Continuing with Dave Robson

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

Common

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Highlighted reply
Hans-Georg Lundahl
15 hours ago
"Are you certain of these claims. Have you studied all languages , living and dead?????"

Yes...I typed this, and your response is no response to it whatsoever........

"""You didn't actually bother to read Jackendorff, did you?
So, he admits as much from start."""

Are you claiming here that Jackendorff "admits" that I did not read his work????? That is what it seems you are claiming. Makes no sense, but that is what your sentence means. I only skimmed his work. I don't have your interest in linguistics. But that hardly matters as to my point here.

"""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."""

Do you have a point in quoting him here???? So. The basics of language are the....basics of language. Ok. At least as far back as we have evidence of written language. None of this , at all, addresses the point that I was making. I was not evaluating the value of Mr. Jackendorff's work, I was countering your claim that no one in linguistics is studying the origin of LANGUAGE. The present state of Mr Jackendorff's work is irrelevant to this point. He is indeed studying it. Again. Are you sure you are a linguist? You would think a linguist would be more careful with language.

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl
16 hours ago
"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:""

I read some of it. I have neither the inclination, nor the time to read all of your interactions here. That is why I asked. So that I don't have to. Sorry. What I did read was quite boring. I did note your " If something is wrong about the Bible it can't be right about anything else" doctrine, in which you seem to interpret " wrong about the bible" as " disagrees with the bible. So, the bible is the ultimate authority on everything, even when it is obviously wrong????

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

Couple of things wrong here. One...Says you . Anyone else. Like a physicist???? Please explain.

Two..... It is not really a different argument, but an enhancing one, so your claim here is odd.

"""* 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."""

And dendrology is utilized as a way to calbrate this. That is the point.......If there was higher rates of C14 being produced we would see it in the trees. That is the point of the calibration.

"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."""

You had claimed that none do. Again. My point....

"""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)"""

And as all of this study is vastly more SUBJECTIVE than the physics of radiometric dating it is open to way more interpretation, but, you trust this entirely as it supports your views, or you believe it does, but mistrust the dating, except where you believe it supports your views. Do I detect a bias???

"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""""

No. I fail to see the point of mixing up my analogies here. We are not comparing likes in language and unlikes in my analogies, but you try to make it seem so. To no point, except to muddy the waters. Language is language. Boats are boats( except when they are not??) Bows are bows. Clothing is clothing. Trying to mix them in my analogies is baseless and meaningless. You are mixing my analogies pointlessly and mixing the parts of the argument together. My analogies were to show that , just because all languages have characteristics of languages does not make language special as that can be applied to many things. Also. Actually, we often borrow from one technology to apply to another. Happens all of the time. You think the wheel that steered ships just happened to resemble the wheels of wagons? Nope. The technology was borrowed. Happens ALL OF THE TIME.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Are you claiming here that Jackendorff "admits" that I did not read his work?????"

Not directly. He admits very clearly my claim on human languages. All that have been studied past and present have a very deep unity among them - there is no "primitive language" as one inadequate for advanced human communication, and has not been one "the last 5000 years" as he put it among those known and studied, or, presumably, at all.

If you had read him, you would have known that.

"I only skimmed his work. I don't have your interest in linguistics. But that hardly matters as to my point here."

I do have an interest in linguistics and skimming his work could spot the place where he refuted you.

"Do you have a point in quoting him here???? So. The basics of language are the....basics of language. Ok. At least as far back as we have evidence of written language. None of this , at all, addresses the point that I was making. I was not evaluating the value of Mr. Jackendorff's work, I was countering your claim that no one in linguistics is studying the origin of LANGUAGE."

That was not my exact point.

I was saying studying the origin of language is not linguistics - some linguists might have this as a hobby, using what they know as linguists, but that is not what makes them linguists.

I was also saying there is no theory, later qualifying, there is no unified theory on how language arose according to theory of evolution. There are competing ones, and Jackendorff said that too, and each has problems, too great to make them for instance useful in textbooks.

"The present state of Mr Jackendorff's work is irrelevant to this point. He is indeed studying it. Again. Are you sure you are a linguist? You would think a linguist would be more careful with language."

I was more careful about my words than you were about interpreting them. You are also confusing "linguist" - student of language and of languages (either languages that are related, as a help for philology in one or more languages, or one language or more as sample of phenomenon language - see Labov) - with "philologist", a careful student of texts. But I think my use of the words in this debate would make no philologist squirm any more than a linguist.

"What comment might you have missed?"

I was very tired yesterday and I confused tour first comment these things were mentioned in, without Jackendorff link, with the one I was answering, with it. It cleared up when I copied debate to my blog.

"I read some of it. I have neither the inclination, nor the time to read all of your interactions here. That is why I asked. So that I don't have to. Sorry. What I did read was quite boring. I did note your " If something is wrong about the Bible it can't be right about anything else" doctrine, in which you seem to interpret " wrong about the bible" as " disagrees with the bible. So, the bible is the ultimate authority on everything, even when it is obviously wrong????"

The Bible is the ultimate authority, it is never obviously wrong, except to someone whose ideology - like yours - is, to a Christian obviously wrong.

"Couple of things wrong here. One...Says you . Anyone else. Like a physicist????"

I said earlier : far back dendro is not dated exclusively on tree rings, but past series are placed in years with the help of carbon dating.

Therefore, using dendro as back-up for carbon 14 level being even last 100,000 years is circular reasoning.

"Please explain."

Lignine comes in both tree rings and paper. For very recent past, both tree rings and written documents are very reliable as a test even of so elusive a thing as chronology. For 500 years back, we have fewer tree rings and fewer written documents than for last 100 years. For 1000 years ago, fewer than that. And so on.

Dating Egypt's first dynasty to 3000 BC rather than 2000 BC is not sufficiently supported by thet texts from the country prior to 500 BC. It is basically based on two king lists (Turin and Abydos) both of which can have had ideological motives.

"It is not really a different argument, but an enhancing one, so your claim here is odd."

Read up on formal logic. It is a separate argument for the date of such and such an item, and therefore it matters if this separate argument is really independent or - as is the case - is not.

"And dendrology is utilized as a way to calbrate this. That is the point.......If there was higher rates of C14 being produced we would see it in the trees. That is the point of the calibration."

Your interest in dendro is probably as superficial as that in linguistics. I'll end here for now, even if you have some more.

"If there was higher rates of C14 being produced we would see it in the trees. That is the point of the calibration."

It is a rather fair point for Middle Ages. Due to scarcity and smallness of tree ring containing samples way further back, it is not a fair point for beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe - if you meant disagreement between carbon dates and ring dates (the thing I admit as useful for Middle Ages).

You might have meant sth else. I'll adress it, and if you didn't mean that, don't feel wounded, I just mention it for completeness.

