now only thirteen - had been deemed too young to do so. Rose Ellen was silent, thought of her dead cousin Jill, thought of her mother, divorced and in asylum, and did not know which hurt most.

She liked the ice cream, but as you can imagine did not fully enjoy it. Now and then she cried.

That is where they were when the Spivvinses had invited Susan to the same place. And that is where Rose Ellen Pole and Susan Pevensie first met and made friends.

After Alberta did the introductions (not meaning Rose got the fact that Susan's last name was Pevensie, as shall be explained), Susan sat down at their table next to Rose and turned to her. The Spivvinses understood and paid her tea and sandwich. Themselves getting some at another table. And Su and Rose sat and talked at one end, while Alberta and Paul - soon joined by Harold - talked at the other end.

The first question Rose asked was:

"How was Jill as an archery pupil."

"The kind of archer that if there had been a shooting of arrows, she would have survived better than a train crash - even if her opponents were good warriors."

And this for the first time brightened up the face of Rose since she had heard the bad news same morning.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Nathan Coon and Spivvins


Nathan had prepared his little speech pretty carefully. And especially all the gestures. The tone. He had not reckoned on Lucy practically converting everyone of hers among the now deceased, just in the nick of time, nor on it showing thanks to rosaries and scapulars. She had not reckoned on the smile of her face giving Susan the comfort she really needed. He had not reckoned in Susan feeling guilt for having betrayed Lucy to him.

If psychologists get away with treating people, it is partly because anyone complaining seriously can usually be shut up and rendered thereby less credible and often enough even more uncomfortable than under his therapy.

It is also because their patients see them as the strong person. So that when reliance in such a one fails, it is at least not replaced by a stronger confidence in the patient himself or in what he stands for.

This they regularly reckon on. When they are wrong about a peaceful and modest person, they often refuse to see the evidence. Their superiority over their patient as to mental strength is so much a religion to them that if there is evidence for the contrary, they block it out. This was actually Nathan Coon's religion even more than his involvement in the Lodge of Tash. To him, they were simply his therapists, odd as that may seem to someone retaining his sanity more than therapists do.

And if the person they were treating as a patient is not peaceful and modest, if there is a quarrel, if they see evidence of something having gone wrong, they have a real swiftness in reinterpreting that new evidence as evidence of the patient "compensating" (for a real and really felt inferiority) in unrealistic and untenable ways. And as long as many people living ordinary lives and many people occasionally bossing over such support them, the therapists are often lucky enough to become right in such a supposition, even if they were not to start with, when the conflict broke out.

Nathan Coon arrived at Sevenoaks. He soon was at the scene of the trainwreck. He bit his lips when seeing some bodies were smashed. With some relief he spotted Susan as she was talking with the Spivvinses.

He made a sign to her as she sighted him. "Oh both!" she sighed. She imagined he was going to offer some comfort she very clearly did not need from him.

She had this agreement with him. Probably nearly everyone going to a therapist had it back then. Except those often locked up or closely wateched over by others. You see, according to the deal she had no need to acknowledge she was going to therapy to people not aware of that. Back then such an admission would have felt much more shameful than now. These days films are nearly supposed to include a therapist, but back then that was not done in comedy or adventure, more like, if at all, in heavy films and even there hardly for the hero. So, to hide her not quite genial situation she had no need to tell strangers about him.

She had once or twice suspected him of not keeping his - unspoken - part of the bargain but of instead telling strangers about her behind her back. One or two new acquaintances suddenly just had dropped her - suspiciously enough in conditions that she might have been making a good impression on them by the first meeting, but they may have dropped out because of learning precisely such a thing. However, she was submitting herself to therapy and this had not stopped her from drowing these thoughts in a gush of confidence for him. Now, beside her sister's body, there was no such gush. Just an "oh bother" - even without such suspicions.

Then there was a short feeling of triumph as she recalled she had a choice. She could either go to him and pretend he was some other kind of acquaintance - or turn away the head and thus signal him it was absolutely not the right moment. She choose the latter alternative and turned her head back to the Spivvinses, the young Spivvins and the taxi driver from yesternight.

