Holy Thorn of Glastonbury

[AndyHolland]

With regard to Charles I was he justifying himself? Do you know what is in his heart? Taunting is sometimes appropriate. St. John the Baptist called his generation a brood of vipers.

The main point was however, that in Charles I time, it was blooming on Old Christmas in accordance with a Tropical year.

Darwin's statement, "the truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed" is a statement of arrogance and a psuedo religious faith. It is not of science that questions and establishes facts. Darwin proposes a mechanism that slight variations with modification can produce intelligence. There is no observation of any such thing in the world of science. He proposes a mechanistic model without independent verification. We should be able to at least simulate such a system and develop AI years ago if the statement were true.

"In the beginning was the Word" - is the Truth. Mathematically, we may be drawing close to proofs that intelligence can only arise out of intelligence. Even if one accepted natural selection as the truth, then the nature that selected would be inherently intelligent, because it gave rise to intelligence.

Unfortunately, people see fit to file lawsuits from preventing any other point of view from entering the school system in the US. So maybe its time to push back a bit.

andy

[Ebor]

Go to Google, type "Holy thorn Glastonbury" and you get 34,200 hits as of the writing of this paper. Many have contradictory information of "dubious" quality.

The 3rd and 4th links are for the most part copies of the same thing. Mere repetition doesn't make something more true. Also, the reference to Charles I is not a Primary Source that his Late Martyred Majesty actually said such a thing. Are there any other sources? All of these are pious legends of St. Joseph of Arimathea. They are not the same thing as first hand data regarding the blooming time of the Holy Thorn.

Since you are the one putting forth the assertion that the Holy Thorn blooms on "Old Calendar" Christmas, it is up to you to provide data to support that.

In your first post in this thread you wrote:
"The tree has decided, since recorded time, to bloom on Orthodox Christmas according to the Orthodox Calendar "

Recently you wrote:
"There is ambiguity as to the exact timing of the blooms."

Can you provide any data to back up either the first, or the ambiguity mentioned in the second?

The Malthusian doctrine is very evil -

Can you state what this "Doctine" is? Have you read Malthus?

The burden of proof lies with those who propose the theory to prove it.

Exactly. The burden of proof to any claim is on those who make it, such as claiming a bloom date.

Is the rest of your post a quote from something? Are you a geneticist or a physicist or a mathematician? Can you explain Poincare instabilty? Chaos Theory can be quite interesting, but it is not simple.

Guys like Darwin in Ivory towers.

"Ivory towers"? The Galapagos Islands are hardly "ivory towers". I'm sorry, this sounds like some kind of anti-research or anti-Science remark.

The fact remains, that the first cause, the super-abundance of logic and Word in the genetic code is obvious to modern observers. There are numerous coincidences in Physics that are compelling.

There is order in the Universe to be sure. That's what Science does is find the order, how things word. Why would order be a "coincidence"?

Many in the hard sciences reject evolution

Can you please provide names to this "many"? Links to their writing?

This is because, working with mathematics on a daily basis,

You are a mathematician then? Can you please explain then how:

(With Riemann tensor math - you can get a literal 7 day creation

Ebor
For the Record: I believe that God is the Creator of the Universe and put all things into Order. How He did this, I don't know.

from elsewhere on the net:
"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universe
complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not omnipotent,
there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball of
elementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think Things
Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for a
Supreme Being. - Lee DeRaud"

[Ebor]

it was blooming on Old Christmas in accordance with a Tropical year.

Ummm, what do you mean here by Tropical Year? It's an astronomical term?

Ebor

[AndyHolland]

Go to Google, type "Holy thorn Glastonbury" and you get 34,200 hits as of the writing of this paper. Many have contradictory information of "dubious" quality.

The 3rd and 4th links are for the most part copies of the same thing. Mere repetition doesn't make something more true.

Asked to provide references did so. Also, have an old Encyclopedia Britannica that was used to verify some information.

Also, the reference to Charles I is not a Primary Source that his Late Martyred Majesty actually said such a thing.

See Britannica - my 195? version states this.

In your first post in this thread you wrote:
"The tree has decided, since recorded time, to bloom on Orthodox Christmas according to the Orthodox Calendar "

Recently you wrote:
"There is ambiguity as to the exact timing of the blooms."