If carbon 14 was produced 11 times faster during Göbekli Tepe than now, you might think the carbon 14 concentration would be 11 times higher? No. Carbon 14 concentration in a tree with rings is not propoertional to how fast c14 is produced directly, but to how much there is of c14 in the atmosphere - including mostly old c14, what is left after some decayed.

So, I'll go on and say how it ties in with my calibrations. For an atmospheric concentration to rise from 42.42 pmc to 47.sth in 40 years, those I tend to identify Göbekli Tepe with Babel, carbon 14 needs to be produced anew 11.sth times faster than now. However, the tree samples from then will not have 11 times as much c14 as now, they will at both ends have less than half, namely at one end 42.42 pmc and at other 47.sth pmc, and I am not taking into account the delay of rise in trees relative to atmosphere.

This means, we would need a very accurate tree ring series from GT locality in one tree species for thousand years between - for instance - 9600 BC and 8600 BC (accepted beginning and end dates for GT) to guarantee the carbon dates really were 1000 years apart and from same level of atmospheric carbon 14 as now or between them. We don't have them. We don't have that much old tree material from Göbekli Tepe area.

"You had claimed that none do. Again. My point...."

None that I have read - and I tend to read daily updates on CMI - has pretended dating expertise are bunglers at what they immediately attempt.

We do claim, some are hiding conflicting dates, to make certainty seem higher and the methods are such that the results sometimes look like bungling - which means the ultimate methodology is bungled - not that routine procedures are.

I was just willing to give you benefit of the doubt you had actually found ones who were calling scientists simply bunglers, nothing more.

"And as all of this study is vastly more SUBJECTIVE than the physics of radiometric dating it is open to way more interpretation, but, you trust this entirely as it supports your views, or you believe it does, but mistrust the dating, except where you believe it supports your views. Do I detect a bias???"

You are wrong to consider it "vastly more subjective". It is vastly more objective, since relying on far more detailed clues.

If there is a bias, it is a linguistic one. I do believe Egyptologists do read Old Egyptian correctly, as far as they claim to (they have some uncertainties on pronunciation). This means, if they say they have detected an "if-clause", I take it, they have detected an "if-clause". It is not the least subjective once you know your stuff. And for Old Egyptian we do have sufficient material to find such.

For Mycenean Greek, I am not sure, since it seems to be all tax records "100 bushels of barley to the temple of Poseidon" and things like that.

Seems very unlikely to find the full workings of Mycenean Greek on such material.

"My analogies were to show that , just because all languages have characteristics of languages does not make language special as that can be applied to many things."

Here is my analogy : you can't build a boat by exchanging spokes in a wheel. You can't prove a boat came from a wheel by proving parts of the boat have been exchanged.

It is as ridiculous to imagine that animal sounds and "signal systems" can develop to language.

Now, for sth more than analogies. Most things you enumerated are impossible without language.

"Actually, we often borrow from one technology to apply to another. Happens all of the time. You think the wheel that steered ships just happened to resemble the wheels of wagons? Nope. The technology was borrowed. Happens ALL OF THE TIME."

And human language can borrow sth from animal sounds, doesn't mean it developed from them. I suppose for instance whistling language on Canary Islands was borrowed from birds.

Divided up

into messages on three theme groups, I, II, III, IV.

I

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl...
"I only skimmed his work. I don't have your interest in linguistics. But that hardly matters as to my point here." I do have an interest in linguistics and skimming his work could spot the place where he refuted you."""

Except as I only referenced the man as an example of a linguist that does indeed study the origin of language( something that I made very clear) it in NO WAY refutes me. Not sure how you can even think that, unless you misread my point there. I think you somehow did, though I think it was quite clear on my part.

"""I was saying studying the origin of language is not linguistics - some linguists might have this as a hobby, using what they know as linguists, but that is not what makes them linguists."""

Except, he does this AS A PROFESSION. NOT A HOBBY. He makes money doing it . He lectures on it. He writes books about it. He teaches on it.

It may not be "what makes him a linguist", but, he is, indeed, a linguist, and he does study the origin of LANGUAGE, which was my point. Repeatedly my point.

"""What comment might you have missed?"

I was very tired yesterday and I confused tour first comment these things were mentioned in, without Jackendorff link, with the one I was answering, with it. It cleared up when I copied debate to my blog."""

Ok. This was confusing me. I may disagree with you , on a number of things, but I do wish to understand where you are coming from.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Except as I only referenced the man as an example of a linguist that does indeed study the origin of language( something that I made very clear) it in NO WAY refutes me."

It may not refute your final use of him, but he still refutes your original claim, a few days ago, that linguistics study (normally and successfully, with results ready for consumption, I presumed) the origin of language question.

"Except, he does this AS A PROFESSION. NOT A HOBBY. He makes money doing it . He lectures on it. He writes books about it. He teaches on it."

It is still not as a linguist, in the sense that when he did his exams, that was not the kind of question he was answering well.

At least not most of them, maybe one essay question thrown in by generosity.

You know, unless you are horribly in for respecting money, you could respect me as much as him. I am so far not making money of this, but I think I could answer his points if given access to more material by him.

Already the one given, one scenario he is envisaging is a three step development:

• more and more sounds having meanings with more and more of them subdivided into more sounds (the F, EE, L = FEEL part of the specificity of man)
• words going together for phrases ("me Tarzan, you Jane" as he considered this)
• accessing the full range, with negation, past tense, subordinate phrases

Note very well, without the third step, the second step would be suicidal for an ape society evolving to manhood. "Lying" can be done by primates, and after that one needs one "explaining oneself" - but without the third part, the explaining oneself cannot be as verbal as the lying had been.

Therefore, his scenario breaks down.

What he noted himself is, no language has at all been found having only step one and two of human language. No language at all for the "5000 years" he has texts from (I'd say they are really some short of 4000 years, due to carbon dates being wrong, but that is another matter).

"he is, indeed, a linguist, and he does study the origin of LANGUAGE"

While he is not alone, he is about 1 to 1000 outnumbered by linguists who don't.

"Ok. This was confusing me. I may disagree with you , on a number of things, but I do wish to understand where you are coming from."

Thanks for accepting the apology!

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl..."""It may not refute your final use of him, but he still refutes your original claim, a few days ago, that linguistics study (normally and successfully, with results ready for consumption, I presumed) the origin of language question.""" OR refute my actual, and only , use of him, which, AGAIN was to establish that there are , indeed , linguists that study the origin of language in humans. I have done so three times. With ease. You still refuse to concede the point. Also, there you go presuming again.

