Wednesday, November 27, 2013

... on religious fervour and the word "fruit" on a video on Language History

Video commented on:
TheUKMonarchy : HISTORY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE - 2 English Goes Underground (doc series)
own comment to the linguist consulted:
Apple started to mean a very specific fruit after we got "fruit" from Norman French? No, I think that is not the case.

1) The real word for fruit before Anglosaxon had fruit was waestel. In German it was Obst. It was not apel or Apfel.

2) The story is plagiarised from the story of the word "pomme" - "mala" was the old word for apple and "poma" for any tree fruit. Whan "mala" = apple came to share pronunciation with "mala" = evil, the word was dropped. It was variously replaced in various Romance languages and in French in was "poma" which took over.

3) Apple would have primarily at least meant that very particular fruit, since that is also the meaning of German Apfel, Swedish äpple, and even outside Germanic of Lithuanian obelys and Polish jablko. All of which are cognates of apple.
Newer debates on my accuracy in part I.
Mary Kaye Waterson
Perhaps that was the case outside of England, where the Germanic language was developing differently. This is talking about ENGLISH, not German, Swedish, Lithuanian or Polish.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, in that case it would first have meant apple, then fruit, alongside waestel, and then apple again. It is more economic to suppose the linguist is simply wrong here.
Jorge Ivansevick
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Before seeing all of it: English borrowed a lot of words from French. Black Death decimated French speaking elites of England (as well as Latin speaking ones), and English speakers replaced them. Henry IV officially used English. Chaucer wrote it, and it had lots of French words in it.
Jorge Ivansevick
Marky G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I like how you use "borrowed" it evolved because of all those influences (and more) you suggest- it's not like there was a common consensus or a conscious decision.- " hey should we 'borrow' these words from the French, etc ? Because we can hardly communicate with our current language can we, that would help us wouldn't it ? 'borrowing all these different words !? I find it funny when people almost take it personally on how a language has evolved because it's roots exist elsewhere. Its just the history of English (and England), nothing more and nothing less.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Evolved is an extremely bad metaphor for what happened.

When words are borrowed, it is not because the borrowing language is incapable of communicating without it - there is no such language - but because someone first finds a word in another language cool, communicating a bit better, and then it spreads along people agreeing with, ultimately him, though he is usually forgotten and that is spreading it like a meme.

But EVOLUTION is a singularly misleading way of putting this or any other language change.

I do not know why Fruit ousted Waestel, when Frucht has not ousted Obst. One reason might have been that Norman French were using the word Fruit nobility is a coolness factor. Another might have been that waestel only worked in some dialects, notably West Saxon (I do not know in how many others it was the correct word), whereas Norman French were all over England and especially all over London and using the word Fruit.
Marky G
+Hans-Georg Lundahl I was being sarcastic in my example of "hey should we 'borrow' these words from the French, etc ?" To make a point that borrowed doesn't cover it (it's not like the words are ever going to be returned !? hehe) - I think it's a bit simplistic to say they found a new word from a different language cool and that somehow spread. French was dominate in England for 300 years... yet English isn't French nor is it old German (although it contains many French words and of course old German as well), so it evolved into something else.. modern English (eventually anyway- ok, with a few words from other languages as well).

When I use the word evolve, I obviously don't mean in the biological Darwin sense, etc. but in the sense of a "gradual process in which something changes into a different form" (English dictionary)- that seems pretty reasonable to me to describe the English language ? Absorption could be better actually.

Anyhow, the main point previously, was about "borrowed" and although perhaps not you, just some comments I've seen elsewhere with people getting on their high horse about older languages and so on (we all know about ancient Greek/Latin etc being very influential- but this documentary is just focusing on progression of the English language).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, gradualism is precisely what is wrong.

Each change of a language is exactly a meme that spreads more or less consciously.

Changing RD into THICK D (retroflex to be linguistic) is a meme that spread over most of Sweden down to the old Danish border.

Changing any R (that is still an R) from Italian R to French R (in Stockholm the Italian R sometimes approaches the English one) came from South of that border up to a few landscapes above it.

Now, there is no way to evolve an Italian R very gradually into a French one. It is physically impossible. The positions in between the two do not allow the making of an R at all. The only way an Italian R is changed to a French R is by choice. It may be a pretty passive choice, like a man who feels what he learnt from his father is insignificant against what he can pick up where he lives or with people he has to get along with. Or an active one, like the man who feels it sounds better.

And precisely so there is no gradual transition between the two words waestel and fruit. There is one three stage transition between saying only waestel and saying only fruit, and that is between the two you can interchange waestel and fruit. Obviously you can subdivide further, like a moment when certain people would say "the young men say fruit when they mean waestel" and a later moment when certain people would say "the real old greatgrandfathers say waestel when they mean fruit".

Having masters who were not natively English of course helped in many areas.

A Fitzgerald or any other Fitz would perhaps try to learn a bit of English, but he would probably find it easier to learn a variety which included the word "fruit" than one which included the word "waestel".

Or, on the other hand, such and such an English underling would learn some Anglo-Norman, and find it easier to use "fruit" in both languages than to shift back and forth between "fruit" and "waestel".

And in London where Englishmen were generally already free, they were getting along with French merchants in Petty France - as mentioned on this video also. That is where cockney got its lack of h and it older v for w from. And cockney very probably acquired a real w after picking up on the fact that saying v for w was done by German and Swedish immigrants into the United States. What killed the cockney v was thus probably "My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Visconsin ..."

That is very precisely how language changes work. Gradualism has nothing, nada, zilch to do with that. Precisely as there is no gradual transition between saying "zero" and changing it to "zilch".

