Saturday, January 20, 2018

Dave Robson and me on : Darwin's Children, Language, Carbon Dating, Atheism vs Competing Theologies


Christopher Bell
All of their calculations start from an imagined event, with only eight people. If erics maths is correct, everyone alive today, would be like the inbred Banjo player in the movie Deliverence.

[I have answered this on an earlier one.]

ItsBornstar
Christopher Bell Charles Darwin married his first cousin and all of his babies came out retarded. He thought he could make a superior race. I would want trust a A inbred. 2 Charles Darwin wasn't even a scientist. Just like you aren't. Evolution isn't science evolution has been dead. We are in 2017 we need to move on from believing a fairy tale such as evolution.

Skipping
some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Charles Darwin married his first cousin and all of his babies came out retarded"

Source please?

Here I have one which argues otherwise:

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

Skipping
some.

Dave Robson
ItsBornstar......While Darwin did marry his cousin your other assertions patently false. The fate of Charles Darwin's children are as follows.....

1-Two of his children dies in infancy.

2-His daughter , Annie, dies at the age of 10 of . There is no indication that she had any developmental disabilities in her.

3- His son, George, lived to the age of 77. In his lifetime he earned a masters degree in Law, became professor of astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University. He won the Royal medal and the Copley medal , each of the Royal Society . He also was a member of the Royal Astronomical Society and won their gold medal. He eventually became president of that organization.

He also became president of the Cambridge Philosophical Society . He lectured extensively on mathematics and formulated the fission theory of moon formation. Hardly "retarded".....

4- His son Francis also lived to the age of 77. This son earned a medical degree( though did not practice) . He was a fellow of the Royal Society and the Linnean Society. He aided his father in botanical experiments and edited his fathers biography. Also , not "retarded"!

5- His son Horace, who ALSO lived to 77, graduated Trinity College at Cambridge. Founded the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. Was elected mayor of Cambridge and was a Fellow at the Royal Society.

Also, hardly "retarded"!

6-His son Leonard, who made it until the age of 93, worked in the intelligence division for the Ministry of War , was elected to Parliament, and wrote extensively on economic issues. He was elected to the president of the Royal Geographical Society and chairman of the British Eugenics Society( yup he was a eugenicist and black sheep of the family). Way off on the eugenics issue, but, hardly "retarded"!!!

7-His daughter, Henrietta, survived to 84. She assisted in editing several of her father;s books. There is no indication of her being "retarded".

8-His son, William, who died at the age of 74, was a college graduate and a banker, an avid amateur photographer, and proponent of universal education. Not "retarded" either.

9- I can't , at this time, find out anything significant about his daughter, Elizabeth, except she lived to an age of 79.

Contrary to your claims, Darwin was in no way trying to "make a superior race" and was in fact known to have been haunted by fears that his close relationship with his wife( his cousin) was what had caused the untimely deaths of three of his children. Darwin may not have earned a "scientific " degree, but his ground breaking work in geology , botany, zoology, and EVOLUTION, show that he was, in deed, if not in degree , a scientist of the first order.

Evolution is indeed a branch of science and, contrary to your ( entirely unsupported claims) far from "dead"

Skipping
some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I endorse most of Dave Robson's answer.

I do not endorse the endorsement of Evolution.

Btw, I would like to know where one could find so detailed facts about "the children of x" as I am interested in making stats on real lifespans for pre-industrial times.

If I go to known ancestors of x, we have ancestral bias, those who die as infants or at 10 dont become someone's ancestors. That doesn't make my results totally worthless but means I need to qualify them "if you make it to adult".

Little note
Darwin lived more recently, after the Industrial Revolution.

Dave Robson
Hans-George Lundahl...Wikepedia and the citations from such. There are detailed biographies of Charles Darwin available inline with some info on his children.

Why do you not " endorse the endorsement of Evolution"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There are detailed biographies of Charles Darwin available inline with some info on his children."

Since more than one of them became famous, no doubt.

Actually, I think the wikipedian article grew, since when I looked up George Darwin.

I was wondering if you could find as detailed biographies online of a mass of men in pre-industrial ages, but Darwin lived before Industrial Evolution.

"Why do you not " endorse the endorsement of Evolution"?"

Well, because I am a Creationist.

Doesn't mean I hate the genes of Darwin or anything like that. I wish his descendant Darwin Catholic were a better Catholic and not a Darwinist - but until he blocked me from debating by comments I liked him.

George Darwin is an example of people studying tides better than Galileo and perhaps even better than Newton - and as such of interest to me, who, a Geocentric, have come across the notion tides prove Heliocentrism or at least a turning Earth.

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl..ok. Why are you a creationist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because it makes sense.

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl.......oooooooh. I get it now. Thanks. Mind blown!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Don't feel shy to ask for the details ...

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl....Feel free to provide them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"feel", "free", "to", "provide", "them"

You made a statement consisting of these five parts, each if which would by itself be too nonspecific.

Each of them consists of two or more (there are also one part parts) which by itself are totally unspecific.

In a social situation with some parallels to ours, an animal would make about one or two sounds and gestures. It would convey exact degree of insistance very more shadedly than we. But it could not be doing so about such a non-material subject matter.

It's the difference between making one gesture and patiently putting Lego pieces together in one or more buildings to build up a whole scene.

Now, how would the mental capacity of making Lego pieces develop from the one to make a gesture?

How would the capacity you have to tie "F", "EE", "L" together into "feel", and all five together into "feel free to provide them" possibly develop from the two sounds and a gesture incapable of conveying non-material things?

It makes sense our capacity to grasp sense is a gift from God (or at worst from the gods). Not a mutation like the ones that lead to Daltonism or wheat being cultivable and at same time incapable of self sowing.

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl...So, you argue from " what makes sense to me" as opposed to "empirical evidence". I'm not saying that should not be valid to you, but for many, it just is not enough. Not a big deal here as I did ask why " you" are a creationist, and not to convince anyone else to become one.

On the other hand, I disagree with some of what you stated.

"Feel" is not " too nonspecific". You can simply state " feel" to someone and it does mean something. "Them" all by itself can mean something. Each of these words has meaning( notice they are all definable words) . Putting them together imparts greater meaning. How did we get there? How did we get to making things mean more together than they do alone? Was it " God/gods" or step by step processes? You would say " God/gods", I would say " step by step" makes as much, or actually more sense. Given how long it has taken for things to happen in this universe, on this planet, and in human society, I would definitely say that the " step by step" makes more sense. If the fossil record and human history showed that humans showed up, on day one, doing all of these things( and more complex behavior) your " God/gods" solution would seem to make more sense, but that does not seem to be the case.

My other objections are all biological, astrophysical, geological, historical, and chronological. Not sure you care to delve into all that. Up to you.

In closing, I must state, a " thank you" for being respectful in discourse here. I have just been running into so many creationist lately who have decided that being rude and calling names is a method of debate. I know I am personalizing it here, as they are the minority, but, they are the loudest ones and ones I have been running into a lot of them lately. Thanks. Especially since my " ooooh...I get it now. Thanks..Mind blown!!!" comment was a bit sarcastic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A bit.

While "feel" may be specific in a given context, it is by itself still too unspecific as to what you were trying to convey.

"So, you argue from " what makes sense to me" as opposed to "empirical evidence"."

That we have a discourse capable of making sense actually is part of our empirical evidence.

""Them" all by itself can mean something."

It cannot mean a statement. As it is a pronoun, it either means sth you point at (which animals are capable of too) or sth you have mentioned earlier.

"Was it " God/gods" or step by step processes? You would say " God/gods", I would say " step by step" makes as much, or actually more sense."

So, adding squares step by step will give you colour? Adding spices in a recipe step by step will give you sound? No, if you go from shape to colour or from taste to sound, the transition (in such a case a mental one, unlike the actual you are talking about) is by its very nature abrupt.

"Given how long it has taken for things to happen in this universe, on this planet, and in human society, I would definitely say that the " step by step" makes more sense."

That is your presume to know the time scale. Carbon 14 makes relative sense even for distant past, and plain sense for historic recent past. This doesn't add up to even time limit for C14 being an evidenced age, since carbon can have built up. It certainly doesn't add up to other methods being reliable way beyond time limit of C14.

"If the fossil record and human history showed that humans showed up, on day one, doing all of these things( and more complex behavior) your " God/gods" solution would seem to make more sense, but that does not seem to be the case."

Human history depends on which historian you go to. You go to one who thinks Carbon 14 et al. prove Neanderthals lived tens of thousands of years ago when they died out. I go to Moses, some 8 to 12 "minimal overlap" generations from Adam. By "minimal overlap" I mean Adam met for instance Henoch (Sethite one) and so on.

"My other objections are all biological, astrophysical, geological, historical, and chronological. Not sure you care to delve into all that. Up to you"

I'd be delighted to take up each challenge - especially if one at a time.

A disputed statement
and what I meant
"Carbon 14 makes relative sense even for distant past, and plain sense for historic recent past."

Relative sense even for distant past : carbon dates like 10,0000 BP or 20,000 BP don't make sense in themselves, there were no such dates, but they make sense between them (what is dated 20,0000 BP is older than what is dated 10,000 BP).

Plain sense for historic recent past : what is carbon dated to 100 BC or 100 AD is not just in the right sequence - BC before AD - but even at the more or less correct actual dates.

Keep this in mind for what he says then, and for my replies to him, and the fact I had not checked, and the fact he had not read my clarifications here.

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl....My point( perhaps too literally) was that these words all have "meaning" by themselves. We do not need words around " feel" to know what the word means. We do not need words around " them" to know that " them" is a pronoun that refers previously referenced people or things. We english speakers already know this. There is information there. Not " specific" information on who or what is being referred to, but , the words themselves have a meaning we have already assigned to them, regardless of context, to some extent.

You say "That we have a discourse capable of making sense actually is part of our empirical evidence.", but, is it? It is empirical evidence that we two humans ( and the ones who have created the english language and the internet we are utilizing) are beings capable of verbal discourse, but, it is not empirical evidence either way as to how humans gained that ability.

"""So, adding squares step by step will give you colour? Adding spices in a recipe step by step will give you sound? No, if you go from shape to colour or from taste to sound, the transition (in such a case a mental one, unlike the actual you are talking about) is by its very nature abrupt"""""

I was not suggesting any of this though. Or, are you suggesting that there could never have been organisms capable of making sounds that do not have language, in some respect, because, this is obviously untrue. I was stating that language could( and, most likely did, ) come from once meaningless sounds that, step my step, were "built" into language. I was not suggesting that we evolved language from facial expressions or finger gestures. We have a science to study this . It is called linguistics. In fact, as we are conversing in English, it is proven that our specific manner of communication here is the result of a step by step formation. English did not pop up overnight, gifted to humans by a superior being. We have evidence convincing us that English evolved from older language Germanic languages starting around the 5th century. Thus, we know that our present language we are utilizing has been being created step by step, for at least 15 centuries.

Also, as to language, we can trace the origin of a language that did come from gestures. Sign languages did so.