"""It is still not as a linguist, in the sense that when he did his exams, that was not the kind of question he was answering well"""

And Stephen Hawking was not asked questions about string theory during either his undergraduate or graduate work in Physics, as the theory was not forwarded until after he had completed most/all of his doctoral work. Does that mean then, that NO physicists study string theory in their professional life?....As it turns out the answer, similar to ours about language origin, is NO , no it does not. There was a long period, I understand, where there was a sort of prohibition against studying such origins in the open, among the linguisitics community, but it seems that those days have passed and linguists are, indeed , going back to studying the subject.

"""You know, unless you are horribly in for respecting money, you could respect me as much as him. I am so far not making money of this, but I think I could answer his points if given access to more material by him."""

So, I don't recall stating a respect, or lack thereof, for either of you , in this situation. The problem here, once gain, is that you seem bound and determined to pretend that I utilized Mr. Jackendorff as an example of someone who was doing aswell job of studying the origin of language, where , as I have stated numerous times, I was simply pointing to him as an example of a linguist that IS studying the origin of language. You seem like you will keep holding onto this erroneous view so you do not have to admit you were wrong in this regard, no matter how many times I point out that this was the only capacity I have used Mr. Jackendorff's work in, and no matter how many linguists I ( easily) dig u that do just that . So, in this regard only, I really can't respect your claims that this man( who you admit to not knowing much about at all) is not studying the origin of language when he himself claims that he is, and can back it up. Like how if you claim that I am not in fact a paramedic, and I claim that I am, I would hope that nobody would give as much credit to your claims as to mine as, you will hopefully admit, you have no knowledge of my life.

"""Note very well, without the third step, the second step would be suicidal for an ape society evolving to manhood. "Lying" can be done by primates, and after that one needs one "explaining oneself" - but without the third part, the explaining oneself cannot be as verbal as the lying had been."""

Unfortunately, I must once again utilize the childish sounding " says you". Another claim, with no available support. Even dogs can lie, and apologize, to us and to each other. It does not appear to be suicidal. It is not suicidal to us. S, what is you EVIDENCE that an intermediary step between those levels of communication would then be " suicidal"??

"Therefore, his scenario breaks down."

Again, I am forced to say " says you". You can see it among people that interact and barely speak each others languages, but they don't come to murder over lies and misunderstandings, at least, by and large they do not. And, here you will claim that that is because they " each already have a language" as if tat explains anything.

"""What he noted himself is, no language has at all been found having only step one and two of human language. No language at all for the "5000 years" he has texts from (I'd say they are really some short of 4000 years, due to carbon dates being wrong, but that is another matter)."""" Of course the dates are wrong. I had almost forgotten your much improved (over the hundreds of professionals that devote their lives to the study of physics) use of this branch of physics. Still wondering when you are going to unleash ideas in these matters upon the physics community and drag their bumbling asses into the 21st century.

As to the meat of this. Ok. He hasn't worked it out. So what? So if Someone starts digging into how the first boat was invented , but can't readily discover the first step or two of the first humans inventing the first boats, you will feel comfortable claiming " gift from God" and think that sufficiently explains it all, and call anyone who continues to try to plumb the depths of said mystery silly??

""While he is not alone, he is about 1 to 1000 outnumbered by linguists who don't"'

And yet, he is. So are others, As I have shown.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"OR refute my actual, and only , use of him, which, AGAIN was to establish that there are , indeed , linguists that study the origin of language in humans. I have done so three times. With ease. You still refuse to concede the point. Also, there you go presuming again."

I have never said that there are absolutely no linguists at all who in any capacity study the origin of language in humans. I have stated that is not linguistics, and what you have shown from him really and truly remains to my point.

Since I have never said there are absolutely no linguists at all who in any capacity study the origin of language in humans, the point you now claim to have tried making is a hole in the air. It is conceded in advance. I happen to recall what we were talking about in the first place:

"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."

This has not been backed up. Linguistics is about sth else, mainly, and linguists are free to consider what Jackendoff is doing is not really linguistics. Also, on his own admission, he is not doing mature scientific theory, he is doing a kind of pioneer work.

"And Stephen Hawking was not asked questions about string theory during either his undergraduate or graduate work in Physics, as the theory was not forwarded until after he had completed most/all of his doctoral work."

String theory has more to do with physics than this with linguistics. Physics has competing theories on ultimate structure of vectorial and material universe, Newton, Descartes, Einstein, Boscovich, why not string theory too?

But origin of language is more related to philosophy in general than to linguistics. What actual linguists as such have differing theories on are things like "was there a proto-Indo-European language" - some won't believe me that linguists differ on this, but the founder of Balkan linguistics, Trubetskoy, actually answered "no, not necessarily, common features between Indo-European language groups could come from a Sprachbund situation". I got this info from Jerker Blomqvist, my professor in Greek.

"Does that mean then, that NO physicists study string theory in their professional life?....As it turns out the answer, similar to ours about language origin, is NO , no it does not. There was a long period, I understand, where there was a sort of prohibition against studying such origins in the open, among the linguisitics community, but it seems that those days have passed and linguists are, indeed , going back to studying the subject."

While the study requires some linguistic competence, to avoid the blunder you started out with, it is more a question of philosophy, in this case of Evolutionistic philosophy.

I have not read Jackendoff's work, I have read a quite amusing other work, in which it is stated Homo Erectus had developed a language of 20 phoneme-words, each with a very wide and imprecise range of meaning, since very abstract. The author had reconstructed them according to how the phonemes are used in prominent names around the world since then.

I had read - perhaps I already said so - another thesis in which the sound you make when blowing on a fire to make it blaze was, first phoneme, first word, first phrase ... it was as impossible to derive a language from those few hints as it would be to derive it from "oohoo-oohoo" of an ape.

"So, I don't recall stating a respect, or lack thereof, for either of you , in this situation."

Not totally directly, if you go only by very literal identity or non-such, but you stated his making money as a proof he knows his business. If so, why don't you respect the work of Sungenis and Hovind, who are also making money?

"The problem here, once gain, is that you seem bound and determined to pretend that I utilized Mr. Jackendorff as an example of someone who was doing aswell job of studying the origin of language, where , as I have stated numerous times, I was simply pointing to him as an example of a linguist that IS studying the origin of language."

This dispute is a prime example what I mean by a population reaching the "me Tarzan, you Jane" stage but not having subordinates would be doomed. Which undermines his work.

"and no matter how many linguists I ( easily) dig u that do just that ."

No matter how many? Jackendoff, Aitchison (who has done real linguistics too), you cited someone else, James Hurford.

Here is a thing by Genevieve von Petzinger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zgwz_m7sRs

With my comments:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/03/on-genevieve-von-petzingers-view-on.html

She is doing this matter and NOT as a linguist.

"A PhD student in Anthropology at the University of Victoria, Genevieve Von Petzinger's main area of interest is understanding the geometric imagery of European Ice Age rock art and how we can use this type of behavior to identify cognitive and symbolic evolution in modern humans."