+Marky G one more thing.

English is precisely like French a language unthinkable without the influence from Latin. Some words came in Anglo-Saxon, like priest. Some in the Renaissance and in Johnsonese.

But perhaps more importantly, Anglo-Saxon got along with pretty much two tenses and only later calked the 16 tenses you enjoy on the Latin system of ten tenses. Think of that next time you use a pluperfect!
to a later part of the video
Petty France?

Sounds exactly how Low Dutch speakers from the Hansa were installed in Stockholm and Visby.
i'm surprised Chaucer was able to get away with his poetry given the religious fervor of the times - especially the naughtier bits...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What religious fervour?

Orthodoxy and fervour do not always go hand in hand.
may be so, but do we really need grown up people believing in silly fairy tales? the only difference between the fairy tales for children and the fairy tales for adults is that the ones for children are called "stories" and the ones for adults are called "religion". other than that - NO difference. a fairy tale is a fairy tale no matter what one calls it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A story can be true as well as false

We have reasons to believe Christianity is a true story and not a made up one.

Even if that had been untrue, a society (like Chaucer's contemporaries) which nearly universally believes it a true story does not need have even the degree of fervour seen in the least fervent of the Christians today who believe it in opposition to Atheists and Agnostics attacking it.

And even those - inhcluding me - may have far less fervour than you with your prejudice previously expressed may conclude from the fact of us believing without hesitation the stories in the Bible to be true.
actually, I think in Chaucer's time there was a strict "religious" code. and no - "christianity" is but a mere superstition like any other. it's based on older stories borrowed from other cultures.

and "religious" fervor does in deed exist. have a look at what's going in Africa to day be cause of "christianity" - which is just a bunch of fairy tales. once one be comes an adult, it's time to leave the fairy tales behind. adults who believe fairy tales are delusional. and delusional people can - and have - cause a great deal of damage.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"adults who believe fairy tales are delusional"


"delusional people can - and have - cause a great deal of damage"

yes, that includes atheists

"and "religious" fervor does in deed exist. have a look at what's going in Africa to day be cause of "christianity" "

I did not say it did not exist. I said it is not the same thing as religious orthodoxy.

Friday, November 22, 2013

...on Scots Education and Reformation & on Sweden

On yahoo boards 05/20/03 02:40 pm - 2003-05-20 22:13 and 05/20/03 04:19 pm

On Antimodernism 10/20/2003 6:39 PM - Sent: 10/20/2003 6:43 PM and Sent: 10/20/2003 6:44 PM

On Scots Reformation, quote from Catholic Encyclopedia
In 1525 the Lutheran opinions seem first to have appeared in Scotland, the parliament of that year passing an act forbidding the importation of Lutheran books. James V was a staunch son of the Church, and wrote to Pope Clement VII in 1526, protesting his determination to resist every form of heresy. Patrick Hamilton a commendatory abbot and connected with the royal house, was tried and condemned for teaching false doctrine, and burned at St. Andrews in 1528; but his death, which Knox claims to have been the starting-point of the Reformation in Scotland, certainly did not stop the spread of the new opinions. James, whilst showing himself zealous for the reform of ecclesiastical abuses in his realm, resisted all the efforts of his uncle Henry VIII of England to draw him over to the new religion. He married the only daughter of the King of France in 1537, much to Henry's chagrin; but his young wife died within three months. Meanwhile his kingdom was divided into two opposing parties — one including many nobles, the queen-mother (sister of Henry VIII), and the religiously disaffected among his subjects, secretly supporting Henry's schemes and the advance of the new opinions; the other, comprising the powerful and wealthy clergy, several peers of high rank, and the great mass of his still Catholic and loyal subjects. Severe measures continued against the disseminators of Lutheranism, many suffering death or banishment; and there were not wanting able and patriotic counsellors to stand by the king, notable among them being David Beaton, whom we find in France negotiating for the marriage of James to Mary of Guise in 1537, and himself uniting the royal pair at St. Andrews. Beaton became cardinal in 1538 and Primate of Scotland a few weeks later, on the death of his uncle James Beaton, and found himself the object of Henry VIII's jealousy and animosity, as the greatest obstacle to that monarch's plans and hopes. Henry's anger culminated on the bestowal by the pope on the King of Scots of the very title which he had himself received from Leo X; open hostilities broke out, and shortly after the disastrous rout of the Scotch forces at Solway Moss in 1542 James V died at Falkland, leaving a baby daughter, Mary Stuart, to inherit his crown and the government of his distracted country.

James V's death was immediately followed by new activity on the part of the Protestant party. The Regent Arran openly favoured the new doctrines, and many of the Scottish nobles bound themselves, for a money payment from Henry VIII, to acknowledge him as lord paramount of Scotland. Beaton was imprisoned, a step which resulted in Scotland being placed under an interdict by the pope, whereupon the people, still in great part Catholic, insisted on the cardinal's release. Henry now connived at, if he did not actually originate, a plan for the assassination of Beaton, in which George Wishart, a conspicuous Protestant preacher was also mixed up. Wishart was tried for heresy and burned at St. Andrews in 1546, and two months later Beaton was murdered in the same city. Arran, who had meanwhile reverted to Catholicism, wrote to the pope deploring Beaton's death, asking for a subsidy toward the war with England. The Protestants held the Castle of St. Andrews, among them being John Knox; and the fortress was only recovered by the aid of a French squadron. Disaffection and treachery were rife among the nobles, and the English Protector Somerset, secure of their support, led an English army over the border, and defeated the Scottish forces with great loss at Pinkie in 1547.