I think you attribute too much to the fact we use language. I don't see this as empirical evidence either way. In fact, as we do see step by step evolution of languages throughout history, and can find humans without language if they have not been taught so by other humans, it would, if anything, support my assertions more strongly than yours.If all humans were born speaking the same language I would spot you this, but, that is clearly not the case.

"""That is your presume to know the time scale. Carbon 14 makes relative sense even for distant past, and plain sense for historic recent past. This doesn't add up to even time limit for C14 being an evidenced age, since carbon can have built up. It certainly doesn't add up to other methods being reliable way beyond time limit of C14."""

Not really. carbon 14 isotope dating is ok for "recent past". less than about 55,000 years. You presume that the physicists that came up with, and utilize radio isotope dating do not know about possible contamination sources and have no way to filter this out. Both assumptions are untrue. They know and have safeguards in place to help keep errors to a minimum. Unfortunately that is a huge part of creationist logic, that the scientists doing the science don't really know how to do the science. It is often claimed by creationists, but rarely supported with any evidence.

Scientists usually utilize multiple methods for dating important finds in order to get the best age and mitigate contamination and errors. They know this stuff can happen and take precautions. At least the good ones do.

"""Human history depends on which historian you go to. You go to one who thinks Carbon 14 et al. prove Neanderthals lived tens of thousands of years ago when they died out. I go to Moses, some 8 to 12 "minimal overlap" generations from Adam. By "minimal overlap" I mean Adam met for instance Henoch (Sethite one) and so on"""

Even your "historical document" here does not claim that humans appeared speaking all of the languages of the world today. Even then, the problem here is that you go to a document filled with contradictions and miracles and try to utilize it as a genuine " historical document". Language has changed, step by step, through history. That is not debated by anyone in linguistics. anywhere. So, we know that it occurs. The idea that humans were gifted with language is highly debatable. Debated between religions as to who, when, where, and how. Now, you have to admit that you believe that all the other stories of how this happened, other than the one you believe, are untrue. The problem here is then coming up with a "reason", not a "want", not a "belief", not a "desire", but a "reason" to believe that the one you believe is the correct one, when you deny the others.

"I'd be delighted to take up each challenge - especially if one at a time"...Me too. Not now though. Got to clean the house and work out. Day off can't be all off.

Thanks again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"My point( perhaps too literally) was that these words all have "meaning" by themselves."

Not meaning as complete statements - the only kind of meaning animals could make sense of.

That being my point.

Most of them (not pronouns or "to") have a lexical meaning, which is like a "meaning-module" attachable to other lexical meanings for full statements (or sometimes just grammatical modifications).

"It is empirical evidence that we two humans ( and the ones who have created the english language and the internet we are utilizing) are beings capable of verbal discourse,"

My analysis of what it entails involves a notion which puts the evidential bias on the non-evolution side.

However, whichever side, a piece of evidence it is, since Empirical.

Don't reserve that word for the things scientists you trust as such are claiming to be so.

"but, it is not empirical evidence either way as to how humans gained that ability."

With my analysis, it becomes evidence against a step by step gain.

"I was stating that language could( and, most likely did, ) come from once meaningless sounds that, step my step, were "built" into language."

OK, you believe the Cheshire cat exists for real too, don't you?

"We have a science to study this ."

No, we don't.

"It is called linguistics."

No, linguistics studies sth else. It studies how Old English and English, Latin and French work. Occasionally it studies how Old English turns into English or how Latin turns into French.

It does very much NOT study an emergence of language over the palaeontological-anthropological perspective.

I should know, I am first and foremost a linguist.

Old English was as human a language as English, Latin was as human a language as French. All four divide statements into words, and words into phonemes having no meaning by themselves.

Animals make usually one phoneme into one statement. Or sometimes a vaccillation between two. An ape can mean one statement with "oooooooooooooooooo" and one other statement with "oohoo-oohoo-oohoo".

There is no real linguistic theory on why this would come from a transition from ape to human ways of making statements, at least no testable one.

"In fact, as we are conversing in English, it is proven that our specific manner of communication here is the result of a step by step formation."

It's a step by step modification of a previously existing equally human language.

By adding up squares, you do end up with bigger circles. By adding water colour after water colour, you do find a new nuance. But you won't make a transition from shape to colour and the "ape to man" transition is more like that.

"We have evidence convincing us that English evolved from older language Germanic languages starting around the 5th century. Thus, we know that our present language we are utilizing has been being created step by step, for at least 15 centuries."

No, not created step by step. Modified step by step. Old English is readable, especially if you know German and Swedish as well as English. Modifying "ic" to "I" or "eom" to "am" is not like creating new categories.

The categories that really have been created since then (systematically adding progressive forms after calquing all romance tenses, rather than just present and past), well, that is not evolution either, it is intelligent design (by the speakers themselves).

Do you consider apes would be able to intelligently design human speech? I don't.

"Also, as to language, we can trace the origin of a language that did come from gestures. Sign languages did so."

No. Sign languages come from gestures plus intelligent design in elaborating gestures into a language.

L’abbé Charles Michel de l’Épée was the one doing so.

"I think you attribute too much to the fact we use language."

As an actual (though not professional) linguist, I don't.

"In fact, as we do see step by step evolution of languages throughout history"

We see absolutely no single language evolving from rudiments. We do see languages changing. Your point is like proving Amoebas evolved to dogs, just because dog breeds actually do evolve. All dog breeds have the dog like square skulls (as opposed to the cat like triangular ones). All dog breeds have canines.

All human languages have all the functions of a human language.

Past or present ones. The functions are absolutely the same.

"and can find humans without language if they have not been taught so by other humans"

If you read the stories, severely handicapped ones. NOT capable of developing language.

"If all humans were born speaking the same language I would spot you this, but, that is clearly not the case."

For all humans, language is a gift from parents or other early surroundings. That argues that at some point it was a gift from God.

"Not really. carbon 14 isotope dating is ok for "recent past". less than about 55,000 years."

By OK for dating of recent past, I mean less than 2500 years.

As to 55,000 years, that is not testable. We can test a sample exists with 0.129 pmc. That is the test value for 55,000 years.

We can't test whether this sample started out with 100 pmc and it decayed to 0.129 pmc, which would take 55,000 years, or it started out with a much lower pmc and the 0.129 pmc is a much higher percentage of that than the presumed 0.129 % of starting point.

"You presume that the physicists that came up with, and utilize radio isotope dating do not know about possible contamination sources and have no way to filter this out."

Contamination sources tend to make samples younger, not older. Here we are discussing what can make carbon dates too old.

Now, as to filtering out, that can be done manually before the test, but not as a part of the test itself. You find a lump which looks like recent charcoal added, you pull it away before testing. You don't pull anything away, what you found is what you test.

But either way, contamination makes things look younger than they are, not older.

An original lower content of carbon 14 in the atmosphere an organic sample was breathing in is NOT something which can be tested in the here or now, by lab tests.

I can do some theoretical testing on whether this or that Biblical date for this or that archaeological object implies a carbon 14 content which is compatible with a possible rise in carbon 14 content to the present 100 pmc.

I could do more theoretical testing on the possibility of the rise if some physicists were more cooperative.

Let's take Ilya Usoskin:

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

"They know and have safeguards in place to help keep errors to a minimum."

Obviously not on the front where we challenge them.

"Unfortunately that is a huge part of creationist logic, that the scientists doing the science don't really know how to do the science. It is often claimed by creationists, but rarely supported with any evidence."

In this case, it is very supported by the evidence, since the scientists don't dare to tell you what we creationists are really challenging them about.

As you showed.

"Scientists usually utilize multiple methods for dating important finds in order to get the best age and mitigate contamination and errors."

Apart from C14 and its "twins" like Luminescence dating (which I presume to be flawed before historically testable ages by about same amount), with methods way beyond carbon, there is no way to test them - except the negative test, which has been given by Mount St Helen's and a New Zealand volcano for K-Ar.

"They know this stuff can happen and take precautions. At least the good ones do."

Nothing in the objections by me or similar creationists depends on the scientists being bunglers about what they go about. It involves them not going about the right things in some cases.

"Even your "historical document" here does not claim that humans appeared speaking all of the languages of the world today."

Very correct. But all the languages are, not on a near surface level, but on a metalevel, one language. All can distinguish active "doer" from passive "sufferer" of an act. All can distinguish an object from its quality. And whether the quality is presumed in a context about sth else, or whether the quality is told.

"the red haired painter painted the house green"

Red as presumed is distinguished from green as told by word order - and by context.

No language you translate this to would imagine the house was painting the painter. OK, in house and painter, there is no real risk anyway, but often the Nominative and Accusative (or Ergative and Abslutive) are less clear as to which is which from the meaning.

"Even then, the problem here is that you go to a document filled with contradictions and miracles and try to utilize it as a genuine " historical document"."

No contradictions.

Miracles don't qualify as such.

Miracles come in historic documents.

"Language has changed, step by step, through history. That is not debated by anyone in linguistics. anywhere. So, we know that it occurs."

Yes, and as said, totally beside the point.

"The idea that humans were gifted with language is highly debatable."

There is no productive angle you can contest it from - expect that of presuming there was no possible giver (the only angle also which would exclude miracles from reality and documents with miracles from historical documents).

"Debated between religions as to who, when, where, and how."

And a non-gift or development is less likely than ANY of the religious options on who was giving us language.

"Now, you have to admit that you believe that all the other stories of how this happened, other than the one you believe, are untrue."

Much less untrue than evolution. Saying Odin, Vile and Vé gave Ask and Embla speech is untrue in details, but true as far as nature of man and nature of language is concerned.

Stating "feel free to provide them" evolved from "oohoo-oohoo-ooohoo" is untrue in much graver aspects.

"The problem here is then coming up with a "reason", not a "want", not a "belief", not a "desire", but a "reason" to believe that the one you believe is the correct one, when you deny the others."

Meanwhile, each of them is much more reasonable than your view.

AND the thing I come up with is respective claims of historic reliability to diverse religious texts, especially as to where they touch beginning of history.

Here is one for you : Genesis states events of first men like contemporary and presocietal events. Gilgemesh epic states creation of human society as a unitary event.

Which is likelier to involve an accurate history from the first men?

Not Gilgamesh, on its own admission.

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl""Not meaning as complete statements - the only kind of meaning animals could make sense of.

That being my point.""

This is just complete conjecture on your part. The inner workings of an animals mind are not necessarily subject to YOUR interpretations of what is, and is not, sensible. We can test this actually, and find it to not be true. You do not even need " complete statements" for humans to make sense of things. I can sigh ( hardly a complete statement) and someone nearby can, from prior knowledge and context , easily discern something " of sense" from that (VERY) incomplete statement. Your claim is unsupportable and illogical.

""" However, whichever side, a piece of evidence it is, since Empirical."""

No. Empirical evidence must, in context, be meaningful as to the subject at hand, and the fact that we communicate does not constitute such here. Sorry.