In other words, the study you pretend linguists do is done by few linguists and by non-linguists. It is, once again, not the study field of linguistics.

Also, string theory is a LOT less reliable than Newtonian vectors on a train which while rolling looses a waggon or things. The point is, physics ties in with philosophy from the start, even from Aristotle.

You claimed Jackendoff pretends to study language. He does. His article is probably a summary of a book from 1999. If you look at the info, it is not published in a linguistic setting:

Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. Some possible stages in the
evolution of the language capacity, Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 3.272-79.

Ah, not linguistics, but Cognitive sciences? Ah, again, not theories but "trends"?

I was totally right to say it is not linguistics as such that he is discussing.

Let's look at one of the few other books, because at least Chomsky (very probably Tecumseh too, not sure where I saw him) is a well known linguist:

Hauser, Marc; Noam Chomsky; and W. Tecumseh
Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who
has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298.1569-79.

Now, Noam Chomsky has certainly contributed to the statements I and Jackendoff agree on : human language is radically different from animal signal systems. Wait - Tecumseh Fitch is also NOT a linguist:

W. Tecumseh Fitch - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Tecumseh_Fitch

William Tecumseh Sherman Fitch III (born 1963) is an American evolutionary biologist and cognitive scientist, and at the University of Vienna (Vienna, Austria), where he is co-founder of the Department of Cognitive Biology. He studies the biology and evolution of cognition and communication in humans and other animals, ...

Nothing like linguistics, is there?

I looked up Hurford and found this discipline:

"Evolutionary linguistics is a subfield of psycholinguistics that studies the psychosocial and cultural factors involved in the origin of language and the development of linguistic universals.[1] The main challenge in this research is the lack of empirical data: spoken language leaves practically no traces."

That is not normal linguistics, not even normal psycholinguistics, which by itself is not the usual type of linguistics.

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

While termed "X linguistics" (here with "Evolutionary" and there with "psycho-") it is not really linguistics as such.

"Like how if you claim that I am not in fact a paramedic, and I claim that I am, I would hope that nobody would give as much credit to your claims as to mine as, you will hopefully admit, you have no knowledge of my life."

I readily consider you as a paramedic, you should equally consider me as a linguist. Each has made a claim.

Now, you should listen to my claim, what Jackendoff does is NOT what one usually calls linguistics. If you want to repeat anything like your initial claim I disputed, it is "there is a science which studies these, it is evolutionary linguistics" - and you will have to admit that a discipline emerging in 1988 as a subbranch of a interdisciplinary study emerging in 1936 is not what is usually termed linguistics and is not a certain study just because linguistics is a certain - or mostly - study.

"Unfortunately, I must once again utilize the childish sounding " says you". Another claim, with no available support. Even dogs can lie, and apologize, to us and to each other."

Trust a linguist ... dogs do both without linguistic burdens. Men who do so with such have subordinate clauses to help us out. It is the intermediate, a verbal lying and no verbal standard for discussing what was said, which would be suicidal.

"It does not appear to be suicidal. It is not suicidal to us."

Because in dogs it is purely non-verbal, among us it has full human range of language.

"S, what is you EVIDENCE that an intermediary step between those levels of communication would then be " suicidal"??"

Because when we speak about who said what, we are using subordinates. The intermediate in question would neither be fully human, nor fully animal, but a very handicapped human level of communication.

"Again, I am forced to say " says you". You can see it among people that interact and barely speak each others languages, but they don't come to murder over lies and misunderstandings, at least, by and large they do not. And, here you will claim that that is because they " each already have a language" as if tat explains anything."

What actually explains it is the fact that they know they have different languages and don't expect full human communication from each other.

"Je ne parle pas bien français" (not my line!) is a valid copout when speaking in Paris, spares you some explaining.

"Of course the dates are wrong. I had almost forgotten your much improved (over the hundreds of professionals that devote their lives to the study of physics) use of this branch of physics."

And, as a paramedic, you are obviously considering that dendro-chronologists are physicists, on an equal footing with the study of carbon 14 in itself.

No, when C14 and dendro "corroborate" each other, a physicist is trusting a plant biologist who is trusting a physicist, and even if each does as good a work as he can in his field, they are not immune from collaborating in circular reasoning overall.

[My bad : in circular proof, or circular argument; reasoning overall is not sufficiently specific to identify a vicious circle.]

"(over the hundreds of professionals that devote their lives to the study of physics)"

Hence the bias in favour of "professionals", you are thinking of all alternatives to the science you like as a kind of charlatans, even when no lives are at stake and where discussion should be free.

"Still wondering when you are going to unleash ideas in these matters upon the physics community and drag their bumbling asses into the 21st century."

Take a good look at my dialogue with Usoskin. Some don't want to be so dragged.

"As to the meat of this. Ok. He hasn't worked it out. So what? So if Someone starts digging into how the first boat was invented , but can't readily discover the first step or two of the first humans inventing the first boats, you will feel comfortable claiming " gift from God" and think that sufficiently explains it all, and call anyone who continues to try to plumb the depths of said mystery silly??"

Inventing a boat takes already having a language.

Inventing language both takes and excludes already having a language.

This means, deadlock.

"And yet, he is. So are others, As I have shown."

They are not linguists, but evolutionary linguists, it is another field.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl"""No, when C14 and dendro "corroborate" each other, a physicist is trusting a plant biologist who is trusting a physicist, and even if each does as good a work as he can in his field, they are not immune from collaborating in circular reasoning overall.""

Of course they are not. But you have in no way proven that , n this case, that they have fallen prey to it either.

""Hence the bias in favour of "professionals", you are thinking of all alternatives to the science you like as a kind of charlatans, even when no lives are at stake and where discussion should be free.""

So, you would be just as comfortable with an amateur brain surgeon as a professional. You would feel better with someone representing you in court that has a passing knowledge of the law as a professional, bar accredited lawyer. You would be as happy as someone who had been doing some study about prehospital medicine online as, say, I don't know, me, if you were in supraventricular tachycardia. Well. That's our choice, but it is silly to try to caste aspersions on me trusting people that have spent a good portion of their lives studying a topic, and had to prove their competency , over " some guy on the internet". Hey, sure, every once in a while the amateur comes up with something of value( actually kind of common is astronomy because of the sheer number of amateurs watching the sky) , but, most people would take the professionals over the amateurs 99 times out of 100 in any of my above analogies. The discussion is free. but that does not mean I take a amateur's, whose knowledge I am hardly qualified to assess, over those that have proven competence in said field( actually. Lots of them). What are the odds that " random guy online" is going to have a better answer to a field specific question than " hundreds of degreed professionals"????? I'm thinking, pretty low. Possible, but , pretty low.