"So you were saying?" she said (and she had genuinely lost track of it while seeing Nathan Coon) with a most radiant smile. Like the one she had used when speaking to her best friend "George" to get rid of a bothersome but fortunately shy admirer.

Unfortunately for her, Nathan Coon was not a shy admirer. He bumped in from behind, touched her shoulder ever so gently, told her calmly and gently: "Susan, we would need to talk one of these days - it's quite alright if it isn't now, but ideally before the funeral ..."

Tom Spivvins, fortunately for her, seemed to grasp her discomfort with this person, especially when she also ever so gently got her shoulder away from under his hand (with a shudder and feeling of relief as he was forcved to let her go in order not to make a scene). He stepped forth to more or less protect her integrity, a bit like his uncle had done to protect her against the cruel war hero last night.

"Sir, I do not know who you are in general or who you are to her, but she seems to mind your company."

Nathan had a routine for situations like this one. Susan knew it partly from when Peter had tried to protect Lucy - and when he had failed, mainly due to her. But this time he varied it.

"I am her uncle."

As this did not duly impress young Spivvins, as his uncle stepped forth and added "you don't look like it ..." he quickly got himself out of that question by adding:

"Her uncle by marriage. She is the niece of my late wife. We had been looking after her since the day when ... well, frankly, she had a nervous breakdown."

Susan was angry but too flabberghasted by the dishonesty. Was he going to tell the story of Lucy, which was dishonest even about her? She tried to open her mouth, couldn't when he just continued:

"We had to consult a psychiatrist. No, no, it's not that bad she is not going to therapy," he said with a dishonesty blatant to her. "She was locked up for a week." (Hey, yes, that was what happened to Lu! What an infamous ...) "and afterwards we were told not to worry. She was only a bit mentally frail, but she needed our attention. By now, it is two weeks we haven't heard from her, we are getting worried."

He didn't tell "we" happened to sound better than "I" in such contexts, besides being ironically true when compared to the lodge being involved. But he had been clumsy on a detail.

"We? I thought you were a widower!"

"Me and my new wife. Look here, you are really strangers to her, and to us, this is really none of your business. But fact remains, I remarried."

"In that case, she might not be getting along properly with her step aunt. Leace her alone."

The two Spivvinses, to the amazement of Susan, stepped closer to Nathan and made him take a step back. And the rest of their family were also stepping in behind them.

Nathan thus stepped back, but trying to wrench a victory from defeat, he turned to Susan and said: "Tomorrow by 1 p.m.? Will that be fine?"

"No." Susan couldn't believe she was getting out of his grasp so cheaply, and she enjoyed every moment of it.

"I didn't hear that. I'll be waiting at the office tomorrow ..."

"No."

The two Spivvinses were getting irritable:

"You heard she said no," said the uncle.

"A no is a no," said the Tom. Both were uncovering the arms and showing the fists by now.

And Nathan knew he had lost with them at hand. When he went off, she wondered what his next move would be, especially as he had told her while briskly walking away "... I see you have met some irresponsible people."

She knew that that might mean he was going to speak to some responsible people ... about her. And yet, she was too relieved to be afraid.

"If there had been a God" (she said in her mind) "it is almost as if He had heard the prayers of Lucy."

She told the Spivvinses cordially: "thank you" and ...

... she added to herself in her mind: "that means she would have had to forgive me for this to happen." And she recalled where Edmund had had that particular smile : on the Splendor Hyaline when leaving Tashbaan.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Contra Nicola Cabibbo

Comminciamo con una citazione:

Anche Nicola Cabibbo, presidente dell'Accademia Pontificia delle Scienze, sottolinea che

«Giovanni Paolo II, fin dal 1996, ha detto chiaro e tondo che l'evoluzionismo è molto più che una mera ipotesi. Una posizione chiarissima, che rendeva ancora più netta la scelta rispetto alla enciclica Humani Generis di Pio XII. Oggi tra gli scienziati cattolici è chiarissimo che si può benissimo credere nell'evoluzionismo e nella Creazione (non nel creazionismo). Dire il contrario è come sostenere che la Terra è piatta o il Sole si muove perché così diceva la Bibbia».