""""I was stating that language could( and, most likely did, ) come from once meaningless sounds that, step my step, were "built" into language."

OK, you believe the Cheshire cat exists for real too, don't you?"""

This is just an insult to me. I have shown evidence to support my view. You don't like it, but it is there, then you accuse me of believing something without evidence. Insulting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, not useful!!!

""""We have a science to study this ."
No, we don't.
"It is called linguistics."
No, linguistics studies sth else. It studies how Old English and English, Latin and French work. Occasionally it studies how Old English turns into English or how Latin turns into French.
It does very much NOT study an emergence of language over the palaeontological-anthropological perspective."""


That would come as a shock to LINGUIST Ray Jackendoff , of the Linguistic Society of America, who has actually studied the origin of language in humans( not the origin of individual languages, but LANGUAGE). He wrote on it here ( https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/LanguageBegin.pdf ) or LINGUIST James Hurford , who has written extensively on the subject of the evolution of language.

""There is no real linguistic theory on why this would come from a transition from ape to human ways of making statements, at least no testable one.""""

There very well are theories. Several. Are they testable??? Maybe. We could observe language developing in population of an ape species that dos not have language. Take a bunch of newborn chimpanzees away from their parents. raise them without exposure to language, and watch to see if , and how, they develop any semblance of language. We know that it is possible as we teach them language. Likely??? Eh. Potentially testable? Yup.

Are you sure that you are a linguist??

Get back to this later. Must work on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl............"All human languages have all the functions of a human language"....
Useless tautology..
".For all humans, language is a gift from parents or other early surroundings. That argues that at some point it was a gift from God."

Your assertion is simply assertion with nothing to back it up. Just because all humans seem to obtain their clothing from other humans does in no way imply that clothing was at any point a gift from a "supreme being". Same with their first car, first computer, job, sexual encounter. Just because these things typically are a "gift" from other humans does not imply the first of any were a gift from a supreme being, unless , of course, you begin with that as your belief.

""Not really. carbon 14 isotope dating is ok for "recent past". less than about 55,000 years." By OK for dating of recent past, I mean less than 2500 years""

No. You stated " distant past". I corrected, "recent past". Or perhaps you meant something else here.?

[see above]

""As to 55,000 years, that is not testable. We can test a sample exists with 0.129 pmc. That is the test value for 55,000 years.""

Now you would surprise the physicists."The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. that can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration."( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/cardat.html )... or the archaeologists...."After about 10 half-lives, the amount of radiocarbon left becomes too miniscule to measure and so this technique isn't useful for dating specimens which died more than 60,000 years ago."( https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm ).Or the chemists.."When Libby first presented radiocarbon dating to the public, he humbly estimated that the method may have been able to measure ages up to 20,000 years. With subsequent advances in the technology of carbon-14 detection, the method can now reliably date materials as old as 50,000 years."( https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html ).

You are an amateur linguist. Are you also, perchance, an amateur physicist, amateur archaeologist, and amateur chemist as well?

"" An original lower content of carbon 14 in the atmosphere an organic sample was breathing in is NOT something which can be tested in the here or now, by lab tests.""

This would come as a surprise to physicists as "The parameters used for the corrections have been obtained through precise radiocarbon dating of hundreds of samples taken from known-age tree rings of oak, sequoia, and fir up to about 12,000 BP. Beyond that, back to about 45,000 BP, correlation is made using multiple lines of evidence. This information is compiled into internationally accepted databases which are updated on occasion. The present databases are INTCAL13 (northern hemisphere), SHCAL13 (southern hemisphere) and MARINE13 (marine environments)"( https://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar-calibration-carbon-dating.htm ). And "Email Print Radiocarbon Tree-Ring Calibration

Tree rings are used to calibrate radiocarbon measurements.

Calibration is necessary to account for changes in the global radiocarbon concentration over time.

Radiocarbon measurements are usually reported in years BP with zero BP defined as AD 1950.

Results of calibration are reported as age ranges calculated by the intercept method or the probability method, which use calibration curves.

The internationally agreed calibration curves for the period reaching as far back as 48000 BC are those produced by PJ Reimer et al."( https://www.radiocarbon.com/tree-ring-calibration.htm ). And also "Calibration curves The information from measurements on tree rings and other samples of known age (including speleothems, marine corals and samples from sedimentary records with independent dating) are all compiled into calibration curves by the IntCal group. These are the basis for the calibrations performed by the programs like CALIB and OxCa"( https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/calibration.html )

But, of course, you would probably know better.

More later.....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Useless tautology.."

Not at all, since no animal code of sounds has all the functions of a human language.

Not at all, since there is a vast difference between mutations giving Dalmatians spots or Chihuahuas ultracuteness (to some tastes at least) and mutations producing dogs from invertebrates if proceeding long enough and directed harshly enough by natural selection. In exactly the same way it is a vast difference between a human language changing some externals on that function, some other externals on this function, one basic mechanism on the third one, and the thing you suggest, namely the functions of human language building up.

"Your assertion is simply assertion with nothing to back it up."

We'll see about that.

"Just because all humans seem to obtain their clothing from other humans does in no way imply that clothing was at any point a gift from a "supreme being"."

I think we did, see Genesis 3, but even supposing the opposite, we didn't, we could assume that they were invented by humans able to speak and therefore able to discuss that clothing could be useful.

"Same with their first car, first computer,"

Given by and invented by people already having a language.

You can invent a computer without a computer, but you can't invent language without a language. I loved to read stories of how car and radio and so on were invented. I also tried, while still evolutionist at age 10 (despite being already Christian) reading a book on how language was invented. It didn't make sense in the end. It said language was invented as a byproduct of fire. To light a fire, you blow with the lips so purse it sounds like a feeble F sound. This is then supposed to be the first phoneme, word (meaning fire, breath, life, man and whatever) AND statement.

Sure there are other theories now, the book was in German and probably from Nazi era or before. But the other theories make as little sense and they are not linguistics.

"job, sexual encounter."

Of these, sexual encounter is the one thing which could conceivable have occurred without first having a language - since animals have no language but do have sexual encounters.

However, we do not believe either gardening or naming animals nor becoming husband of Eve were done by Adam alone without God.

"Just because these things typically are a "gift" from other humans does not imply the first of any were a gift from a supreme being, unless , of course, you begin with that as your belief."

Someone, say Turing, can invent a computer no one has given him. No one has invented language after not being given language at an age when other people get their first one. You can invent languag-ES like Quenya and Esperanto, but Tolkien and Zamenhoff had been given language before inventing languag-ES.

No one, I repeat no man, as man, has invented language from scratch, unless the Christ child miraculously spoke Hebrew on Christmas Day.

This means, either a first man must have been given language as a gift the first time, or men must be eternal. Like Epicure thought. He was obviously also wrong in believing there could be men without language. Since he thought language was one of the things men could invent. I mean language in the singular, the phenomenon as such, not specific languag-ES.

What language cannot have come from is Evolution.

"No. You stated " distant past". I corrected, "recent past". Or perhaps you meant something else here.?"

I am too tired now to go back and verify. When I say typically Carbon 14 is reliable in the recent past, I mean back to 500 BC. When I say it is relatviely but not absolutely reliable in the distant past, I mean back beyond 2500 or so years old back to supposed but not real 55,000 BP or so. If one sample carbon dates as 20,000 BP and one as 11,000 BP, the first is older than the second, but this by no means means that either of these dates is real. It is a systematic error in the reading, depending on carbon 14 content having been drastically lower back then.

"Now you would surprise the physicists."

No, I would not. They know quite as well as I do that 0.129 pmc is the test value in a sample which gives the reading or conclusion 55,000 BP. I have it from one of their sites, not from a Creationist one.

"The low activity of the carbon-14 limits age determinations to the order of 50,000 years by counting techniques. that can be extended to perhaps 100,000 years by accelerator techniques for counting the carbon-14 concentration."

I have seen 0.001 pmc as the test value of 100,000 BP. Fine.

This means it takes 55,000 years for a sample to have 0.129 % of its original content or 100,000 years to have 0.001 % or 10 ppm of original content.

But it does NOT take into account that if original content of the sample was drastically lower than 100 pmc (percent modern carbon) the remaining 0.129 pmc or 0.001 pmc is a drastically higher percentage than 0.129 % or 0.001 % of original content. Which means that the time of decay was also drastically shorter.

BBL

Back now, here is more:

"or the archaeologists...."After about 10 half-lives, the amount of radiocarbon left becomes too miniscule to measure and so this technique isn't useful for dating specimens which died more than 60,000 years ago.""

They are presuming that a sample with 0.07 pmc (test value for 60,000 years) has gone through all the ten half lives of decay from original 100 pmc to 0.07 pmc.

"Or the chemists.."When Libby first presented radiocarbon dating to the public, he humbly estimated that the method may have been able to measure ages up to 20,000 years. With subsequent advances in the technology of carbon-14 detection, the method can now reliably date materials as old as 50,000 years.""

That is presuming a sample with 0.236 pmc has gone through the decay from 100 pmc and not from some lower original value.

"You are an amateur linguist. Are you also, perchance, an amateur physicist, amateur archaeologist, and amateur chemist as well?"

I am most certainly an amateur expert on radiocarbon dating (not saying I am decent on all or even many other parts of chemistry).

I am most certainly a definite Göbekli Tepe geek.

As to physics and Egyptology, there are people blocking my improvement in these fields (as relevant to the question).

Here is a physicist who is refusing me answers (after one physicist not knowing and another one not answering my mail) on the limits of speed of carbon 14 production, which of course imply limits on how fast the carbon level can rise.

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

Here are some Egyptologists who are consistently refusing me answers on how many items are actually carbon dated:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/07/carbon-dated-egyptology-coffin-club.html

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/07/coffin-club-as-mute-as-grave-on-my.html

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/07/third-time-over.html

In case you wonder, yes, it is me interacting with these accredited experts.

"This would come as a surprise to physicists as "The parameters used for the corrections have been obtained through precise radiocarbon dating of hundreds of samples taken from known-age tree rings of oak, sequoia, and fir up to about 12,000 BP."

They are here, falsely, relying on dendro-chronology being reliable long way past independently of radio carbon, meaning they are in fact relying on circular proof for dates like 12,000 BP : the dendro relies on carbon dates for rough placing of certain series, the carbon guy relies on dendro dates as confirming his carbon dates.

"Beyond that, back to about 45,000 BP, correlation is made using multiple lines of evidence."

Which your sources for some reason found good not to specify in detail?

"This information is compiled into internationally accepted databases which are updated on occasion. The present databases are INTCAL13 (northern hemisphere), SHCAL13 (southern hemisphere) and MARINE13 (marine environments)""

I will have to check the links if they only provide the calibration or some carbon independent and good evidence for it. I highly doubt the latter. Yes, the results of the info is compiled there, but if the reasoning in each case is faulty, ten thousand faulty datings supposed to be carbon independent and confirming carbon don't confirm carbon dates. Unlike when the reasoning is good, as with history at least from 500 BC on.