"Take a good look at my dialogue with Usoskin. Some don't want to be so dragged."...Probably intimidated by your credentials. Seriously, I know you could call that a kind of snobbery, but, if I went up to 100 brain surgeons and said " hello, I'm a state certified paramedic , with 19 years experience, and I have some opinions on how you could be doing your job better." 99 of them would probably ignore me, a few might even i.f they deem my approach too "impertinent " place a call to one of my bosses( three jobs means three bosses. At least) and complain about my bothering them. One might, might , take me seriously.

""Inventing a boat takes already having a language.""

Actually, on second thought, boats may have been a poor comparison on my part, as, something as simple as a barge can be considered a boat, and, well, ants can make barges, out of themselves. But, then again, they too have language. Chemical language. On the other hand( I may have too few hands for this) a barge can be made purely by accident. A fallen log can become a raft/barge. A mass of other vegetation can also fill the bill. Without language. Pure chance. Then again( am I seeming of two, or more, minds on this??) boats may just be too simple a comparison to language, due to the difference in complexity. Then again, again, how complex must a form of communication be to qualify as "a language"? I have to think on this more.

"Inventing language both takes and excludes already having a language."

Does it? I think we don't have enough evidence to say that, or to seriously refute it, so, sure. Deadlock.

""And yet, he is. So are others, As I have shown."
They are not linguists, but evolutionary linguists, it is another field"

I don't think that other biologists would label "evolutionary biologists" as a being in a " different field". I don't think other geologists would label vulcanologists as being in " another field". Maybe it is different with linguists. Perhaps they parse things more finely. Perhaps then I am wrong, but then again, you put " linguist " in their title. so.........

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
39 minutes ago
"OR refute my actual, and only , use of him, which, AGAIN was to establish that there are , indeed , linguists that study the origin of language in humans. I have done so three times. With ease. You still refuse to concede the point. Also, there you go presuming again."
I have never said that there are absolutely no linguists at all who in any capacity study the origin of language in humans. I have stated that is not linguistics, and what you have shown from him really and truly remains to my point."""

You from 4 days ago"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"""

So, you at least , HEAVILY, implied that this was your opinion . And, no it does not. He is a linguist( evolutionary or otherwise) and he does, in fact, study the origin of language in humans( so do the other two that I cited) , so, even if you do not like the quality of his work, it is a FACT that he does, indeed, study the origin of language, and so do others. Again. Maybe linguists parse things this finely, but I am not a linguist( and I suspect that they, by and large, do not) , so, just as if you did not know that their is a difference between flight paramedics and regular, ground based ones, I would hardly ding a layman for not knowing( and we don't parse things that finely anyway. They are paramedics).

"Also, on his own admission, he is not doing mature scientific theory, he is doing a kind of pioneer work""

So. what is wrong with " pioneer work". Also, he is not alone. As I have pointed out, other linguists are doing this too.

How important is this to you? You seem stuck on "proving" yourself right here, and making out like these ( degreed and working" linguists are not linguists, despite the fact that they themselves, and those that employ them, consider them to be linguists.

"And Stephen Hawking was not asked questions about string theory during either his undergraduate or graduate work in Physics, as the theory was not forwarded until after he had completed most/all of his doctoral work."

String theory has more to do with physics than this with linguistics. Physics has competing theories on ultimate structure of vectorial and material universe, Newton, Descartes, Einstein, Boscovich, why not string theory too?""

And my point, and I don't believe that I actually have to explain this here to you, is as to how you pointed out that linguists( yes they are) like Jackendorff were not answering questions about the origin of human language when they got their degrees. Hawking was also not answering questions about string theory when he was in school. That does not make string theory an invalid pursuit for physicists( other factors do seem to be doing that) , just as your point that linguists were not answering questions about origin of human language in their schooling does not invalidate origin of language as a line of study for linguists, which, seems to be true. You can argue all you want about this. There ARE linguists studying the origin of human language. They consider themselves linguists, and so do academic organizations that employ them. So, no mater what you state, that is the reality. Just as pretty much nobody involved in radiometric dating seems to agree with your views on the limitations of carbon dating. You can disagree all you want, but, you do not represent the majority here, or , dictate reality.

""What actually explains it is the fact that they know they have different languages and don't expect full human communication from each other.""

So, you claim now to know that early humans, who may have been developing, what we would call, language thought they had capacities that they did not, and then became violent over it when they turned out to be wrong, over and over, to the point that it would have killed off either the humans or their efforts to create language??? I think you presume ( far) too much.

"""Je ne parle pas bien français" (not my line!) is a valid copout when speaking in Paris, spares you some explaining. (contd)""

And their is no reason to think that , even without a FULLY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE early man had NO WAY of signalling, without using LANGUAGE , anything similar . Animals do it all of the time. Canines present themselves to be mounted. Primates lower their eyes and this signals deference to the other . Even komodo dragons can do this by turning on their sides and allowing another dragon to scratch them all over to signal surrender/ subordinance. You somehow think early humans incapable of this. Odd that. You don't need language for this, just a way to signal that you surrender the point/situation. That can be easily accomplished with a gesture or position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So, you at least , HEAVILY, implied that this was your opinion . And, no it does not. He is a linguist( evolutionary or otherwise) and he does, in fact, study the origin of language in humans( so do the other two that I cited) , so, even if you do not like the quality of his work, it is a FACT that he does, indeed, study the origin of language, and so do others. Again. Maybe linguists parse things this finely, but I am not a linguist( and I suspect that they, by and large, do not) , so, just as if you did not know that their is a difference between flight paramedics and regular, ground based ones, I would hardly ding a layman for not knowing( and we don't parse things that finely anyway. They are paramedics)."

Linguist is not parallel to paramedic. It is more like asking whether psychologists and parapsychologists are in the same field. I am not just saying this because I consider Evolutionary linguistics, unlike Linguistics, as a pseudo-science. I consider psychology as as much a pseudo-science as para-psychology, sometimes more, and those who consider para-psychology as a legitimate science would not claim it is the same as psychology, on either side.

"So. what is wrong with " pioneer work". Also, he is not alone. As I have pointed out, other linguists are doing this too."

Other evolutionary linguists, mind you.

I look up one other guy and he actually gave God gave us language as the first option of theory, before - in an also rather short essay - stating the evolutionary options.

There is a difference between a pioneer work and an available well tested theory. Linguistics has available well tested (and for Indo-European protolanguage some available less well tested) theories. Evolutionary linguistics has rough outlines and untested and untestable ones available.

"How important is this to you? You seem stuck on "proving" yourself right here, and making out like these ( degreed and working" linguists are not linguists, despite the fact that they themselves, and those that employ them, consider them to be linguists."

If you had checked their faculties, like I did, they are more into cognitive sciences than linguistics.