A few months later the young queen was sent by her mother, Mary of Guise, to France, which remained her home for thirteen years. The French alliance enabled Scotland to drive back her English invaders; peace was declared in 1550, Mary of Guise appointed regent in succession to the weak and vacillating Arran, entering on office just as a Catholic queen, Mary Tudor, was ascending the English throne. Arran's half-brother, John Hamilton, succeeded Beaton as Archbishop of St. Andrews, James Beaton soon after being appointed to Glasgow, while the See of Orkney was held by the pious, learned, and able Robert Reid, the virtual founder of Edinburgh University. The primate convoked a provincial national council in Edinburgh in 1549, at which sixty ecclesiastics were present. A series of important canons was passed at this council, as well as at a subsequent one assembled in 1552, one result being the publication in the latter year of a catechism intended for the instruction of the clergy as well as of their flocks. From 1547 to 1555 John Knox was preaching Protestantism in England, Geneva, and Frankfort, and the new doctrines made little headway in Scotland. In 1555, however, he returned to Edinburgh, and started his crusade against the ancient Faith, meeting with little molestation from the authorities. He went back to Geneva in the following year; but his Scottish friends and supporters, emboldened by his exhortations, subscribed in December, 1557, the Solemn League and Covenant, for the express object of the overthrow of the old religion. Angered by the execution of Walter Mylne for heresy in 1558, the lords of the Congregation (as the Protestant party was now styled) demanded of the Queen Regent authorization for public Protestant service.

Mary laid the petition before a provincial council which met in 1559, and which, while declining to give way to the Protestant demands, passed many excellent and salutary enactments, chiefly directed against the numerous and crying abuses which had too long been rampant in the Scottish Church. But no conciliar decrees could avert the storm about to burst over the realm.

Knox returned to Scotland in 1559, and inaugurated the work of destruction by a violent sermon which he preached at Perth. There and elsewhere churches and monasteries were attacked and sacked. Troops arrived from France to assist the regent in quelling the insurgent Protestants, while in April, Elizabeth, invaded Scotland both by land and sea in support of the Congregation. The desecration and destruction of churches and abbeys went on apace; and in the midst of these scenes of strife and violence occurred the death of the queen regent, in June, 1560. Less than a month later, a treaty of peace was signed at Edinburgh, the King and Queen of Scots (Mary had married in 1558 Francis, Dauphin of France), granting various concession to the Scottish nobles and people. In pursuance of one of the articles of the treaty, the parliament assembled on 1 August, though without any writ of summons from the sovereign. Although the treaty had specially provided that the religious question at issue should be remitted to the king and queen for settlement, assemblage voted for adoption, as the state religion, of the Protestant Confession of Faith; four prelates and five temporal peers alone dissenting. three further statutes respectively abolished papal jurisdiction in Scotland, repealed all former statutes in favour of the Catholic Church, and made it a penal offense, punishable by death on the third conviction, either to say or to hear Mass. All leases of church lands granted by ecclesiastics subsequent to March, 1558, were declared null and void; and thus the destruction of the old religion in Scotland, as far as the hand of man could destroy it, was complete. No time or opportunity was given to the Church to carry out that reform of prevalent abuses which was foreshadowed in the decrees of her latest councils. As in England the greed of a tyrannical king, so in Scotland the cupidity of a mercenary nobility, itching to possess themselves of the Church's accumulated wealth, consummated a work which even Protestant historians have described as one of revolution rather than of reformation.
On Cardinal James Beaton, quote from Catholic Encyclopedia
The stormy period in which Beaton's public life was cast, with France and England both intriguing for the alliance of Scotland, and the independence of the kingdom trembling in the balance, has made him, perhaps inevitably, appear to posterity more prominent as a statesman (in which quality there is no room for doubt as to his ability or his patriotism) than as a churchman and a prelate. There is, however, evidence that during both his thirteen years' tenure of the See of Glasgow and the seventeen years during which he held the primacy, he concerned himself closely with both the material and spiritual interests of the two dioceses, and in particular with the advancement of learning. In Glasgow he added and endowed altars in his cathedral, made additions also to the episcopal palace, which he encircled with a wall, and he erected stone bridges in various parts of the diocese. He was, moreover, as sedulous as his predecessors had been in safeguarding the ancient privileges of the archiepiscopal see. On his translation to St. Andrews he proved himself a constant benefactor to the university of that city, and he founded there a new college (St. Mary's) for the study of divinity, civil and canon law, medicine, and other subjects. The new college was confirmed by Pope Paul III in February, 1538, and was extended and completed by Beaton's successor, Archbishop Hamilton, sixteen years later. It still exists as the divinity college of the university. Finally, Beaton showed himself ever zealous for the preservation of the unity of the Faith in Scotland. Under the direct orders of the pope (Clement VII) and unhesitatingly supported by the king, he caused many of those engaged in propagating the new doctrines to be arrested, prosecuted, and in some cases put to death. Modern humanity condemns the cruel manner of their execution; but such severities were the result of the spirit of the age, for which Archbishop Beaton cannot be held responsible. There is no reason to doubt that his motive in sanctioning the capital punishment of notorious heretics were simply to avert the miseries which religious schism could not but entail on a hitherto united people.
Answering firhillfan, msg Msg 25291 on yahoo boards
The schools created before the Reformation were controlled by the RCC.