"Calibration is necessary to account for changes in the global radiocarbon concentration over time."

I know that. I am amateur maker of alternative ones. On the creationist view carbon 14 has been building up.

And the professionals you rely on have sometimes been mute as the grave on my technical questions.

"Radiocarbon measurements are usually reported in years BP with zero BP defined as AD 1950."

Yes, and I also know there is a raw date which uses the outdated (!) Libby halflife and calibrated dates using the Cambridge halflife, which I also use (5730 years +/- 30 or 40, I think).

So, try impressing someone who doesn't know the stuff - I do, insofar as they are not keeping mouths shut in my presence.

"Results of calibration are reported as age ranges calculated by the intercept method or the probability method, which use calibration curves."

Yeah, so?

Both Tas Walker and I have given alternative ones, except I am lousy at making graphs, so I prefer giving tables instead.

"The internationally agreed calibration curves for the period reaching as far back as 48000 BC are those produced by PJ Reimer et al.""

And you give tree rings as examples of known age ... facepalm!

"And also "Calibration curvesThe information from measurements on tree rings and other samples of known age (including speleothems, marine corals and samples from sedimentary records with independent dating) are all compiled into calibration curves by the IntCal group. These are the basis for the calibrations performed by the programs like CALIB and OxCa""

Now, speleothems, marine corals, samples from sedimentary records with fake "geological column" type of dating are, like tree rings reaching back to 12,000 BP very much not samples of known age.

"But, of course, you would probably know better."

Here is a speleologist who knows better on speleothems:

https://creation.com/emil-silvestru-interview

Dave Robson
Hans-Georg Lundahl...."I could do more theoretical testing on the possibility of the rise if some physicists were more cooperative.
Let's take Ilya Usoskin:
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html"""


Unfortunate. Did you try others? Is it possible he was just " too busy"? Or do you ASSUME( and we all know what happens then) that he would not help a creationist?

"""They know and have safeguards in place to help keep errors to a minimum."
Obviously not on the front where we challenge them."""


No. Not OBVIOUSLY. Actually, not true. See my last post, and the fact that many use multiple tests to establish a timeline.

"""Unfortunately that is a huge part of creationist logic, that the scientists doing the science don't really know how to do the science. It is often claimed by creationists, but rarely supported with any evidence." In this case, it is very supported by the evidence, since the scientists don't dare to tell you what we creationists are really challenging them about."""

So you claim. Now provide evidence.

"""Scientists usually utilize multiple methods for dating important finds in order to get the best age and mitigate contamination and errors." Apart from C14 and its "twins" like Luminescence dating (which I presume to be flawed before historically testable ages by about same amount), with methods way beyond carbon, there is no way to test them - except the negative test, which has been given by Mount St Helen's and a New Zealand volcano for K-Ar."""

You "presume", or, assume, and we all know where that can get you.

"""Nothing in the objections by me or similar creationists depends on the scientists being bunglers about what they go about. It involves them not going about the right things in some cases."""


OOOOOOH, but they do. I have heard and read it multiple times in the past few years. It is the very cornerstone of the argument against the use of radiometric dating.

""""Even your "historical document" here does not claim that humans appeared speaking all of the languages of the world today." Very correct. But all the languages are, not on a near surface level, but on a metalevel, one language. All can distinguish active "doer" from passive "sufferer" of an act. All can distinguish an object from its quality. And whether the quality is presumed in a context about sth else, or whether the quality is told"""

Are you certain of these claims. Have you studied all languages , living and dead????? Ever if you are correct, so what? What does that prove. All wheels that are actually wheels are the same basic shape. All bows that we consider bows are basically the same, no matter what culture invented them. All clothing has basic characteristics, or we would not call them clothing. All boats have certain characteristics or they would not be called boats, no matter where, when , how, by who they were invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Unfortunate. Did you try others? Is it possible he was just " too busy"? Or do you ASSUME( and we all know what happens then) that he would not help a creationist?"

If you had read the stuff, you might know that:

  • a) he is THE top expert today on formation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and what it entails
  • b) he practically said so himself, if you read his replies


"No. Not OBVIOUSLY. Actually, not true. See my last post, and the fact that many use multiple tests to establish a timeline."

I had perhaps missed the last part of the post, where you did take up some efforts on proving carbon dates like 12,000 BP accurate "independently" by dendro.

Or you may have added it after my first reply.

Whichever, dendro is not a stronger, but a weaker argument than carbon 14.

"So you claim. Now provide evidence."

See above. I think you added the last bit as an afterthought after doing some research, not what you spontaneously thought of yourself, since you actually started out with sth far less important, namely how far between 50,000 and 100,000 BP the test value in terms of pmc could still be measured.

[I was tired and conflated two of his comments, thought he had added in the one I remembered.]

"You "presume", or, assume, and we all know where that can get you."

I have reasons for presuming so :

  • thermoluminescence and carbon dates have been tested conjointly (in palaeoanthropology) and carbon 14 is a test for same range of years.
  • as I have a reason - given - for this being shorter than presumed with carbon 14, I also have one with thermoluminiscence. Here it is : if carbon 14 was produced quicker than now, then radiactivity was higher doses than now, which means the processes involved in thermoluminiscence are more affected by it.


"OOOOOOH, but they do. I have heard and read it multiple times in the past few years. It is the very cornerstone of the argument against the use of radiometric dating."

Oh, some do - but not the good ones.

Or you misread. People bungle BY methodology, and blunders are then covered up by saying these guys blundered IN RELATION TO methodology. You get irreconcilable dates by very good geologists, and you solve it by saying one of them was bad or had a bad day or overlooked this, that or other factor.

"Are you certain of these claims. Have you studied all languages , living and dead?????"

With 6000 living languages, I have obviously not studied all the dead ones.

I know all living ones have been studied by some linguists and all dead ones that are sufficiently known show these characteristics. All - that is of course a handfull, but that is all of that handfull (you may see no "if" clauses in Mycenean Greek, but that is because Linear B is tax records nearly exclusively - it means, we don't know Mycenean Greek well enough, as we do with Sumerian, Akkadian and I presume Old Egyptian : while I did not check this last, google some Old Egyptian texts, and if one has an if clause in the translation, you can be sure it had one in the original).

"Ever if you are correct, so what? What does that prove. All wheels that are actually wheels are the same basic shape. All bows that we consider bows are basically the same, no matter what culture invented them. All clothing has basic characteristics, or we would not call them clothing. All boats have certain characteristics or they would not be called boats, no matter where, when , how, by who they were invented."

Which means, a boat doesn't develop from a wheel by exchanging spokes and a boat you exchange masts on and sails on and add a cockpit to did not develop from a wheel. See my point?

"Are you certain of these claims. Have you studied all languages , living and dead?????"

You didn't actually bother to read Jackendorff, did you?

So, he admits as much from start.

"As far back as we have written records of human language - 5000 years or so - things look basically the same. Languages change gradually over time, sometimes due to changes in culture and fashion, sometimes in response to contact with other languages. But the basic architecture and expressive power of language stays the same."

I might have missed that comment as you put another one below it - or you may have added Jackendorff link later. Not sure which.

I am sure you are not a linguist. What Jackendorff does - not read the details - is not what they usually do, and the attempts I have seen (admit to not reading Aitchison on this one, despite enjoying her as historical and sociological linguist) have been ... very open to objections.

[After reading some more]

Oh, in fact, you really did not read Jackendorff.

He is just enumerating the problems in 8 pages and has just made my point for me.

There is no one theory on how language evolved, there are competing theories, each with difficulties pointed out by the other party.

Update
Me notifying him
Here is our debate so far:

[Linking here]

Sorry for thinking you had added to a comment after I answered it, I have been there with sn else, now I was tired and conflated two of your comments in memory.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Stats ... Month vs. Week


France month 16262 - should give for week 3794
France week 255

United Kingdom month 1378 - should give for week 322
United Kingdom week 17

United States month 399 - should give for week 93
United States week 73

Italy month 279 - should give for week 65
Italy week - absent from top ten, lower than 4

Russia month 204 - should give for week 48
Russia week 23

Ukraine month 196 - should give for week 46
Ukraine week 53

Colombia month 101 - should give for week 24
Colombia week - absent from top ten, lower than 4

Update:
19 Jan 2018 18:00 – 20 Jan 2018 17:00

United States 23 Lithuania 7 France 5
Russia 4 Brazil 2 China 1
United Kingdom 1 Romania 1 Ukraine 1

Council of Nicea - a Few Debates


Video commented on
Council of Nicaea Myth Debunked
VerseByVerseBT | 29.XII.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3uGKp23m_g


My original comments came in three batches, on two first I got debate with one Hep Hopa, and therefore leave each comment (mostly) separate. On third one, I unite my comments to a single commentary on that last part of the video.

The video itself (if I recall it correctly, my comments are from 3 months back) debunks the "myth" of Christianity forming for the first time at Nicaea, I debunk claims Catholicism is a development later than Nicaea, and I consider the Cathoicism then as compatible with and ecclesiastically and before God identical with Roman Catholicism, this is where Hep Hopa comes to promote Greek Orthodoxy as Catholicism. So, the video plus this post unites three debates.

I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:20 Your claim the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did not yet exist comes from where?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:34 Your claim Eusebius suggested a council of "all the independent Christian churches" comes from where? Eusebius' Church history? What text, if so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:44 And your claim the bishops derived their legitimacy solely from their OWN see, without any interdependence of sees or subjection whatsoever, comes from where, i e prior to Nicea?

From the fact that some sorting was done, so that everything done could be claimed as invention of the council, if you like, centuries after, as you are coming?

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
While Rome always had a special place, all churches were independent. By the way ... the pope was not even present in Nicea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"all churches were independent"

Matter for debate.

"the pope was not even present in Nicea."

No, but his legate was.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
For sure it is possible to debate on the details, but the reality was that the main churches (rome, alexandria, atioche, etc...) were somehow as the current orthodox churches are. Each great city has a bishop having influence on the others, but the bishop of alexandria will not commend on the one of rome and the other way around.

The pope sent a legate ... which shows how few influence he had on the votes. Nicea was mainly a eastern council, probably mainly for matters of transportation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look, on the Catholic view, votes alone are not enough for a valid council, you also need a pope confirming it - that was the job of the legate.

The details we have left about the Council at least admit this interpretation at least as much as yours.

And when it comes to bearing fruit, I am more impressed by Catholics than by the Orthodox either being modernist or hating Catholics or, as in the case of Romanides, both.

AND often being freemasons.

The best Orthodox I know are too reserved about Catholicism and Scholasticism, jump to condemnations unnecessary, but are at least not modernist.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Catholic Church was not yet the pope alone. Catholic just means universal and is the name of all the church. The vote was done and accepted by the emperor. The participants (or those represented there) than had to accept the vote. By the way the pope legate voted as the others so it was not an issue for the pope to accept the results of the vote. Anyway as the vote was validated by the emperor if the pope opposed he would have been declared heretic and chased as Arius and friends.