ROMEO BASSOLI : Darwin, bersaglio della Destra

  • "Dire il contrario è come sostenere che la Terra è piatta ... perché così diceva la Bibbia"

    • La Bibbia en nessun loco non dice directamente che la Terra è piatta.
    • Un loco allegato per pretendere che la Bibbia lo implica è un loco de Isaia, parlando del circulo o dei circuli della Terra. Mai se una Terra piatta può avere un circulo, una Terra che è un globo deve avere circuli. Allora, questo loco non è un argumento.
    • Un oltro loco allegato per pretendere che la Bibbia lo implica, o infatto due o più, sono i lochi dove si dice dei quattro angoli della Terra. Ora, è impossibile di sostenere che semplicemente la Terra en totale ha quattro angoli como limite estremo ed un circulo como limite estremo. O il circulo deve essere esterno, o interno, o ai lochi esterno, ai lochi interno ai quattro angoli. Questo stesso nel caso di una Terra piatta. Ora, una delle soluzioni, che il circulo è esterno ai angoli, resta possibile nel caso di una Terra ch'è un globo. Prendendo questa soluzione, i quattro angoli della Terra sono i quattro angoli del Vecchio Mondo. Sopratutto se il Ebreo o Aramaico nel Vecchio Testamento ha la parola "eretz".
    • En fine, allora, la Bibbia non dice che la Terra è piatta.


  • "Dire il contrario è come sostenere che ... il Sole si muove perché così diceva la Bibbia"

    • Questo è oltra cosa. Nel libbro di Giosuè, e nei libbri dei Regi, il Sole si muove differamente che dal normale. Nei due casi, c'è una circonstanza perchè sta impossibile pretendere che il vero miraculo sia che la Terra non ruotava intorno a sé como da normale.
    • Nel libbro di Giosuè, la circonstanza è doppia - anche la Luna fermò ed il testo sopra questo non è solo il narrativo, dove si può pretendere "la lengua usuale delle apparenze", mai anche la parola stessa del miraculatore, di Giosuè. Questa parola fu inspirata e diretta verso lo che aveva a fermare - cio è, non la Terra, mai il Sole e la Luna.
    • Nei libri dei Regi la circonstanza è che il Sole si muove al senso contrario, e più di ritorno. È un movimento che acrebbe scosso la Terra nel caso che sia un movimento della Terra.
    • Invece, non abbiamo prove che la Terra si muova intorno al sole. Como non abbiamo prove che la Terra sie vecchia da millioni o milliardi di anni, como non abbiamo prove che il cano ed il gatto hanno un antenato commune. Como non abbiamo prove che il uomo sviloppò si dalle bestie.


En fine, Nicola Cabibbo non fu tale specifico nell'argumentazione en questa citazione, ed io non può argumentare talemente nel vacuo. Se sostiene con argumenti più specifichi, volontieri lo confutarai. Se non sostiene, già sono stato più specifico e meno puramente retórico di lui.

Quanto a Giovanni Paolo II, o meno inesacto, Carolo Wojtyla, non credo che sia stato papa, non credo che sia oggi un santo canonizato. E per consequenza, non credo che sia Bergoglio il papa non più.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Biblioteca Giorgio Pompidou
Giorno dopo l'Assunzione
16-VIII-2014

Sunday, June 22, 2014

"Nessuno, oggi, crede il Geocentrismo"

Sapete, ho visto questo bellissimo filme con Terence Hill:

La Wichipédia Italiana : Il mio nome è Nessuno
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_mio_nome_è_Nessuno


È molto buona cosa non chiamarsi Polifemo, non c'è?