The ambituity arises in google sources - go back through the threads.

The Malthusian doctrine is very evil -
Can you state what this "Doctine" is? Have you read Malthus?

Basically, the population will grow exponentially and we'll all starve. Prior, people thought of populations as assets. Later, they saw them as liabilities. To quote the man of sorry memory:

It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase in population must be limited by it, at least after the food has been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. ... To act consistently, therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operation of nature in producing this mortality, and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.

Sounds pretty darn evil to me.

http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/essay.html

Turns out, food production and technology trumps any such problem, but human greed and lack of love of neighbor is the true issue. See commodity prices adjusted for inflation for everything in the last umpteen years. (you can look that up).

The burden of proof lies with those who propose the theory to prove it.

Exactly. The burden of proof to any claim is on those who make it, such as claiming a bloom date.

Go to Glastonbury and see for yourself.

Is the rest of your post a quote from something? Are you a geneticist or a physicist or a mathematician? Can you explain Poincare instabilty? Chaos Theory can be quite interesting, but it is not simple.

Guys like Darwin in Ivory towers.

"Ivory towers"? The Galapagos Islands are hardly "ivory towers". I'm sorry, this sounds like some kind of anti-research or anti-Science remark.

Good point. I have erred. I am a nuclear/software engineer.
For additional details and qualifications, Email me privately or I will send you a link.

Many in the hard sciences reject evolution

I should have said as the ORIGIN of life. Many of the good physicists who taught me were believers. A large number of Doctors in medicine also. Check out for example some writings of Freeman Dyson.

(With Riemann tensor math - you can get a literal 7 day creation

For this I suggest reading any number of good books on General Relativity. I have Wheeler's work at home - but it is wickedly complex. I don't understand it but for the most general purposes in complex geometry.

Riemann was the true genius behind general relativity, and he was a believer who died young years before Einstein. It has been suggested he was providing a system of generalized geometry that could make any and all points the center of the Universe for the purpose of showing God as Omnipresent.

A photon exists in the universe and can be observed, yet it experiences absolutely or nearly 0 time since the creation (according to theory and observation).

yours in physics,

Richard Andrew (Andy) Holland
Holland-Daze Farm
Somerset PA

[AndyHolland]

it was blooming on Old Christmas in accordance with a Tropical year.

Ummm, what do you mean here by Tropical Year? It's an astronomical term?
Ebor

Please see:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astrono ... lYear.html

Look - we Orthodox may believe, but we are not stupid. There is a basis of faith that is factual. Enough latitude is given so the unbeliever may receive mercy. The good reason for bringing this stuff up was to encourage people and have them realize that there are many who believe as they do who are "educated" in some fashion.

In this world, the great and mighty oppress others - and it is the obligation of those who are given much to provide much.

In my youth, I was intellectually beaten up by Darwin and Company, so I suppose I am returning the favor. I think they were very sad, sad, individuals, and I should allow their memory to rest. However, thanks to lawsuits and other distasteful actions by "educated" people, the truth must be proclaimed. The modern scientist is just as much a moron as the rest of us. Perhaps you can agree I have proven this.

Moronically yours.

Andy Holland
Nuclear/Software Engineer
Somerset PA

[Ebor]

The 3rd and 4th links are for the most part copies of the same thing. Mere repetition doesn't make something more true.

Asked to provide references did so. Also, have an old Encyclopedia Britannica that was used to verify some information.

"references" that do not provide solid data as to dates of bloom to back up your claim.

Also, the reference to Charles I is not a Primary Source that his Late Martyred Majesty actually said such a thing.

See Britannica - my 195? version states this.

I'm sorry, but that is not a "primary source" for information. It is secondary at best.

The ambituity arises in google sources - go back through the threads.

As near as I can tell, you started this thread making a definite claim about the Holy Thorn to use it as a "proof" as to the Rightness of EO. Your claim has not been backed up with solid data. The google sources do not provide anything that definitely supports your initial claim. I'm sorry. I see no reason to believe this assertion about the Holy Thorn and the Julian Calendar, until real fact is provided.

It just occurred to me: why would one need a thing like a plant to bolster ones faith in God?

The Malthusian doctrine is very evil -

Can you state what this "Doctine" is? Have you read Malthus?