Or also anthropology - Genevieve von Petzinger had an unusually good thing to say, she is also not labelling herself as linguist.

"And my point, and I don't believe that I actually have to explain this here to you, is as to how you pointed out that linguists( yes they are) like Jackendorff were not answering questions about the origin of human language when they got their degrees. Hawking was also not answering questions about string theory when he was in school. That does not make string theory an invalid pursuit for physicists( other factors do seem to be doing that) , just as your point that linguists were not answering questions about origin of human language in their schooling does not invalidate origin of language as a line of study for linguists, which, seems to be true. You can argue all you want about this. There ARE linguists studying the origin of human language. They consider themselves linguists, and so do academic organizations that employ them. So, no mater what you state, that is the reality."

Except I checked, when they are in fact also linguists, they are also something else.

"Just as pretty much nobody involved in radiometric dating seems to agree with your views on the limitations of carbon dating. You can disagree all you want, but, you do not represent the majority here, or , dictate reality."

Pretty much everyone in linguistics would agree with me what they are doing is something different. You might get more than half by now saying it is a legitimate extension, you could also get guys saying while it is another field, it is one needing linguistic back-up.

So, on this one, trust me as a linguist, I am really and truly not alone in considering Evolutionary linguistics as something else.

"So, you claim now to know that early humans, who may have been developing, what we would call, language thought they had capacities that they did not, and then became violent over it when they turned out to be wrong, over and over, to the point that it would have killed off either the humans or their efforts to create language??? I think you presume ( far) too much."

The point is, at a hypothetic point when one can use "me Tarzan, you Jane", one can think, including about things to lie or brag about, and the do the lying or bragging verbally. At a point when one has no subordinate clauses and so on, one cannot do a nuanced and verbal back-up - continuing assertion as made or modfying it without signalling so or a bare "excuse" gesture or phrase would be only options.

Think a minute on how much violence that may generate.

"And their is no reason to think that , even without a FULLY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE early man had NO WAY of signalling, without using LANGUAGE , anything similar . Animals do it all of the time. Canines present themselves to be mounted. Primates lower their eyes and this signals deference to the other . Even komodo dragons can do this by turning on their sides and allowing another dragon to scratch them all over to signal surrender/ subordinance."

Yes, a non-verbal and therefore non-nuanced "explanation" - one which doesn't explain the behaviour just previously exhibited, only signals an abrupt change in it.

"You somehow think early humans incapable of this. Odd that. You don't need language for this, just a way to signal that you surrender the point/situation. That can be easily accomplished with a gesture or position."

Precisely what would be inadequate for some having made claims in a verbal way.

Think of Peter and the Wolf. Think of Peter having to say "I lied earlier on, but this time the wolf is really here". Think of a language having no way of explaining what he had said was false and verbally identic claim is true. That is the kind of suicidal this step would involve.

Note that the linguist and especially evolutionary linguist Jackendoff (fields : linguist, professor of philosophy, humanities, Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies = where Evolutionary linguistics belong) got the idea for this step from Tarzan.

Imagine a weaker "half human" being forced to excuse himself while knowing what half of what he said was true and what was a lie and being incapable of expressing it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Of course they are not. But you have in no way proven that , n this case, that they have fallen prey to it either."

I have given the general scenario why this would be so : for ages far back, there is not as much tree material and what there is is more fragmented, so counting becomes more and more difficult. That a dendrochronologist would take a hint or two from carbon dates is fiarly natural (unless he is averted to the danger, by being creationist or knowing creationism in detail, few are, few do).

I have a claim from creationists, this is what dendro does.

"Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards."

https://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

Don Batten
qualifications:

Donald James Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D.
Creationist Agricultural Scientist (Australia)

Hmmm .... Sc. Agr. looks like it could mean "scientiarum agriculturae" - seems closer to plant biology and to tree rings than physics are. A relevant qualification? Yes.

But he could be conspiring, couldn't he? Well how about you check with dendro people - not physicists - whether they do what he claims they do.

"So, you would be just as comfortable with an amateur brain surgeon as a professional."

You are confirming my hunch totally : you miss the difference between activities where lives are at stake and such where we discuss things.

I prefer neither type of brain surgeon.

"You would feel better with someone representing you in court that has a passing knowledge of the law as a professional, bar accredited lawyer."

Again, you are confusing "vital matters" (in which we can get statistically confirmable data on whether the theories work) with discussions.

"You would be as happy as someone who had been doing some study about prehospital medicine online as, say, I don't know, me, if you were in supraventricular tachycardia."

Supreventricular - above the "ventricles" whatever that is - tachycardia - heart beating too fast. I would trust you on that one.

B u t once again, you are comparing philosophical studies with things that have fairly immediate practical consequences (and in which theoreticians get a very constant and easily checked feedback).

My point entirely. Medical personnel often do.

I would not trust Dawkins if by magic his competence in evolution were transformed into medical competence - BUT as he is not engaged in lifesaving work, his on my view incompetence on the questions (most outside here and now biology, I trust him on those ones) will not result in dead bodies and will not get him removed from his chairs.

"Well. That's our choice, but it is silly to try to caste aspersions on me trusting people that have spent a good portion of their lives studying a topic,"

I have spent 16 years on and off studying creation versus evolution topic. So, why not trust me?

If spending time studying a topic is what matters, that is?

"and had to prove their competency , over " some guy on the internet"."

I have had to prove my competence, again and again, in debates. And improve it too.

"Hey, sure, every once in a while the amateur comes up with something of value( actually kind of common is astronomy because of the sheer number of amateurs watching the sky) , but, most people would take the professionals over the amateurs 99 times out of 100 in any of my above analogies."

Problem is, your above analogies are not valid, since they are about here and now-science, and since the experts are getting tested by saving lives or freedoms or reputations, and those who bungle tragically get ill repute (perhaps demoting to psychiatry, where the victims of mismanagement are incapable of suing, since decridibilised).

"The discussion is free. but that does not mean I take a amateur's, whose knowledge I am hardly qualified to assess, over those that have proven competence in said field( actually. Lots of them)."

You are NEITHER qualified to asses mine, nor Jackendoff's knowledge in linguistics. BBL, library closing.

Back. Library closes at 20:00 and computer sessions end at 19:45 c. in Paris time. I am not in contiguous US,but in France. Didn't you notice my British spellings? | See other them group for why I specified. |

"Probably intimidated by your credentials. Seriously, I know you could call that a kind of snobbery, but, if I went up to 100 brain surgeons and said " hello, I'm a state certified paramedic , with 19 years experience, and I have some opinions on how you could be doing your job better." 99 of them would probably ignore me, a few might even i.f they deem my approach too "impertinent " place a call to one of my bosses( three jobs means three bosses. At least) and complain about my bothering them. One might, might , take me seriously."