At that time the pope was just the bishop of a big city, not a lot more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
While there is fairly certainly some historical evidence for emperor validating the vote, theologically Catholics count the pope as having validated it by his legates voting for "homousion to Patri" which was also majority vote.

The explanation of historical proceedings would be that Emperor was trying to - do you say sidestep in English in such a context? - the Papacy and invented Ecumenical councils to that end. He dominated the social prestige part, but not the theology.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your last sentence is true. But at that time the theology was not dominated by the pope but the pope was just an important bishop among others. He was JUST the bishop of Rome. It was Catholic Church, not yet Roman Catholic Church. The Pope real power was built little by little and became effective much later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
How much power the pope exercises at a given moment and how much power Our Lord meant him to have are two different questions. St Clemens exercised arguably more power than St Sylvester - because there was now a Christian Emperor, no longer persecuting the Church, but rivalling him inside the Church.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, but what I am saying is that the bishop of Rome shares his power with the others and he was not greater than athanasius ifvslxandria or macarius of Jerusalem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am fairly well aware this is a claim that is made, and that the history of the time does not quite allow as clear a refutation of that claim as someone claiming St. John Fisher in England was of equal importance with St. Pius V.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The name of pope was for the important bishops. And the coptic patriarh is still called pope today. The term pope became specific to the bishop of Rome around the 6th century ... While the influence of rome was quite important, the implication of the bishop of rome in the first councils is small and all the job was done by eastern bishops. So for sure Nicae was mainly made by eastern bishops, however the bishop of rome followed the trinity. At those times, the pope had not even the power to appoint bishops. Those were elected by the christians and the pope had no word on that. All this evolved more and more and from the 6th century the Pope said to the others : guys, I have more power than you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The name of pope was for the important bishops. And the coptic patriarh is still called pope today. The term pope became specific to the bishop of Rome around the 6th century"

This is classical bait and switch.

I was talking about the office or principal successor of St Peter in Rome and not about the word Pope.

"While the influence of rome was quite important, the implication of the bishop of rome in the first councils is small and all the job was done by eastern bishops."

Who did the job and on whose authority it is compulsory for the Church are two different matters.

"So for sure Nicae was mainly made by eastern bishops, however the bishop of rome followed the trinity. At those times, the pope had not even the power to appoint bishops."

Did not use powers to appoint bishops.

St. Peter had done so, since he appointed St. Linus. St. Barnabas had done so, since he appoined St. Narn as bishop of Bergamo.

Hence, there is an authority inherent in apostolic one, which may or may not be exercised, previous to the custom you speak of. I am not saying it is a bad custom. I am saying it was too often abused by civil lords meddling in elections. The story is not "civil lords wanted to keep elections, papacy introduced papal nomination".

Rather it is like this. Civil lords wanted to nominate. Popes defended elections, up to Classic Middle Ages, some point. Civil lords bowed down in theory, but tried to get around it, paying these guys to shout "axios" and threatening those guys not to shout axios for the other guy. Popes realised elections were often useless and took over by nominating.

"and from the 6th century the Pope said to the others : guys, I have more power than you."

And for some reason, you realise this, and you realise that Popes of Rome count with you as Orthodox up to 1054 (excepting the one who excommunicated Photius perhaps and ending just before St Leo IX, and also excepting Liberius and Honorius, taking a harsher view on their degree of guilt than we do).

And while on the one hand you say "Popes have been Papist since before the schism", you also say "Papism is schismatic" or even "Papism is heretic" despite your own patriarchs (or those you take as such) being in Communion with Papists for Centuries.

Not to mention with Filioquists since AD 400, First Council of Toledo. (A local synod, no one claims it was an ecumenical one).

II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:41 That SOME Churches prior to both Nicea and - more relevant - Rome and Carthage and Laodicea were considering any given NT book as canonic does not mean there was an agreed canon.

Rome and Carthage gave canons which involve all of NT and which involve at least verbally same OT canon as Trent.

Laodicea gave a canon which supports the Protestant OT canon, but a defective NT one, books are lacking, notably Apocalypse.

Note very well, I am not into the "Nicea made the canon" spoof, I am talking about real local councils at which Bible canons were really discussed and published.

Your appeal to Church Fathers involves an appeal to men who were supporting the Hierarchy, i e St Irenaeus who said all Churches must agree with the Apostolic succession specifically in Rome, enumerating a few Popes there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:53 I am fairly sure, the reference in 2 Peter 3 is to Romans : St Peter was there, and some proto-Protestants had already made some twisted Romans road. It is therefore prophetic about Martin Luther.

And obviously, the verse, while not a direct refutation of "Scripture interprets other Scripture" is at least against "the Bible interprets itself (on same locus of text)".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3:17 As you may be aware, Muratorian fragment has an NT canon deviant, for some or other reason, from the currently universal one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, you said basically - omitting that it had, erroneously, included Pastor Hermas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3:52 You are clearly right that 4 Gospels as such could be reconstructed as being canon from ante-Nicene fathers. While the most important ones, they are 4 out of 27.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What is interesting is that the final canon is very close to much earlier collections of the Great Church. So saying that the canon was made up in Nicea is false. Than of course there were changes and the canon needed time to be really closed. By the way the Orthodox church still consider the canon as opened even if nothing was added since the lasts oecumenical councils.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So saying that the canon was made up in Nicea is false."

I did not say so.

I did however refer to councils of Rome and Carthage.

Do you have earlier documents, fine, tell me!

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, I know that they were set up afterwards, and as I said the orthodox church still did not closed the canon. So in theory for them it could change today.

But version of the canon were there even from Marcion (who by the way did not care about the AT, but the NT was partly there). Tha, Ireneous said that there shoudl be 4 gospels, no more no less, Origene had a list which is very close to the current one. So just to say that if the canon was not complete before Rome, it was only sligthly changing for the NT since Marcion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Marcion as such was a heretic and his canon is as uninteresting as that of Albigensians (also rejecting NT).

Catholic Church has canon closed insofar as ALL the "72 books or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" are canonic.

But I think both Trent and - I looked it up - Providentissimus Deus refrain from closing as to "only" part.

You have a I Esra in Russian? You have 3 and 4 Maccabees? Ethiopians have Henoch?

Some have a 151:st Psalm?

Theoretically that could be added. But what is there since Trent cannot be subtracted from.

The reference to Vulgate at Trent does not mean to disparage the LXX.

Hep Hopa
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Marcion was a heretic and he rejected the Old Testament. But he was also the first one to talk about the New Testament contains Luke and most of the letters of Paul. Which ... are still there today.

When I talk about the Orthodox Church it is the one after 1954. The one from Russia, Romania, Greece, etc... This church is also apostolic and its canon is not closed.

The one of the Roman Catholic Church is indeed closed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Marcion was the earliest one whose canon of NT is preserved to us.

This means, his contemporaries IN the Church are probably already enjoying most of the canon we have today (some books still disputed in the West, some, like Apocalypse, still in the East - unless that dispute came later).

The non-closing of your canon, does that mean you could, what we cannot, take books away from the canon?

I thought that was condemned against protestantism by Iasi and Jerusalem councils.

And the attempt to bypass it by Peter the Great was reversed after the Russian Revolution.

III
4:15 And were universally rejected by the early Church.

Arguing, in one sense, Dan Brown was right : they were rejected by the Catholic Church. That is what "universal" means, and if you will argue that Catholic Church deciding on Gospels does not equal Catholic Church as coming out from Nicea, you will also have to argue that the canons from Carthage, Laodicea and Rome are from a spurious Church - leaving you with Four Gospels and Ante-Nicene fathers and Muratorian Fragment and a conundrum where the Church really went.

4:47 I reject the Nag Hammadi spurious "gospels" on authority of the Church.

You reject them on what authority? Only on authority of human reason?

Then, while your reasons are good, you can hardly have a real issue with someone who having other reasons takes that other option - which I, obviously, do not.

5:22 Obviously, Saint Hippolytus was rejecting Gospel of Thomas.

And obviously, since he was either Pope, or more probably a redeemed Antipope, whose writings were validated by subsequent real Popes, as a Catholic I obey this Church authority.

The early Church considered "Gospel of Thomas" as obvious heresies.

Fine. So do I. So do you.

The Church in the 16th C considered Martin Luther's exegesis as obvious heresies.

So do I - but do you?

If not, are you dealing with two churches? Or are you claiming one and same Church had but later lost authority to decide what is heresy?

If the latter, why would the Church lose a promise of Christ? If the former, where do you set the limit in time, and where apart from Catholic Church was the "early Church" surviving?


Obviously, on this last point, I think Hep hopa would agree with me.

Debating an Anonymous under Edward Feser's Blog (and some more, with Greg and Miguel)


Post
under which I commented, click here.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cool - you moderated a debate between two non-Catholic heretics. Both of whom squirm at Young Earth Creationism, btw.

I am sometimes bound for un-moderated debates with non-Catholic heretics.

Here I ended up blocking two.

Anonymous
To claim that denying YEC is a heresy *is* itself a heresy.

And whilst defending YEC is not a heresy proper, it is still greatly problematic, not only because empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory, but also not least because it lays the Faith open to ridicule.

FM
Fr. Barron is a catholic bishop and not heretical.

If you think he is, than you do not have proper understanding of Catholic doctrine and what heretical means.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"To claim that denying YEC is a heresy *is* itself a heresy."

According to what D E F I N I T I O N?

Trent on Patristic consensus?

"And whilst defending YEC is not a heresy proper, it is still greatly problematic,"

While being the position of all Church Fathers and Scholastics, as well as the obvious sense of the Bible?

"not only because empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory,"

What is the carbon 14 content of sth from uppermost and something from lowermost layer of Göbekli Tepe, Mr. Empiric smart guy? What kind of mutation is needed before we get cultivated wheat?

"but also not least because it lays the Faith open to ridicule."

You know the crucified man with a donkey head inscribed "Deus Christianorum" or even "Deus Iudaeorum"?

If exposing oneself to ridicule is "problematic" what are you doing pretending yourself Christian ... wait, since you are "Anonymous" in actual fact you aren't pretending so.

"Fr. Barron is a catholic bishop and not heretical."

Presuming good standing with Bergoglio means you are Catholic, I suppose, or do you have other arguments for his being orthodox?

I am not recalling all the details, but I found a little piece of mine where I had found some against him.

Enjoy!

After looking, I found the context was, Robert Barron had been intimidated by Bill Maher - a man who takes "Father" Coyne and even Zeitgeist seriously.

Anonymous
You are one confused individual.

Hans Georg Lundahl
You are one cowardly one - intellectually because you prefer ad hominem over argument, and personally as you hide under anyonymity.

Anonymous
LOL

Hans Georg Lundahl
I noted, by the way, you had no answer on my quizzing.

"What is the carbon 14 content of sth from uppermost and something from lowermost layer of Göbekli Tepe, Mr. Empiric smart guy? What kind of mutation is needed before we get cultivated wheat?"

If you had said, "empirical evidence says roses have green petals" I might want to check you for Daltonism (green-red colour blindness, due to a mutation).