Basically, the population will grow exponentially and we'll all starve. Prior, people thought of populations as assets. Later, they saw them as liabilities. To quote the man of sorry memory:

The quote you provided does look evil at first glance, but Context is an important aspect of any writing. Going to the link you provided and reading it to the bottom I found this one:
http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/malthus3.html

about Thomas Malthus' use of Irony. It starts out:

"Thomas Malthus had some harsh views on population growth and the poor, but one must not mistake ironic, sarcastic, or satiric passages for his own beliefs. For example, the first paragraph of Book IV, Chapter V, of the 1826 edition of "An Essay on the Principle of Population" is sometimes quoted to show that Malthus wished genuine harm to the poor. But read within context of the entire "Essay," that paragraph turns out to be ironic, and he really did not believe what he said in that passage. of the preceThe final paragraph ding chapter lays the foundation for his apparently hostile words against the poor..."

and goes on from there. Malthus was using Irony and sarcasm to make his point, as the linked article notes like what Jonathan Swift used in "A Modest Proposal" Sometimes a closer reading is warrented to find the author's true meaning.

Go to Glastonbury and see for yourself.

And if I should have the ability to go to Glastonbury for a month and observe the Holy Thorn, how will that prove your point? What if it blooms and the cutting is made to send the to Queen in mid-December? What does that do to the starting assertion? Have you been to Glastonbury in January? Have you seen the Holy Thorn bloom on "Old Calendar Christmas"? If the burden is on you to prove your assertion, why should other people do the legwork? I'm sorry. I do not see that you have proved your claim.

I am a nuclear/software engineer.
For additional details and qualifications, Email me privately or I will send you a link.

Thank you for providing your bona fides in software/nuclear.

Many in the hard sciences reject evolution

I should have said as the ORIGIN of life. Many of the good physicists who taught me were believers. A large number of Doctors in medicine also. Check out for example some writings of Freeman Dyson.

Again, can you provide names and links to these "many" please? As to Freeman Dyson, if you mean articles like these:
http://www.technologyreview.com/article ... aphone.asp
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_onli ... e.asp?9361

A careful reading shows that Professor Dyson does not reject "Darwinian Evolution" but says that it's time is over due to the workings of "Homo Sapiens" .

(With Riemann tensor math - you can get a literal 7 day creation

For this I suggest reading any number of good books on General Relativity. I have Wheeler's work at home - but it is wickedly complex. I don't understand it but for the most general purposes in complex geometry.

Then how do you know that Riemann's mathematics supports the idea of "literal 7 day creation"? What sources do you have that make that claim?

Here is a short bio of Riemann by the way for information's sake:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... emann.html

Ebor

[Ebor]

Please see:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astrono ... lYear.html

I saw that page when I was providing links in an early post in this thread.

Look - we Orthodox may believe, but we are not stupid.

I do not think that EO are stupid and I apologize for any impression that I may have given that I did.

There is a basis of faith that is factual.

Indeed there is: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born in Time and Space, lived among us, died and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Enough latitude is given so the unbeliever may receive mercy. The good reason for bringing this stuff up was to encourage people and have them realize that there are many who believe as they do who are "educated" in some fashion.

"Enough latitude"? Would you please explain what you are getting at here?

How would posting something that may not, in fact, be true or based on reality but making flat assertions that it is encourage people?

I have met many educated EO persons in RL and read many on-line in various fora. I have also read and met many educated Anglicans who deeply and truely believe. C. S. Lewis is an excellent example.

In this world, the great and mighty oppress others - and it is the obligation of those who are given much to provide much.

Agreed. How do you mean this in the context of this thread/forum please?

In my youth, I was intellectually beaten up by Darwin and Company, so I suppose I am returning the favor. I think they were very sad, sad, individuals, and I should allow their memory to rest. However, thanks to lawsuits and other distasteful actions by "educated" people,

It sounds like you had some very unfortunate things happen to you in past years. You have my sympathy.

The modern scientist is just as much a moron as the rest of us. Perhaps you can agree I have proven this.

I confess to being puzzled by this. If you are referring to yourself, you are hardly a "moron". Otoh, i would say that there is no such thing as "The Modern Scientist" ; there are thousands upon thousands of individual scientists in many different fields all with their own unique abilities and flaws.

Yours,

Ebor