I was not telling him I could do his job better, I was asking him to do his job so I could do my work or hobby better. He refused. If you missed it, he is not into using carbon 14 for dating. He is into calculating how it is produced.

Your parallel is faulty and again confirms you are heavily into credentials snobbery.

He was not into credentials snobbery, but into doctrine snobbery. If my motives are creationist, to him that invalidates my question to him. This means I am months behind on a conclusion I would have liked to give : fastest production I need is 11.sth faster than present rate results from a radiation under circumstances giving a radiation dose not TOO dangerous at Earth's surface. I had presumed (yes, it sometimes pays off in bad ways) that n*production speed = n*radiation dose.

Usoskin is THE top researcher on this very narrow subject - or actually a related one. He has no problem doing the research in serving people who study beryllium in ice cores. He has a problem with using his computer model in serving a creationist. He also is not in US, but in Finland.

"Actually, on second thought, boats may have been a poor comparison on my part, as, something as simple as a barge can be considered a boat, and, well, ants can make barges, out of themselves."

You can't even exchange parts on a barge and expect it to turn out as a boat.

"But, then again, they too have language. Chemical language."

Not sure that qualifies any more than computer "language" (programming language).

"Then again, again, how complex must a form of communication be to qualify as "a language"? I have to think on this more."

Do that.

"I don't think that other biologists would label "evolutionary biologists" as a being in a " different field". I don't think other geologists would label vulcanologists as being in " another field". Maybe it is different with linguists."

Yes. Linguistics is another type of field. Vulcanoes are a type of rock. Speculation on what animal behaviour could aid in complexifying the signal system is not a type of text corpus (note, a text corpus can be oral too, Labov's are).

parallel

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2 minutes ago
"""Of course they are not. But you have in no way proven that , n this case, that they have fallen prey to it either." I have given the general scenario why this would be so :"""

I would say that, to be intellectually honest, you have to replace " would be so" with " could be so"... You have offered a hypothesis without evidence, Just some" I think they could have done this." Hardly rock hard evidence.

"(unless he is averted to the danger, by being creationist or knowing creationism in detail, few are, few do.)"..

So, CREATIONISTS are " averted to the danger.."???? We are making assumptions, aren't we? Plenty of creationists rely on flimsy to nonexistent science( here you will state " no they don't" I will provide a bunch of examples, backed by citations, and then you will claim " well, not the GOOD ones".).

" I have a claim from creationists, this is what dendro does."

And I have a claim from creationists that koala bears got to Australia from mount Ararat via " ice volcanoes" erupting and catapulting them there. He is hardly in good company .( Seriously. Answers in Genesis had this on their website as an answer to " how did all those marsupials get to Australia from the middle east" until they dropped it in 2016).

""You are confirming my hunch totally : you miss the difference between activities where lives are at stake and such where we discuss things""

No, I am not. I just do not believe that it is a valid difference as to the topic. People that dedicate their lives to study of a subject, regardless of the subject TEND to be more reliable as to the subject than people that have not. Not always the reality, but note, I stated "tend to". I just dismiss your view that they category maters that much. please, stop insulting my intelligence.

"I have spent 16 years on and off studying creation versus evolution topic. So, why not trust me?"

As I have stated, I have no reason to trust you over them. Plus, 90%+ of the time when I check on creationist claims, they tend to be exaggerated, quote mined, quotes out of context, poor science, or outright lies. Sorry . The truth of it.

"I have had to prove my competence, again and again, in debates. And improve it too."

I can confirm it with them, how do I do so with you?

"""Problem is, your above analogies are not valid, since they are about here and now-science, and since the experts are getting tested by saving lives or freedoms or reputations, and those who bungle tragically get ill repute (perhaps demoting to psychiatry, where the victims of mismanagement are incapable of suing, since decridibilised)."""

That IN NO WAY invalidates my analogies. Do you really believe that psychiatrists cannot/ are not sued. If so, I have this bridge I would like to sell you.

"You are NEITHER qualified to asses mine, nor Jackendoff's knowledge in linguistics. BBL, library closing"

Well, I can at least go and check his QUALIFICATIONS and rely on the qualifications of other academics to assess his qualifications. That is sort of a clunky sentence, but, I think you get the point. Otherwise, thank you for agreeing with me that I am not qualified to assess knowledge/qualifications here. Appreciate it. At least we agree on something. What is " BBL". Not familiar. And, your library closes at 12-2 pm( assuming you are in the contiguous USA)??????

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I would say that, to be intellectually honest, you have to replace " would be so" with " could be so"... You have offered a hypothesis without evidence, Just some" I think they could have done this." Hardly rock hard evidence."

The point is, it is your claim that dendro independently of carbon 14 is supplying rock hard evidence for correct calibration of C14. Plus by now I have provided a creationist and expert in the right field for assessing dendro claiming dendro is relying on C14 to some extent.

Your turn, you show he was wrong on the dendro side.

"So, CREATIONISTS are " averted to the danger.."???? We are making assumptions, aren't we? Plenty of creationists rely on flimsy to nonexistent science( here you will state " no they don't" I will provide a bunch of examples, backed by citations, and then you will claim " well, not the GOOD ones".)."

Pick on a figure of speech, will you! I am saying most people do spontaneously think that dendro provides a timeline that is carbon independent. Creationists and - as I presume from them - dendro specialists are about the only ones who know otherwise.

Your correct answer, if you'll give it, since you are claiming carbon has a correct and independent check up in dendro, is to actually go to dendro dating and check in detail nothing is carbon dated before inserted in its series.

Are you aware that for one series of pines, there is a bottleneck with very little material as recent as 2000 years ago?

"And I have a claim from creationists that koala bears got to Australia from mount Ararat via " ice volcanoes" erupting and catapulting them there. He is hardly in good company .( Seriously. Answers in Genesis had this on their website as an answer to " how did all those marsupials get to Australia from the middle east" until they dropped it in 2016)."

Look, the standard claim from creationists on marsupials in Oz is, there was a land bridge in between Tasmania and New Guinea or sth (Sunda Sahul, I recall) during the post-Flood ice age, or at least close to a land bridge, and marsupials took it.

The standard debunking would be that Sahul Sunda landbridge is more recent than earliest marsupials, but while Sahul Sunda has some carbon dates which give a relative dating, the evolutionary dates for earliest marsupials are based on sth else, since way beyond the carbon limit.

I'd like to see the ice volcano claim in detail before pronouncing myself.

Here is CMI (land bridges have been mentioned in previous paragraph):

"Living marsupials are found in Australia, New Guinea and parts of America—see here. Most marsupials, however, are found in Australia and New Guinea and many of these are found nowhere else. So how can we explain this within the framework of biblical Earth history? Well, I don’t have any firm answers, but I can outline one possibility that I think makes sense."