The schools introduced well after the Reformation were not exclusively for Presbyterian children but for all, who could afford to attend.
True, Catholic Priests controlled pre-reformation schools, at least indirectly, so that even secular teachers were not allowed to teach heresy. As far as the law was concerned. In practise compulsory schooling was part of a humanist programme, which involved some moral heterodoxy or heresy, like stoicism, if not downright dogmatic heresy as yet.
This fulfilled the long held dream and intention of the Presbyterians to have their people educated so that all would be able to read, write and understand enough of the affairs of church and state to be able to discuss and vote on the various issues that had to be addressed.
Which is as much as to say: the uneducated were excluded. Which in the absence of a monarch meant simply oligarchy.
The early strides in universal access to education which were made in Scotland, provided the impetus for the Scottish Enlightenment, which has benefitted all mankind, in the fields of engineering, medicine, economics and rational thought.
Do you call Hume a rational thinker? Or banking and industrial revolution economic benefits to mankind? I am totally unable to homologate the sentiments of the previous writer!!!
The Covenant was signed as an alliance against the mass murder of Protestants wishing nothing more than to worship their god, as they saw fit.
You worship God in your way - I'll worship him in His!

Mass murder indeed! According to the Covenanters' version!
The Lords of the Congregation were simply the leadership of the local nobles who banded together to protect their serfs and kinfolk from the vile abuses of the RCC.
And who had enticed their serfs to heresy? Other serfs? Or the lairds of the later Covenant? Or do you by "abuses" refer to the exacting of tithes before the laird got his share? Oh, I bet every greedy Scots laird was willing eneuch to protect his serfs agin sickle abuses!
They had to operate in some degree of secrecy as they were being hounded to death by Dundee in the east and Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh in the west.
Cheers for Dundee and Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh then!

If ye want to remember people really hunted to death though innocent as small childer, remember the Jesuits!
You can still drive through small towns abd villages in Scotland, especially the western counties, and see hotels and public houses called "The Covenanter's Arms".
Brewing badly may not have been one of the Covenanters' vices - Cromwell was a Covenanters' ally - but they had enough other vices!
The Lords of the Congregation finally led the Scottish people to religious and intellectual freedom in 1568, when they defeated Mary Stuart's army at the Battle of Langside and Mary fled south leaving Scotland to move forward, to take up a leadership role for the entire world.
Religious and intellectual freedom? What a joke! Catholicism was severely repressed in Scotland throughout the centuries to follow. Lies and brainwashing had a role to play. And the pretention to take up as a nation a leadership role for the entire world.

The first racist was a Scotsman and Scotist at Sorbonne.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*First racist = i e first man in Europe to theorise about radically different worth between the races. But I forgot his name even back then, and I have not found it again, lately. It may have been John Mair I was referring to. Though I cannot now find the reference to him introducing racial biological inequality into European thought. He did defend human rights of the savages. It could also be his pupil George Lokert. Even Hector Boece would be the right epoch. But I think he left Paris too early (1500).
Answering firhillfan, Msg 25302 on yahoo boards
Thankfully Sweden threw off the yoke of oppression many years ago, as did Scotland, and they have prospered in mind and body, ever since.
Sweden had its Pilgrimage of Faith - many times over. Only Gustavus Wasa had the money to pay for the arms and the mercenaries. He got it by pillaging Churches and Monasteries. With lots of cruelty.

The Catholic Swedes who rose to protect their Church paid for it with their lives.

Prospered in mind and body? Do you consider socialist interference in the privacy of poor men's homes prospering? I cannot homologate the sentiments of the previous writer.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

... Epistemology of Flood vs Evolution plus of Catholic vs Protestant and Atheist

Video commented on:
TheThinkingAtheist : Top Ten Creationist Arguments
Daniel Coyle
I love the creationist agreement. "Why dont we teach the controversy of life" Which means teach evolution and the creationist version side by side. I can imagine it now one class of science reading a paragraph from the Book of Genesis and afterwards discussing the evidence of it. Which will take the whole of 5 minutes before the conclusion is made, there is none.

Which we can spend the next week or two discussing how really humans began on this planet. You know the real evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, take the Flood.

Then take Cretaceous, Jurassic, Cambrian and so forth remains.

Those are evidence of the Flood, unless you want to presume they all come from different ages.

I just read how much modern life (birds and mammals) are found in Cretaceous rocks.

Fits the Flood story pretty well.
Answered twice
  • ZyClave A
  • kevih06 B
And i just read about how aliens control the planet and are abducting people all the time. Apparently they have big heads and big eyes!

Theres a lot of people who make a LOOOT of claims mate... When religious people make clams that are in the scientific sphere, bet the money that its completely made up... Not to be harsh, but these people are incredibly gullible... If someone asserts it, and it confirms their god, they accept it...

Always make sure to check your sources!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Maybe time for you to check up yours.

When was the last time you asked a museum "have ducks been found alongside dinos"?

And since we are at checking, ask them what place dinos have been found vertically on top of trilobites but with a clear difference in depth under ground.

What place on all earth have they been found that way?
A lack of information is not due to missleading sourcing but a lack of sourcing.

But to answer your question directly,ive never asked anyone if ducks have been found alongside dinosaurs. Was there a point...?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In fact they have. But they are not often displayed in museums.

That is why I think you should ask them about it.
Sure they have... Sure...

Why do you think they dont show this then? Let me take a wild guess here. Its a CONSPIRACAAAY! Am i right?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is what I think you might ask them about.

Here is my source:

creation . com/modern-birds-with-dinosaur­s
Anwered twice
  • ZyClave C
  • ajs1031 D
ZyClave C
Why would i ask them about that? Its like asking "where are those aliens we keep finding every day?" The question is based on a premiss i think i frankly delusional...

Its not like im surprised that your source for this information is an activist creationist site...