In fact you said "empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory". So, I wanted to check how much you know on Empirical evidence.

It's corresponding to positive for Daltonism.

Now, I can answer this.

Göbekli Tepe starting with 9600 BC or 11,600 BP - means, more or less, 24.58 % of present atmospheric and recent samples carbon 14 content. Ending 8600 BC or 10,600 BP. This is taken from a measure of 27.741 % of modern carbon 14 (or 27.741 pmc).

If the samples started out with 100 pmc, it takes 10,600 years before they reach 27.741 pmc, because in 10,600 years they reduce to 27.741 % of original content.

It takes similarily 11,600 years before they reach 24.58 % of original carbon 14 content.

Now, if the original content was 42.42 pmc (I'm taking the older date), how many years would it take before it reaches 24.58 pmc?

42.42 * x = 24.58
x = 24.58 / 42.42
x = 0,5794436586515794
x = 57.944 %

If this had been for a sample starting out with 100 pmc, we would have had 57.944 pmc, which is the test value for 4500 years.

You can do similar exercises with a starting point at 47 - 48 pmc for the younger date:

47.5 * y = 27.741
y = 27.741 / 47.5
y = 0,5840210526315789
y = 58.402 %

Insert this as pmc value, since the calculator takes* 100 pmc as original value, you get 4450 years.

And here is where I go to for Empiric Evidence about carbon 14 related to dates:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator

Now, what mutation is needed before you et cultivated wheat? One which is to wheat, like Daltonism to man, but worse.

In wild wheat, each grain is dropping from the sheaf as it matures. A good bargain for the plant, in self sowing, but a nightmare for a farmer.

In a certain mutation, wheat looses this capacity. Mature grains stay on the sheaf - a good bargain for the farmer, but an extinction nightmare for the plant. Dropping a whole sheaf is not a good sowing economy. Especially as it won't drop before it rots, which means the grain is already spoiled and won't grow.

This mutation can be traced back to Göbekli Tepe, as I found out the other day. This video shows a BBC clip on that matter.

So, between Cain and Abel, who would have been sacrificing wheat?

Abel, since the sheep or goat or ancestral-to-both could have been grazing whild wheat, not having concerns about how harvestable it is to a farmer.

Cain must have sacrificed non-wheat plant material, so "fruit of the earth" must refer to sth else than wheat. My hunch is, potatoes.

Other non-answer from Anonymous:

"According to what D E F I N I T I O N? Trent on Patristic consensus?"

I mean, when we deal with heresy, we deal with a crime in the Church Law. Nulla Poena Sine Lege. So, normally, there is no heresy without a definition excluding it from orthodoxy.

Greg S
Well, Hans, you’ve got so many things wrong right there that Anon doesn’t even know where to start... and neither do I.

Miguel
This guy sounds almost like one of those delusional sedevacantists who think they have the whole Church Tradition on their side against all existing bishops and theologians for decades and decades, and it's up to them as inquisitors to keep the faith alive (among few individuals).

Hopefully he's not; just saying that the way he acts kinda makes it seem like it.

As for YEC, any honest and serious interpretation of Humani Generis recognizes that Old Earth, and even standard evolutionary theory is open to Catholics -- with one caveat, which is the issue of our supernatural soul created immediately by God, and monogenism. Besides that, HG pretty much explicitly allows for the possibility of a natural explanation of our bodies as was being developed at the time (contra YEC), while simultaneously advising caution and saying that the natural explanation at the time had not been proven. In other words, it does not condemn it, rather it leaves it as an open possibility. It is absurd to suggest denial of YEC is a heresy.

And that's even just taking HG into consideration, without mentioning what subsequent popes have said on the subject. But seeing that our friendly commenter has an ax to grind and no qualms or fear of scandal or imprudence in calling a bishop of the Church a heretic, we can't expect much.

It's kinda funny that in this day and age he believes the earth is like 6000 years old, though.

So, just to clarify: Catholics are free to believe either in YEC or Old Earth creationism and evolution (provided they accept the special creation of the soul and monogenism, Ed himself has written on these topics in the past anyway). There is no heresy in either view.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"Well, Hans, you’ve got so many things wrong right there that Anon doesn’t even know where to start... and neither do I."

Well, that is a non-starter.

"This guy sounds almost like one of those delusional sedevacantists who think they have the whole Church Tradition on their side ..."

Delusional sounds a bit like how Pharisees did their social interactions.

I do think I have the Church Tradition on my side, and would be willing to argue it in detail if you have any real objections.

"against all existing bishops and theologians for decades and decades, and it's up to them as inquisitors to keep the faith alive (among few individuals)."

You are aware your hierarchy is not considering the Sede bishop lines as all invalid, I hope?

Therefore, your point of "all existing bishops" is very moot.

Perhaps even in the Novus Ordo establishment, you are judging too exclusively from US Episcopal conference, and ignoring men like Laun (an Austrian placed in Kazakhstan). I don't know what he would say, but I would like to hear.

"As for YEC, any honest and serious interpretation of Humani Generis recognizes that Old Earth, and even standard evolutionary theory is open to Catholics"

Except the document (in the relevant paragraphs) doesn't say one word about what we are free to believe positively. It says negatively we are NOT free to believe Adam's soul evolved, which I don't think is a definition, since I think it is repeating a definition (Syllabus or Vatican Council of 1869-70).

Except that the document is NOT a definition. Therefore cannot give us any rights we didn't have. It pretends to do so on a basis of "social experiment".

What it says on this point is basically "let the geeks fight it out, with one proviso, and let everyone submit to the decision of the Church".

Note very well, he is not saying "future decision of the Church". He just says "decision of the Church". He is very aware the debate could finally prove what I contend that the relevant decision is by Trent and as per consensus of Church Fathers foreclosing all licitness of Evolutionary or Old Earth belief.

The document is as such is not a decision, even if you treat it like that, it is a deliberate non-decision. A "who am I to judge".

"Besides that, HG pretty much explicitly allows for the possibility of a natural explanation of our bodies as was being developed at the time (contra YEC)"

Allows for it being defended in debate. No explicit allowal for it being believed.

"while simultaneously advising caution and saying that the natural explanation at the time had not been proven."

It had not and has not been proven as even a natural one.

Its "advice of caution" as you put it is quasi a draconic rule of "don't touch it if you ain't no geek".

As in fact I am a geek, expers sacrae scripturae et naturalium scientiarum, though not an expert in the vernacular sense, my debate is therefore explicitly allowed by the document.

And as both geekitudes were required for the debate, and it is a debate for or against evolution, this very much allows for a debater also saying denial of YEC is heretical. That is clearly within the freedoms actually outlined by that document. By that non-judgement.

And you treat it as a judgement forbidding a debater on the Biblical side of the issue and Creationist side of the divide to appeal to Trent and Church Fathers and to Mark 10:6 (a reference which even a heretic like Kent Hovind could spot, which at least technically, and on many points outside the Creationist issue he is).

"It is absurd to suggest denial of YEC is a heresy."

"HG" - it is a nick name for me too - says you are free to try to prove that from either Bible or Sciences. It does not say you are free to presume it from the document.

Its reception is a prototype for Montini's dispensation allowing hand communion and then episcopate after episcopate starts treating it as forbidding Communion given in the Mouth.

Except, the turns around "HG" are even more absurd, since it does not explicitly say one is allowed to believe Evolution and Old Age.

"And that's even just taking HG into consideration, without mentioning what subsequent popes have said on the subject."

As said, "HG" has not defined your point for you. Clear Antipopes from Roncalli to Bergoglio have also not done it, and their opinion is more likely to prove them Apostates than your being Orthodox. But their statements have been statements of opinion, not formal judgements.

They have well known that a formal judgement in your sense (as opposed to appealing to Pacelli or possibly Pius XII) would be about as arousing as Amoris Laetitia proved to be.

"But seeing that our friendly commenter has an ax to grind and no qualms or fear of scandal or imprudence in calling a bishop of the Church a heretic, we can't expect much."

I do have an axe to grind, whether I am friendly or you are generous in irony.

I do however not consider me as calling a bishop of the Church any such thing, since I do not consider Robert Barron as a bishop of the Church.

The standing of Nestorius on saying for the first time on Constantinople "let's not call Her Theotokos, just Christotokos" was better than Robert Barron. He was in succession of Patriarchs sharing same liturgy, in Communion with a Pope of Rome not put in any kind of doubt by any Catholic then. Nevertheless, a layman shouted heretic, and a Council agreed with the layman.

"It's kinda funny that in this day and age he believes the earth is like 6000 years old, though."

I am reminded of how C. S. Lewis was one day told "you aren't in broad daylight in the 20th C. going to introduce the Devil with horns and horse hooves are you?"

As C. S. Lewis could deny believing the horns and horse hoovs, I deny believing 6000 years old as well as denying to believe it 5778 years old. I am neither a Protestant nor a Jew.

If we speak of like 7200 or 7500 years old (Roman / Byzantine martyrologies as used by the Church - the "unknown ages stuff" from 1994 is NOT a valid Roman liturgy), now we are talking.

And, as he could remark that the Devil existing is precisely equally likely in the 20th C and in broad daylight, so, I also, am denouncing an attempt of appeal to "chronological snobbery".

Pius XII, if you prefer to call him that, was not involving naive belief in superiority of 20th C over every preceding one, at least in science and philoosphy of science as an explicited prerequisite for the debate he suggested that geeks should fight out.

"Catholics are free to believe either in YEC or Old Earth creationism and evolution"

IF "HG" is even a document of the Church Catholic geeks are free to debate either.

"There is no heresy in either view."

That "HG" was not remotely pretending to judge on.

"provided they accept the special creation of the soul and monogenism"

Well, already a problem of Old Earth.

We must also accept that the monogenism comes from Adam.

So, was Göbekli Tepe built by pre-Adamites on your view? Were soulless higher primates doing that?

If so, your are seriously embarrassing monogenism.

Or was Adam prior to 9600 BC? If so, you must either contradict the dating methods (which are your reason for Old Age) or go one further against the Bible and say the genealogies are full of large holes.

Or was Adam prior to 9600 BC? = prior to Göbekli Tepe which is dated to 9600 BC (at its start)?

Rick
We're used to have an atheist troll come by once in a while. But this time we're dealing here with a sedevacantist troll! Well, that's a new one!

Hans Georg Lundahl
This comment has been removed by the author.

Hans Georg Lundahl
OK, me being a sede troll (technically incorrect, since I don't have either hairyness or strength of Grendel - and since supporting Pope Michael is something other than Sede proper) is all you can say in defense of WLC and Robber Baron of Theology both squirming at YEC and the latter even caving in to Bill Maher on that account?

Short on arguments?

[I think h in Short in previous try was deleted rather than forgotten.]

Anonymous
Oh, so you’re a schismatic then...

But you know that’s still anathema, don’t you?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Who's anathema depends on who's schismatic.

If you are heretics, you are also directly schismatics.