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij

1) Mirabilis cosmos, mirabilior cosmou Creator, 2) Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij

Citatur Beatus Thomas:

Recte fundamento terram comparat quia sicut fundamentum est infima aedificii pars, ita etiam terra est infimum corporum quod subiacet omnibus. Et quia terra est praecipue materia humani corporis, materia autem tempore praecedit id quod ex ea fit, et multo magis ratio artificis qui materiam condidit, ideo signanter dicit ubi eras quando ponebam fundamenta terrae? Ac si dicat: cognoscere rationem fundationis terrae non potes, quia cum terra fundata est nondum eras in rerum natura. Est autem considerandum quod quidam antiquorum situm terrae et aliorum elementorum non attribuerunt alicui rationi ordinanti sed necessitati materiae, secundum quod gravia levibus succident; ut autem haec opinio excludatur, dominus consequenter comparat fundationem terrae fundationi aedificii quae fit secundum aedificatoris rationes: et similiter fundatio terrae facta est secundum providentiam divinam quam humana intelligentia comprehendere non valet, et hoc significat cum subdit indica mihi, si habes intelligentiam, quasi dicat: ideo horum rationem indicare non potes quia ad haec capienda intelligentia tua non sufficit. Est autem considerandum quod artifex in aedificii fundatione quatuor disponit: primo quidem quantum debeat esse fundamentum, et similiter divina ratione dispositum est quod tanta debeat esse quantitas terrae, et non maior vel minor, et quantum ad hoc subdit quis posuit mensuras eius, scilicet secundum omnes dimensiones; et signanter dicit posuit: non enim species terrae ex necessitate talem quantitatem requirit, sed haec quantitas est terrae imposita ex sola ratione divina, quam homo cognoscere non potest, et ideo subdit si nosti, quia scilicet hoc homo nec nosse nec indicare potest. Secundo artifex per suam rationem disponit determinatum situm fundamenti, quem comprehendit per extensionem lineae mensuralis, unde subdit vel quis tetendit super eam lineam, per quam scilicet significatur ratio divinae dispositionis designans determinatum situm terrae in partibus universi. Tertio excogitata quantitate fundamenti et ubi collocandum sit, disponit artifex in quo possit fundamentum firmiter collocari, et quantum ad hoc subdit super quo bases illius, scilicet terrae, fundatae sunt, quia fundata est super centrum mundi. Quarto autem praedictis tribus excogitatis, artifex iam incipit iacere lapides in fundamentum, et primo lapidem angularem ad quem diversi parietes congregantur, et quantum ad hoc subdit aut quis demisit, idest deorsum misit, lapidem angularem eius, per quem scilicet significatur ipsum centrum terrae cui diversae partes terrae connectuntur. Solet autem homo fundamentum aedificii collocare propter necessitatem habitationis, sed ut ostendatur Deus non ex indigentia fundamenta terrae iecisse, subiungit cum me laudarent singula astra matutina, quasi dicat: quamvis adesset mihi habitatio caeli cuius astra me laudant, terram tamen fundavi, non ex indigentia famulantium qui eam inhabitarent sed ex sola voluntate. Non autem hoc dicitur quasi caelum prius sit factum quam terra, praesertim cum in Genesi legitur in principio Deum creasse caelum et terram, astra autem de quibus hic fit mentio leguntur facta fuisse quarta die, sed hoc dicitur ad ostendendum quod ordine naturae caelum et astra priora sunt terra sicut incorruptibile corruptibili et movens moto. Dicit autem astra matutina, idest de novo condita, sicut apud nos astra matutina dicuntur quae in principio diei solent apparere. Quod autem dicuntur astra matutina Deum laudare potest uno modo intelligi materialiter, inquantum scilicet propter sui claritatem et nobilitatem erant materia divinae laudis, etsi non hominibus qui adhuc non erant, saltem Angelis qui iam erant; alio modo secundum illos qui dicunt corpora caelestia animata, astra in suae institutionis initio Deum laudabant non laude vocali sed mentali; quod etiam potest referri ad Angelos quorum ministerio caelestia corpora moventur, ut quod subditur et iubilarent omnes filii Dei referatur ad Angelos supremae hierarchiae, quos Dionysius dicit esse collocatos in vestibulis deitatis: et ideo signanter illis tamquam inferioribus laudem, istis autem tamquam superioribus attribuit iubilationem quae excellentiam quandam laudis importat.

Fons ex qua citatus est Thomas:

CORPUS THOMISTICUM
Sancti Thomae de Aquino
Expositio super Iob ad litteram
a capite XXXVIII ad caput XLI
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cio38.html