How about linking to a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The link mentions one museum as honorable exception, where you can start asking.

Your comment about "frankly delusional" says lots about your préjudices and how much brainwashing went on in your education.
I do have some prejudices about religious people. Like gullibility for instance. The very concept of faith IS gullibility (belief in something without evidence) and to HONOR faith is to me like honoring ignorance. But that doesnt necessarely apply to all religious people.

It certainly dont have to do with my education. I WISH they would teach epistemology, logic and critical though more in school. They dont! They tell you what to know, they dont teach HOW to think or how to process information.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"They tell you what to know, they dont teach HOW to think or how to process information."

Alas that that is what happened to you about religious faith.

"The very concept of faith IS gullibility (belief in something without evidence)"

Not the concept of faith. No. The concept of faith is one of total adherence without reserve to what God has revealed. But then the revalation of God is evidence for the things revealed, and that the revelation comes from God has evidence too.
ajs1031 D
Yeah, the problem is there has never actually been such a find. Every attempt at such a find has been proven to be a hoax from creationists.

See, you really shouldn't look at religious websites when researching this stuff, because they are known far and wide as existing only for the purpose of lying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you check with the museum mentioned in my link?

Do you ever do any checking yourselves or do you sheepishly accept all your sources say and ask we creationists do all the double checking?

Just because you presume creation . com has to be lying and PZM has to be honest? That is called prejudice!
I research EVERY claim by creationists. Not just yours. That's how I know for a fact that the "museum" you are referring to should be closed down and it's owners charged with fraud, just like their buddy Hovind.

You see, when you only research claims by creationists on creationist site, as you do, you can't possibly learn anything.

Try learning some real science, because until you do you are literally saying nothing at all.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"An avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum (top) - a rare example of a modern bird (bottom) in such displays."

So the Milwaukee Museum is on your view a Creationist "fraudulent" Museum?

Try to read the things you claim to check up on!

"Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single fossil of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."

So the avocet was not found in Hell Creek? Milwaukee Museum is fraudulent?

And no, I am not researching ONLY claims on creationist sites by creationists.

That again shows your prejudice that you thought that of me.
kevih06 B
"Those are evidence of the Flood, unless you want to presume they all come from different ages."

It's not presuming when the evidence suggests they are in different ages. If there was some sort of global flood, we would see all those fossils in the same rock strata.

At least I think that's what you're talking about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It's not presuming when the evidence suggests they are in different ages"

What evidence is there to suggest they are from different ages?

"If there was some sort of global flood, we would see all those fossils in the same rock strata."

Can you prove Cretaceous and Permian rocks bearing fossils from period are different strata at any one place on earth now?

If not they could be different biotopes before flood.
john clewes
They burned bibles in the inquisition??? Absolute nonsense,the Sanish inquisition inspired by various Popes,Jesuits,and the Dominican hounds of God spanned centuries ,during which anyone caught burning a bible would have been reduced to ashes. The shameful period of bloodthirsty persecution is extremely well documented,and I suggest you do some research before spouting rubbish on the subject.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As a Catholic I must say they did burn some Bibles in the Inquisition.

Namely Protestant translations to the vernacular.

Of course, if you were caught burning a Latin Vulgate or a translation recommended by the Inquisition, you had a problem.

In Spanish Bibles were translated pretty early on Catholic initiative.
So one cult decided that another cult (with the same god) deserved to have their rights violated by burning their stuff.

If the christian god exist, would that not have been the perfect time for him to intervene and clarify to people either "Im fine with the bible translated to other languages, stop burning my book, ey?" OR "Latin is the unquestionable language of god, if you translate it so you actually understand it, those books should burn".

Why do YOU think he did not intervene?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all you swallow the Protestant version of what happened so readily that you do not even read my words.

I did not say the Inquisition burnt all Bibles except Vulgates. I said it burnt all Bibles in faulty translations, thus neither Latin Bibles nor Authorised Translations (the English one is not KJV but Douai-Reims).

Second, I think God approved of burning Bibles that translate "episcopos" and "ekklesia" as "overseer" and "congregation" rather than "bishop" and "church".

Third, you totally miss the fact that Catholics and Protestants back in Europe were not two equal cults having laid equally the grounds for Christian civilisation here.

Protestantism is a by-product of Catholicism. Just as Atheism (in the Western World, as you show yourself) is of Protestantism. And Catholics could figure out it would lead to Atheism.
Answered three times
  • ZyClave E
  • ZyClave F
  • Christian Campos G
ZyClave E
I agree that protestantism is a byproduct of catholicism.

I dont understand at all why you would say atheism is one of protestantism though... Atheists in the true meaning of the word (not-theist) existed BEFORE any god concepts was every invented. Atheism as an oppositional stance have existed for exactly as long as theism have.

Saying atheism is a product of protestantism implies that atheism is a new thing. Its not... Its way older than christianity...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Atheists in the true meaning of the word (not-theist) existed BEFORE any god concepts was every invented."

That is a guess. It resembles the Protestant guess that first Christians were virtually identical to this or that Protestant denomination.

"Atheism as an oppositional stance have existed for exactly as long as theism have."

That resembles the Protestant guess that anyone opposed to Catholics (say Albigensians and Valdensians) was basically Protestant.
Ehm... Its not a guess mate. Before theists existed everyone was a non-theist, AKA atheist. It have nothing to do with protestantism... Protestants are not atheists...

What is the connection between protestantism and atheism? I dont get it...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Before theists existed everyone was a non-theist,"

That is your guess. We say that before atheists existed (any variety) every person in the universe was Theist. Monotheists came before Idolaters too. Since we don't agree with your guess, we see it for a guess.