I'd say, if you accept Bergoglio's view on what is required for valid marriage, you are a heretic.

So do some you would not otherwise call even schismatics, like Bishop Laun.


* More properly speaking, the calculator is programmed by one taking 100 pmc as original value. The software itself is not taking anything as anything, it lacks awareness of everything, including of what it is processing.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Kulturkampf (quora)


Q
What was the Bismarck's Kulturkampf?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Bismarcks-Kulturkampf/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Renan Herodek

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
You know Communist persecution of Christianity, despite officially tolerating Christian cults?

Well Kulturkampf was a bit the same, but especially directed against Catholicism.

It was more tolerant, and it involved the régime (a bit like Stalin during WW-II) espousing a version of Christianity.

In fact, Evangelische Kirche was an attempt to stop Christian inquarreling, especially among Protestants, by uniting Lutherans and Calvinists in a new less doctrinal Church - this started decades before Kulturkampf.

In the Soviet case Communist-Orthodox agreed to persecute the non-such considered most fanatic (Catholics, esp. Ukrainean Uniates, ROCOR like Orthodox, Baptists like “Ivan Nazaroff”). In the Kulturkampf case there was exactly one version of Christianity considered too fanatic for them, that was Ultramontane Catholicism.

The difference is, Kulturkampf failed fairly soon, because even in Bismarck’s small Germany (even if excluding parts of German nationals who were Catholic, like Austrians and Sudet Germans) there were so many Catholics opposed to it.

It set some traces, though.

  • 1) Markan priority, since the Traditional Matthaean priority was too Popish for the Prussian taste. Like often in the Soviet case, you don’t find a government decision, you find Christians volunteering for the position they knew would be most pleasing to the government and making a big show of pretending it was all for Christian reasons.
  • 2) Altkatholiken - Döllinger’s new sect, which rejected the Vatican Council and Papal infallibility was very promoted by Bismarck. Part of his failure was the refusal of Catholics to see Döllinger as a German patriot rather than as a traitor to Pope and Bishops.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Historic Linguistics as Viewed by a Creationist (Featuring Proto-Languages, on quora) - 8 questions + update


Q I
Do the Young Earth creationists accept that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken? If so, when, according to them?
https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Young-Earth-creationists-accept-that-Proto-Afro-Asiatic-was-spoken-If-so-when-according-to-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered just now
If Hebrew is the real Proto-Afro-Asiatic language, yes.

Otherwise no.

Q II
Is *bʰ (Aspirated bilabial stop) in the Proto-Indo-European language voiced? As [bʰ] in Sanskrit?
https://www.quora.com/Is-*b%CA%B0-aspirated-bilabial-stop-in-the-Proto-Indo-European-language-voiced-As-b%CA%B0-in-Sanskrit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
There are two difficulties here.

  • 1) We don’t know there was a Proto-Indo-European language;
  • 2) We don’t know if the original Lautstand was really, as usually thought, for the stops that of Sanskrit if it had been a Centum language.


But, as to what the theory means - the one there are two difficulties about - yes, the reconstructed bh is like bh in Sanskrit, not like bh in Old Irish or Modern Irish (which is w/v depending on broad/slender).

Q III
What name did the Proto-Indo-Europeans call themselves?
https://www.quora.com/What-name-did-the-Proto-Indo-Europeans-call-themselves/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered 47m ago
Since we have no writings from back then, we don’t know.

Or, if we do know, we have not identified it ias PIE.

For instance, if the real PIE was Hittite, we do know they called their own language Nesili, and that eventually they called themselves after another people they had beaten, whose language Hattili is not one of the IE family.

But we do not know the Hittites were the real PIE’ans.

And so on.

Q IV
Why does reconstructed Proto-Indo-European seem so cumbersome to pronounce?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-reconstructed-Proto-Indo-European-seem-so-cumbersome-to-pronounce/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Quora Question Details Bot
Aug 8
It seems as if there are a lot of unusual phonemes and stranger and more consonant clusters than most modern IE languages have. Also, what do those subscript numbers mean?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered Jun 15, 2017
H generally comes with subscript 1,2 or 3.

H1 is the H which becomes (a Continental) E and was probably (an English / German) H.

H2 becomes A and was presumably Ach-Laut.

H3 becomes O and also voices some consonants beside it, was probably a voiced counterpart of Ach-Laut a little further back perhaps and with lip rounding.

Then there are bh, dh, gh, gh(w). Basically taken over from Sanskrit bh, dh, jh, gh.

Now, the unusual part is this : bh, dh, gh, gh(w) exist, which is rare outside India (Sanskrit + some Dravidic languages + some Indic languages later than Sanskrit) AND the three H sounds can form the core of a syllable, which is usually reserved for vowels which are voiced sounds.

Also, m and n, l and r exist in syllabic version, but this you can find, at least for r and l in Czech too : vlk meaning wolf and Brno being a city both have this. This means they are not really consonant clusters, since m, n, l, r in this context are functioning as vowels.

But I have only DEFINED the unusual traits of Proto-Indo-European. This is sth other than to EXPLAIN them as you asked me to do.

Now, PIE is reconstructed and this is how linguists finally agreed to reconstruct it. I just saw a version with only one laryngal (or two, counting voiceless and voiced), which was much closer to Hittite - by another linguist, proposing his reconstruction.

And one possible explanation why the reconstruction of a proto-language seems so odd (laryngals, bh, dh, gh, gh(w), m and n, l and r in syllabic version, all at the same time) may be in my view because the premiss behind the reconstruction, namely existence of a proto-language (like Latin is to the Romance languages) is the wrong explanation for Indo-European communalities. As it happens, that is my view.

pH2tH1r = pronounce pkht-hr … would you call your dad such a sound?

Q V
In rough estimates, how much of the Proto-Germanic lexicon can be described as probably non-Indo-European and part of an older European substrate?
https://www.quora.com/In-rough-estimates-how-much-of-the-Proto-Germanic-lexicon-can-be-described-as-probably-non-Indo-European-and-part-of-an-older-European-substrate/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
Tim Kaye had read, years ago, 25 - 50 % identifiably IE vocaubulary.

My Greek professor, I think it was, mentioned 20 %.

Leaving 80 % as either non-IE or not-identified IE.

In other words, the majority of Germanic vocabulary is not identifiable as IE.

Obviously this depends to some degree on what reconstructions you make which depends on what rules you use and how imaginative you are in reconstructions.

Similar low estimates could be mentioned for Greek, I think.

And so on.

This is one reason I am in serious doubt about PIE theory or rather tend to discard it as unfounded.

Q VI
What do the numeric subscripts preceded by 'h's indicate in Proto-Indo-European phonology?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-numeric-subscripts-preceded-by-hs-indicate-in-Proto-Indo-European-phonology/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
I am going for the three laryngeal version - well aware there are others.

H1 will leave an E as E. If adjacent to no vowel, it will also become an E.

H2 will turn an E to an A. If adjacent to no vowel, it will also become an A.

H3 will turn an E to an O. If adjacent to no vowel, it will also become an O.

H3 will turn certain consonants voiced, but H1 and H2 won’t.

All this according to the most commonly accepted theory, which may be totally wrong, and one of my reasons is this.

The most reasonable reconstructions in this case are H1 = h, H2 = ach-laut, H3 = voiced and labialised ach-laut further back in the mouth.

But unfortunately, this leaves some words very ugly.

pH2teH1r in nominative and pH2tH1r in vocative would therefore be, with more common phonetic marking pχtéhr and pχthr (accent on ach-laut).

As I have described this elsewhere, the laryngeal theory makes PIE sound a bit like Klingon - and I have a problem about that.

Q VII
What are some features that are common to all (or most) Indo-European languages that are not usually shared by non-Indo-European languages?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-features-that-are-common-to-all-or-most-Indo-European-languages-that-are-not-usually-shared-by-non-Indo-European-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
"What are some features that are common to all (or most) Indo-European languages"

Having nominative vs accusative rather than ergative vs absolutive.

"that are not usually shared by non-Indo-European languages?"

However, it is rather the ergative which is somewhat rare, since at least Uralic and Turkic as well as Semitic and Hamitic languages share the setup.

There were some features given in a table, but these were nearly all about European languages, even West European languages, the Germanic and Romance continuum.

Polar Questions - interrogative word order. Not shared by Latin, Classic Greek, Polish, and I don't think by Persian or Hindi either. I don't know about Modern Greek. Gaelic replaces certain verb forms with certain other ones, and its general word order (like that of Arabic, I have heard) is close to the interrogative word order of West European.

Uvular consonants - uvular continuants only. This concerns the Dutch pronunciation of ach-laut and the uvular r, both being innovations in Europe and probably very recent ones.

Dutch ach-laut probably came from a velar ach-laut. Uvular r came from dental trilled or rather retroflex trilled r. As late as 17th C., they presume, it seems to have been a faulty pronunciation in King Louis XIV.

Perfect of have type are as un-common outside Germanic and Romance within IE as outside IE. It is a recent innovation, though an earlier one than uvular r. It is probably from the Middle Ages.

It probably started out as a combination and reversal of two Latin phrase types - the perfect passive participle with est, and the "mihi est" as synonym for "ego habeo".

High and mid front rounded vowels are absent from most IE languages, and present in Peul, in Africa.

The one feature which is very markedly IE is that in many languages S-V and V-S are similarily common, modern West European version having S-V for normal statements and V-S for polar questions, older versions and versions current today but further East is free word order. This trait could originate in a Sprachbund situation, where one language involved in it originally had dominant S-V, another originally dominant V-S.

There is of course the Ablaut, but this is clearly shared with Semitic.

In Arabic, Qalb is heart and Qulub is hearts (I have this from Arabian Nights with a good annotation, not from being Arabophone). In Latin the verb tego and the noun toga belong together. In Greek the verb pherein and nouns with -phoros. In Germanic the present "ich fahre" and the past "ich fuhr".

One could also mention the particular set of present active personal endings which could be seen as absent from Germanic, mostly, but present in Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Slavonic - except it is also there in Finnish, which is not IE.

In Sanskrit, Greek, Latin you have a feature of distinguishing past continuous from past simple specifically in the past. It is absent in Germanic, it is semi-present in Slavonic (possibly present in Church Slavonic even - but that was a constructed language, based on a Slavonic dialect spoken by bilinguals who also spoke Greek), since you will have verb pairs, where one has a past which is like the simple past in meaning, another like the continuous past.

It could have come by by confusing a Semitic type of distinction between ongoing and finished action (the finishing of an action in the past is a simple event, not an ongoing one) as per Semitic and a distinction between present and past as in Finnish or Germanic.

There is really a case system common to most IE not shared outside it (and not by Finnish or Arabic).

It can be reconstructed as having originally 8 cases, and as having Accusative as default Lative case. This conflation of two functions in one case, unlike the nominative - accusative system is fairly unique. Like the numerals.