Precisely as since we Catholics do not agree with Protestantisms, we do see their several claims of coincidence with primitive Church as non-founded. As guesses.

Also, modern Western atheism arose in Anglican England.
The only thing im "guessing" is that theists have not always existed. And before language, i seriously doubt people where capable of thinking in terms of god concepts.

Do you understand what a true dichotomy is...? Do you accept that theism and "not theism" (atheism) is a true dichotomy? Do you agree that theists have not always existed? If you agree with the two premises, it follows that atheists existed BEFORE theists.

I didnt say MODERN atheism...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And before language, i seriously doubt people where capable of thinking in terms of god concepts."

According to Theism there has never been any "before language".

"Do you agree that theists have not always existed?"

No, that is exactly what I think you are just guessing. Before anything else existed God did. And God was obviously Theist and not Atheist. The first angels he created and the men he created six days later were not atheist or even non-theist either. Some material and biological items created between them were non-theist but not atheist. A stone is non-theist and non-seeing, but not blind or atheist.

"I didnt say MODERN atheism..."

Nevertheless you are a modern Western atheist, not an Epicurean, not a Theravada Buddhist, as far as I know.
Answered twice:
  • ZyClave α
  • ZyClave β
ZyClave α
I was obviously refering to humans... Sure, you could say im "guessing" that the first people we would refer to as humans, did not have a concept of god. But at worst, that means theism and atheism arrived at the same time. I dont think you can get all humans to accept ANY claim.

I wouldnt call a non-biological thing those things, but animals without eyes are blind and if they dont believe in a god they are atheists. I dont think we can KNOW if they do or do not believe in a god though :P
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were Theists. So were Cain and Abel. And Set. And probably the rest of their children too.

Animals without eyes are blind.

But animals not believing in God are not atheists.

Animals have eyes, but no reason.
ZyClave β
Yes I am. But the kind of anti-theism of Christopher Hitchens which i ascribe to, is a very recent thing. Probably not older than ~60 years or so. This type of atheism wasnt really possibly in the 1500 hundreds, as im sure you understand since the kind and loving christians would instantly flay these people alive (because god is a loving god).

But i wasnt the first atheist... And that was what, I at least, was talking about.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was not possible in the times of Epicurus or (if he was Atheist) Buddha either.

Since there was no militant Christianity to be militantly anti about.

Pietro Aretino comes in the 1500's, but that was an Italian town with more condottieri possibly than priests.

Purely private atheism is hard to verify.

Atheism as a modern socially coherent phenomenon starts with Shaftesbury in England (thus ex-Anglican) followed by Diderot and Alembert in France. Who admired Protestants for being secular.
ZyClave F
I assumed that was what you were saying, yes. Its not like the catholics took the new sect in their midst with open arms, so wouldnt surprise me if they did do that.

I dont really see that i actually WROTE that though. I only mention that one side burn books of the other side, which you seem to say is correct. And my question about why god didnt intervene still stands no matter the scope of the burning or the asserted flaws in the translations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your question about God not intervening does not stand before the fact that God gave authority to the Church.

Meaning that Protestantism is not and Catholicism is that Church.
And what evidence do you have that god gave authority to the church? Because it looks to me like a bounch of dudes who just claimed that right in order to get dominance over people and claimed they had god on their side.

Simular to the jews in the old testement who went around raping and pillaging their neightbours and said god wanted it. (Numbers 31: 17-18)

Why do you accept the authority of these MEN even if christianity is correct? I´d never do that even if i was a christian.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Because it looks to me like a bounch of dudes who just claimed that right in order to get dominance over people and claimed they had god on their side."

OK, at what exact occasion?

313? What was it that existed before 313? Did it claim authority from God while being persecuted by Pagan Emperors?

If not, how come people all of a sudden remember in 313 having belonged to a Church that never existed before?
Christian Campos G
so god told themburn bibles.He came down and said Burn bibles

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, he did not "come down and say".

He had founded His Church and given Her authority. She was using that authority against pseudo-bibles, against wrong translations of the Bible. Not against real Bibles.
john clewes
a bible is a bible is a bible,and regardless of creed sect or denomination the content is based on superstitious bronze age [...].OK,imbecile??
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Superstitious and bronze age tend to go together in some vocabularies.

Wonder why.

Inquisitors would not have agreed with you, and your reaction shows no very great concern for historic accuracy.

Not that your other remarks are any better than this previous one in that respect.
Missing for the moment, will be fixed when I find the comments again.
I'm not saying it is useless! It's just that Atheists use scientific facts to deny a God's existence, but who's to say those scientific facts are true? I think it's just some food for thought that should be kept in mind when we fight all the time in the comments. Not trying to be offensive~ x3
So what you´re saying is that the very concept of investigating reality is useless because anything we find could have been manipulated by magic?

If you believe that i sure hope you dont use the items invented through science.

"I believe in the theory of gravity, but i also believe angels hold our feet to the ground" is sort of the argument you made... But hey, im happy you accept evolution so i guess i shouldnt be too hard on ye.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sheghostly: "It's just that Atheists use scientific facts to deny a God's existence, but who's to say those scientific facts are true?"

[she actually had made another statement too which was closer to his version]

You: "So what you´re saying is that the very concept of investigating reality is useless because anything we find could have been manipulated by magic?"

Are you guys collectively hypnotised to get that argument wrong every time you hear it, or what?

Two observations:

  • 1) "Some kind of magic" being behind everything and thus real explanation of the results does not equal "the results cannot be trusted because magic tampered with perception".

  • 2) Scientific facts can be wrong because results are wrong, because calculations are wrong or - MAIN CULPRIT - because interpretation is wrong.

    I once had a math student who got an answer wrong. He calculated everything right, but he did not calculate what he shd have calculated to get correct answer. Interpretation.
  • 1) Im not following your argument... Mind rephrasing?

  • 2) If you by scientific fact, mean the observation itself, it can be wrong, but rarely on the basic science. The observation of gravity for instance is obvious, 'things fall down'. The observation for evolution, the diversity of life, is also kinda axiomatic.

    Calculations and interpretation can be wrong too, yes.

    Are you making an argument for solipsism or what...?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Saying God and angels accurately account for movement of heaven and of heavenly bodies as observed is something else than saying they tamper with our perception so we cannot accurately obserbving them.

  • 2)The thing is I am not.

    Newtonian gravity is an interpretation of the fact that things fall down. So are Aristotelian and Einsteinian gravity.

    Stars and planets moving due to inertia and gravity (either of the non-Aristotelian versions) is also interpretation.

    Cats and dogs, mice and men, animals, plants and bacteria being ultimately related as Chihuahuas and Danes is also an interpretation.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

... correcting Hovind on Beowulf, Sigurd and Nerluc

Video commented on:
ThePICDeathrAD : Kent Hovind - Dinosaurs (FULL)
Sigfrid, the Norwegian hero ... he was appreciated as Sigurd in Norway, but he was not himself from Norway.

Norse sagas say he came from Jutland after his father was slain in battle (and his father Sigmund was king of "Hunaland" ... like "land of the Huns").

German legend (which calls him Siegfried) says he came from Xanten by the Rhine.

But, like Beowulf, he slew a dragon.

Just remember, in Beowulf, Grendel is not the dragon. It is a humanoid shape but very little communication skills, like his mother. The dragon in the Beowulf connexion has no name.

If Sigurd's dragon Fafnir has this name, this is because he supposedly was a shapeshifting magician before becoming a dragon.

And Sigurd (if he lived and is not simply a copy of his father Sigmund, who was the dragon slayer of that family in a song sung in the Beowulf poem) lived about 1500 years ago, or more, a little earlier than Beowulf.

He actually lived earlier than Attila. Beowulf was somewhat later.

Nerluc ... that was the old name of the town (or the Frenchified later form of it). It was named Tarascon after the Tarasque which was their name for the dragon.

And the Tarasque at "Nerluc" was captured by St Martha of Bethany.

But Hovind left that one out, because he did not want to get into Roman Catholic "worship of Saints".

Short link: ppt . li/dr
Video just stopped right at 0:45:17. You know how eager French Freemasons are for this kind of stuff to come out. They stop me from seeing this (yes this is in a public library, and no, its personnel is not massonic at all, at least I never saw them wear the aprons, but on the other hand I do not visit lodges, so I would not be invited when they wear aprons, and of course this is absolutely the first time a video of precisely Hovind or other stuff with similar conventional wisdom stops short while I am watching in this library here ...) because they fear my small criticism of details might just possibly deter from the general message of Hovind. I think they might be a bit over protective there. At least, my own intention was just to correct Hovind on the details. Not to oppose him in the general theme of dinosaurs being equal to dragons.
Ah ...
Video might be working again. How nice!
On Job 38:35 - God is maybe rather telling Job (and us) that lightnings are not mere physical phenomena, they are more like spirits moving the physical, but not independently but answering to God.

In Baruch 3 the stars also answer to God. Meaning, obviously, the spirits that move them.
"I think God is asking Job these questions to change Job's attitude" in other words to make him humble. I have not yet looked up Pope Saint Gregory's Moralia in Hiob on this one (I should, I know), but my hunch is he could have wanted to show the friends Job was humble. Already.
I commented on that one about a month ago:
Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Was God Preparing Job for Judgement Day? Was Job proud?
Light has a way, darkness has a place.

That light moves and darkness does not is not necessarily due to modern rocket science that we know it. If you open a door in a dark room, it is the light that invades the room not the darkness that invades the light space outside the room.

It has perhaps an implication about eschatology.

Hell is a place of darkness. Heaven - at least on the stellar level and below - is a way of light.
Supposing Behemoth was a bronto or brachio ... how come it was taken for "elephant or hippo"?

Pretty easy. Those fellers are close to hippos in natural behaviour. And they may well have been used as precursors of battle elephants - if you look at the Narmer stele or tablet or whatever.

Egyptologists call them serpopards (fabulous leopard with serpent neck and head). I think brachios or brontos are at least as likely. I do not think they found fur clearly depicted in "leopard parts".
I return again to the theory that cars got Hovind in trouble.

Here he actually says Ford was wrong in the logo for the Thunderbird model ... some people around the Ford company might not have appreciated that.

Unless it was rather some owners of Thunderbird cars.

[Thunderbird in Indian legend, identified as pterodactyl by Hovind, Thunderbird logo on cars = eagle.]

... on Religion and Science

My initial comments on a video I am not linking to (by TheThinkingAtheist).
  • Claim 1: science previous to Aristotle and Eratosthenes thought the earth was flat.

    Well, maybe there was not so much scientific theory about either flatness or roundness before them:

    • like there was some tradition of flatness, simply as extension of flat (not really but kind of) countries known

    • there was also some hunch this was wrong due to Phenicians observing sailing ships out of harbour.

  • Claim 2: medical discoveries.

  • Claim 3: science harnessed electricity.

    Well, science was not having alternative and less accurate theories about electrons or bacteria before the discoveries.