Q VIII
What five books on linguistics (philosophy of language) do you consider most necessary for people interested in linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/What-five-books-on-linguistics-philosophy-of-language-do-you-consider-most-necessary-for-people-interested-in-linguistics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Jesse Joodt

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered Jan 10
What five books …



So, three of my five books are “exact reference forgotten” - sorry if that leaves only two useful answers.

Update

Q IX
How much of the Germanic language grammatic structures is distinct from Latin?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-Germanic-language-grammatic-structures-is-distinct-from-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Answer requested
by Jos

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
Most of the grammatic structure is different between Latin and Germanic.

Similar: there are in the older Germanic languages and still in German and Icelandic, cases. Pronouns tend to be of same roots, though for “we and you” it is hard to verify directly. Latin “nos” may indeed remind of “us”, in some languages “uns” / “ons”. But Latin “vos” looks a bit closeish to the nominative “we”. But “vos” means “ye/you”. Numbers are the same one to ten, also hundred. One argues this is also so for twenty, unless that is rather a dual of ten, or even of the -ty ending, but with “twenty” vs “viginti” it is hard to verify. There is ablaut in both languages, but …

Non-similar: … ablaut tends to have different uses. There is in Germanic a simple past and no progressive one (English mimics Romance in having one), it is partly formed with ablaut, which is not the main way in Latin, and partly with and ending not so used in Latin. Run / ran is exceptional in English, as facio / feci is exceptional in Latin. Played is typical in English and vocavi is typical in Latin. Also, faciebam and vocabam for the past progressive are typical for Latin. The b in it could be and could not be related to the d in played. Greek and (if I recall the Latin language history correctly) Sanskrit do not use anything related to either. Latin uses the b also for some futures, while the Germanic present is better termed non-past, since having a potentially future meaning. In Slavonic, one verb will have a non-past which is present another one a non-past which is future. Latin and Greek disagree in how they make futures, Germanic doesn’t have a synthetic one even. The past and present subjunctives in Germanic look like Greek optatives, if anything, even that a bit tenuous since less outlined than the optative, and they ignore both Greek and Latin diverse subjunctives. There are fewer cases, the cases are coinciding more, all Germanic languages except Gothic have acquired a definite article, in Germanic, as in Slavonic and Baltic, there are definite and indefinite declinsions for adjectives and the adjective declinsion differs from the noun declinsion, which is not or very much less the case in Latin and Greek. These two share personal verb endings more with Finnish even than with Germanic - unless you look at the oldest writings, which may be influenced by being written down by people used to Latin or spoken by people who were living close to Romans. Word order is very different too in Latin and in Germanic, Latin having free word order tending to verb last as default and deviations from it used for marking. Germanic tends to verb last in oblique clauses, while main clauses not interrogative tend to V2 rule, namely whatever is first - unmarked subject, marked something else - verb comes after that.

I will give an example in vocabulary.

I will lay down my sword and shield and study war no more.

I = ego (cognate)
will = volo (cognate)
my = meus (rough cognate, but different formation)
and ? perhaps cognate with Greek = anti, meaning against
study = studere (loan)
no = n+o, n=ne
more = magis (probably rough cognate)

lay, down, sword, shield, war are all clear non-cognates

The Indo-European close family members excluding by marriage to other are all in Germanic:

father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister.

In Latin the son and daughter are sth else, and in Greek the brother and sister are sth else, as are fathers in Slavonic and Baltic, and again son and daughter in Welsh and Irish:

pater, mater, filius, filia, frater, soror
pater, meter, yys, thygater, adelphos, adelphe
ojciec, matka, syn, córka, brat, siostra
tėvas, motina, sūnus, dukra, brolis, sesuo
tad, mam, mab, merch, brawd, chwaer
athair, máthair, mac, iníon, deartháir, deirfiúr

Q X
Are Slavic languages more similar to Germanic or Indo-Iranian languages?
https://www.quora.com/Are-Slavic-languages-more-similar-to-Germanic-or-Indo-Iranian-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered 3m ago
I have little knowledge of Balto-Slavic and next to none of Indo-Iranian.

Here goes.

Slavic ones are Satem, like Indo-Iranian rather than Germanic. Example, hundred is hund+red in English, and h corresponds to velar C/K (as it originally was, or they suppose so) in Latin centum and Greek hekaton. Lithuanian has shimtas and Slavic sto. This is like Hindi sau, Kurdish sed.

On the other hand, Slavic are also what I call North Indo-European.

These will have b in words where South Indo-European has sth else.

Irish Gaelic dearthair has changed, but Welsh has brawd for brother. Now, Celtic and Germanic are the Western or Centum NIE languages, here are the Eastern or Satem NIE ones, Baltic and Slavic, Lithuanian has brolis and Polish has brat.

Confer South Indo-European where they are usually not b.

Latin has f (sometimes b in word interior), as in frater. Greek has phi in phrator (only about "lodge" brothers, not about real ones). Hindi has bh as in bhaee while Kurdish actally has b as in brak.

In vocabulary, I don’t know. In Syntax, Persian seems closer to some Germanic ones - English, Scandinavia - than to Slavic, but Hindi is clearly very different, since by now “split ergative” - one tense will have accusative differing from intransitive subjects while other will have instead ergative differing from intransitive subjects. Both of these are innovative. Oldest state of Sanskrit, well before Hindi, was closer to Latin and Greek. In these Slavic and Germanic are inbetween Sanskrit and Persian.

Q XI
Why is "a" often replaced for "ă" or "â" in Romanian words of Latin origin ("sanguis" -> "sânge")? Most other Latin languages have kept the A-sound.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-a-often-replaced-for-%C4%83-or-%C3%A2-in-Romanian-words-of-Latin-origin-sanguis-s%C3%A2nge-Most-other-Latin-languages-have-kept-the-A-sound/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered just now
Any change between two languages, like one language changing so much the old spelling won’t work, one has to replace it with a new spelling system, or even just happens to do so, even if one could have continued spelling it the old way (as in Latin) involves some sound changes.

And any time there are more than one new language emerging, each has sound changes which are unique.

Castilian is unique in “fortis” becoming “fuerte”, while Romanian has “foarte”, an a instead of an e after the w. Castilian with some Occitan dialect (Gascon, I think) are unique by replacing most Latin f with h (neighbouring Basque does the same, but I mean unique among Romance, and Japanese turning some f into h is very far off from both Basque and Romance).

Portuguese is unique in some ways, like pl bl becoming pr, br (praça, branco).

So, why exactly would the A sound be the only sound unique to change?

And, more, the sound of "ă" in endings is not even unique. Portuguese perhaps and Occitan certainly pronounce the ending -a as "ă", while French has another spelling but -e is also pronounced like "ă".

As to "â", well, yes, it is unique among Romance languages, but not in the region. Turkish has the “i without a dot”, Polish has its “y”. Russian has same sound, in Cyrillic alphabet. I am less sure about Bulgarian, but I think Bulgarian has had it during the Church Slavonic period and lost it.

L. David
yesterday
Thanks for examples of unique things in other Romance languages, but that’s not what I asked for. I never said Romanian has got the only unique changes, I only wanted an explanation for why the ‘’a’’ got changed for ‘’â’’ or ‘’ă’’ in so many words. Is it because of influence from neighboring languages? That’s the only thing I asked for here.

Also, in Romanian, ‘’ă’’ is not only used for endings. It could be anywhere in the word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
just now
You cannot mechanically explain an unique change.

You would need to know the people who first pronounced an ‘’â’’ for “a”, and I don’t.

That ‘’â’’ is a sound existing in neighbouring languages certainly contributed to make it possible. Some speaking “Latin on its way to Romanian” were bilinguals and using that sound in for instance Slavonic.

It seems, this happens near nasals, as with “î” - “caîne”, “pâine” if I recall dog and bread correctly, as with “împeratul” where “i” is next to “m”. But I don’t know exactly why. Perhaps “â” not being the nicest vowel is less disturbing if standing next to a very nice consonant?

As to ‘’ă’’ being used anywhere in the word, is that also the case for stressed syllables? I thought not. I thought it was unstressed syllables only. That is an easier thing to explain. In ‘’ă’’ the mouth is less open than in “a” and the pronunciation takes less air. On the other hand, the tongue is less tight than in “i” or “u” and therefore takes less muscular effort. Therefore ‘’ă’’ is the lazy vowel per default. If sound changes were mechanic, all vowels would become ‘’ă’’, the thing to explain is why this or that vowel is singled out for such treatment while others aren’t.

Presumably either “a” is singled out in Romanian because it is the vowel taking most breath and making it ‘’ă’’ is the greatest economy in an unstressed syllable. Other possibility, but this involves the process already starting : a noun in ‘’ă’’ can now get a definite form in “a”. Once this can have been “a” vs “ala”. So, reducing this to ‘’ă’’ vs “a” instead saved effort.

Q XII
How is language change studied through historical linguistics and evolutionary linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/How-is-language-change-studied-through-historical-linguistics-and-evolutionary-linguistics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Answered just now
"How is language change studied through historical linguistics”

By observable historic facts.

“and evolutionary linguistics?"

Mainly by reconstruction.

When I state how Latin so and so has changed into Romanian so and so, or Spanish so and so, I can check the recognisably same general word pattern between the three languages (fortis, foarte, fuerte) and I can also check the starting point, namely Latin fortis, or more properly speaking its accusative fortem.

I can also check the historic facts on when Latin was the only written language in Spain or Romania and when the languages we speak of as Castilian and Romanian emerged, and what other written languages have been there between the two dates (Spain : Gothic, Arabic, Romanian, Gothic, Bulgarian, Turkish).

When evolutionary linguistics are comparing diverse branches of Indo-European, it is handling things like if one only had fuerte and foarte and had no trace of fortem or fortis, and one is proving the original had to be either “fuerte” or “foarte”, with the other language pushing the vowels up for Spanish or down for Romanian (foarte is pronounced with tongue further down than fuerte). A very sophisticated guess would be “forte” - but this is outside Romance an “evolutionary option” only because it is inside Romance a known historical one.

It is also different insofar as for Romance languages we have thousands of words from Latin and for Indo-European we have 500 roots. For Spanish and Romanian, I think 80 % or so are from Latin. For Greek or Germanic, perhaps Latin too, one counts on a clearly lower level traced to the 500 Indo-European roots - meaning there is more uncertainty on whether the words started out from a same language and this splitting or within a group of languages and these getting closer, like the Balkan languages. Anyway, “evolutionary linguistics” used to be called “comparative linguistics”. A name I prefer.

Within Romance - i e historical or one group of it - we can prove “evolutionary” steps like sound changes alone, without intelligent redesigning of one’s language could not have led to useful language, only to decay. Language change involves progress and not just decay, only because it is partly a voluntary or semi-voluntary process defending the language against the mere adding up of sound changes. Take Latin solem and solum. In Spanish they would come out differently, like sol and suelo, which is what Spanish has. In French not just final -e is lost but also final -o, so in French both would come out as sol, but only solum (suelo!) does, while solem is intelligently replaced by *soliculum = soleil. Language change involves intelligent design, folks!