  • Claim 4 and 5: human genome and space exploration.

    Now, here we are dealing with things partly not quite true.

    Human chromosome 2 is not simply two chimp chromosomes glued together in previous telomeres now serving as centromere. There are thirteen major scale and 100,000 smaller scale "mutations" involved between them.

    Meaning identity is less than clear. And so also for Heliocentrism.

  • Claims 6, 7, 8: relativity, nature of light, laws of motion.

    The last of these do not tell us how motion originates, but leave lots of people (not even all of the atheist) convinced that the laws of physics act like a spring in a clockwork. They rather act like the configuration of cogwheels in it - motion still has to be provided.

    Relativity is probably a Heliocentric mistake.

    Nature of light is speculative and theories change.

  • Claim 9: science is responsible for the invention of X.

    Sure. But are the scientific principles involved in X exactly those and as little understood or testable as those involved in:

    • large scale evolution (microbe to man)

    • modern cosmology

    • modern theories of mind plus modern psychiatric diagnoses?

    If so, they would not have resulted in pretty reliable inventions.

  • Claim 9 item z: birth control.

    Now, that is an evil. Even barrier methods are against the natural finality of sexuality. But pills also kill. If a pill is taken just after conception, it functions as a very early abortion.

  • Claim 10: compare with religion.

    Well, first picture from "religion" was stained glass. Arguably better than TV.

    Then when you started about religion, you took a non-religious tune.

    You used the religious one to gild what you said about space exploration.
Answers by one Alarios711 and my responses
On my comments on claims as enumerated. (As you may notice, I am linkingto him).
Alarios711 (claim 9 item z)
Oh ... please.

OH MY GOD I KILLED A SMALL AGGREGATE CONSTITUED OF APPROXIMATLY 4-24 cells. Don't masturbate you are killing billions .... :-/.

And yes it's pretty much the same potentiality for life at this stage. Nothing. Birth control liberates women sexualy so they, too, can enjoy sex with their partner (without condom). And they regulates their period and make them bearable for some.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

4 - 24 cells of an embryo (or even just the first of them) has the complete genome of a new human person. We believe that when that has happened, God also has created its soul.

Masturbation is certainly wrong, but the cells that are killed therein have half the genome of the man. Exactly as those killed in nocturnal pollution.

In the case of ovula killed by ovulations without fertilization (leading to menstruation) it is half the genome of a woman.

Getting pregnant regulates periods and make them bearable.

It also involves getting children which will make old age bearable (usually). For both the mother and the father (usually).

Sexual liberation has led to the penury of old age pension funds over more than one European country. Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, and I think Greece too. Last two countries treated as m o l [=more or less] bankrupt. Sw, Ge, Fr take measures that will aggravate the problem as well as being hateful in the immediate.
Your analysis is 200 miles off.

The problem with pensions now is the direct result of the post WWII baby boom. Cause people just didn't care and made tons of children (yay).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with baby boomers getting old is not that their is too little land in the Western World to feed them.

The problem is they did not themselves make sufficient children.
Yeah great idea.

Let's do 4-5 (average from the babyboom) children per household and flood the earth in less than a century. It's the solution, and what's amazing is that the planet has unlimited ressources.

No, sadly we will suffer the consequence of the massive birthrate from 1950 and we gotta hold on until the ratio old/young is stabilised again.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"we gotta hold on until the ratio old/young is stabilised again."

Sorry, but the "holding on" is precisely what upsets the balance between young and old.

No human society has ever reproduced itself to above the food resources previously available. Sometimes food had become unforeseeable less available (like potato famine), but no human society has ever reproduced itself past feeding possibilities.
Alarios711 (claim 9)
You are comparing applicable technology to very large scale and way more complicated theories. How does that even compare ? And based of what we already found, we can safely assumes we will find these answers if we keep refuting, criticising, reworking these calculations and hypothesis.

But yeah, simpler to let all that to big man in the sky.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"How does that even compare ?"

Well, the video wanted us to trust very large scale and way more complicated theories because of applicable technology, didn't it?
Alarios711 (claims 2 and 3)
What ?

That doesn't mean anything. And for the reminder, the early scientists that worked on modern medicine and electricity were branded as heretics and hunted by the clerge.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Read up on Medieval History in real books about Medieval History.

Not in outdated or Communist books on "History of Science."

Real heretics could say things like "Satan created the world"* or "marriage is wrong"* or "Jesus wanted noone to have a sword or political power"**, which statements hardly bring any medical or electrical discoveries to mankind.

* Albigensians.

**Albigensians AND Valdensians.
Communist books ? What ?

Dude you are out of reality. I'll stop the argument here you are crazy.

(I m a history major BTW)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
History major?

At what University?

You were just saying that heretics included research into medicine (like that done by Paracelsus, a Catholic in good standing) or into electricity (like that done by Volta, also a Catholic in good standing), and you claim to be a history major?

What university?

You deserve any PhD no better than Kent Hovind did his (and yes, he was off on historical matters).

OK, you tell me what books, I will look into if they are Communist or outdated.
Alarios711 (claim 1)
Well that's the very begining of the scientific method, observing and deducting hypothesis.

"wait that ship is sinking into the horizon, maybe we are on a huge ball".

That is already the opposite of religion faith. Your arguments in these comments are pretty much all very dumb. The one about killing babies made me cringe.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is already the opposite of thoughtless assumption.

I do not categorise religious faith as such.

As you said it was "the beginning" of the scientific method, you admitted that what was before that was not "science" but rather "not paying attention."

Which makes my point that where science has been reshuffling theories it is maybe not on as firm a ground as here.