.... "Perhaps competition from placentals drove marsupials to migrate away from the Ark ahead of placentals. Marsupials then gained an early foothold in Australia and South America and, without competition from placentals, they thrived in those places. And perhaps, as the log rafts broke up and sea levels rose and covered the land bridges, Australia and South America became almost completely isolated before very many placentals had made their way to those continents. So, driven by competition from placentals, marsupials could have migrated to Australia and South America and then been protected from placental competition as these continents were cut off from the rest of the world. Fossils of marsupials are found on every continent.28 So, in evolutionary thinking, marsupials died out in all the continents except the ones where we see them today. Why can’t creationists simply argue the same?"

https://creation.com/Flood-biogeography

"No, I am not. I just do not believe that it is a valid difference as to the topic. People that dedicate their lives to study of a subject, regardless of the subject TEND to be more reliable as to the subject than people that have not. Not always the reality, but note, I stated "tend to". I just dismiss your view that they category maters that much. please, stop insulting my intelligence."

Here we have a very different category, thank you. If the difference is not a paycheck or an institution, I would think having dedicated a very good portion of my last 16 years to creation vs evolution debate (remember : regardless of subjects, you just said so!) would make me a fairly trustworthy authority - not to mention those who were into natural sciences before getting into this debate and arrived with better competence in this field.

My point is, in subjects where sth practical is at stake, like lives, reputations, drains, wheels, nonsense gets weeded out from the professional field. In subjects where nothing practical is directly at stake, well, the normal weeding out would be in a discussion - so your criterium would tend to shelter the professionals to what corresponds in their case to failures to save patients in the medical case.

"As I have stated, I have no reason to trust you over them."

Nor, since they are not medical, legal or mechanical professionals, them over me.

"Plus, 90%+ of the time when I check on creationist claims, they tend to be exaggerated, quote mined, quotes out of context, poor science, or outright lies. Sorry . The truth of it."

Or your bias makes it seem so.

"I can confirm it with them, how do I do so with you?"

Already outlined. In non-practical fields, guys like me are the test for professionals, professionals the test (but not judge) of guys like me, and discussion is the field of testing.

"That IN NO WAY invalidates my analogies. Do you really believe that psychiatrists cannot/ are not sued. If so, I have this bridge I would like to sell you."

You assumed I live in contiguous US. I live in France. The CCHR is, due to connection with Scientology, heavily under pressure in Europe. And they are one great advocacy group for suing shrinks.

In France, you are better off suing a shrink for the wrong treatment, you needed sth else, than for undue diagnosis (unless an alternative diagnosis can be provided).

"Well, I can at least go and check his QUALIFICATIONS and rely on the qualifications of other academics to assess his qualifications."

So can I, I checked wiki. You seem incapable of seeing a clear difference between linguistics and cognitive sciences and seeing where "evolutionary linguistics" fit in.

"That is sort of a clunky sentence, but, I think you get the point."

Only a non-philologist could think of your sentence as clunky. I am used to clunkier ones from Caesar, Julius. I am unable to detect its clunkiness.

"'Otherwise, thank you for agreeing with me that I am not qualified to assess knowledge/qualifications here. Appreciate it. At least we agree on something."

And since you do, how about getting into the arguments instead of comparing qualifications?

"What is " BBL". Not familiar."

Be Back Later.

"And, your library closes at 12-2 pm( assuming you are in the contiguous USA)??????"

8pm, France. As said.

also parallel

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Supreventricular - above the "ventricles" whatever that is - tachycardia - heart beating too fast. I would trust you on that one." Very good. Supra= above ...Ventricular= referring to the ventricles. A tachycardia( rapid heart rate) with the origin above the level of the ventricles( technically not atrial, but, probably atrial). Actually not nearly as bad as ventricular tachycardia, but it sounds cooler and more ominous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ventricles are somewhere inside the heart?

Ma studied med most of my childhood.

II

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl....."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"""""

Really??????????????????????????? Then explain the following..

A- How long does Yahweh's anger last

1-MICAH 7:18.."Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth over the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in lovingkindness""

So, not forever...or is it ....

2-Jeremiah 17 "I will give over your wealth and all your treasures for booty, Your high places for sin throughout your borders. 4And you will, even of yourself, let go of your inheritance That I gave you; And I will make you serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger Which will burn forever.5Thus says the LORD,"""

So, maybe forever....Which is it??? Contradictions? Seems so.

B-Does God tempt people??? Is it....

1-James 1:13 " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"......or is it....

2-Genesis 22:1 " And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." Any contradiction here? Seems so.

C-Can one obtain salvation by works alone? Is it...

1- Yes....Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

2-or is it "no, not really"...Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

So. Which is it? No? Yes? Both? Neither?

D-What happens if you see the face of God? Is it... 1-DEATH...Exodus 33:20 " But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
or, could it be...
2-NOT DEATH ...GENESIS 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, The face of God]: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”...or...
3-Exodus 24:9-11 "Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11 But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank."... Are these versions of the "history " of the bible consistent??? Does not seem so.

E-Did Paul's( Saul's) companions hear the voices [sic!] that spoke to him ?

1-NO..Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." or is it

2-YES...Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Which is it?????? Is it contradiction?

F-How long will the Earth last??? Is it...

1-NOT FOREVER...2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[a]" or is it...

2-Forever...Ecclesiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." Hmmm. Seems contradictory to me.

G-How many men have ascended to Heaven ? Is it..

1-MORE THAN ONE...2 Kings 2:11 "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." or. Is it...

2-ONLY ONE ( JESUS)...John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven — the Son of Man."

H-How many men drew swords for Israel , as counted by Joab? was it...

1-800,000( well. 1,300,000 counting Judah)...2 Samuel 24:9 "Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand." or was it..

2-1,100,000...1 Chronicles 21:5 "Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah." Kind of a big difference. 200,000 men difference.

These seem contradictory to me......

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Passing on Micah / Jeremiah for now.

James 1:13 is of temptations to sin. Genesis 22:1 is on "temptation" or rather test on righteousness.

"Can one obtain salvation by works alone?" - No, but neither without the works of righteousness.

Matthew 19:17 says works of righteousness are needed (ten commandments = outline of righteousness), but not that they are sufficient.

Romans 3:28 says works of the ceremonial law (like not lighting fire on sabbath or not mixing wool and linen in same cloth) are irrelevant and faith is needed.

Seeing God:

Ver. 30. Phanuel. This word signifies the face of God, or the sight, or seeing of God. (Challoner) --- Hebrew reads here Peni-el, though it has Phanuel in the next verse. Jacob thus returns thanks to God for the preservation of his life, after having seen God or his angel in a corporeal form, and not in a dream only. (Calmet)

Key words "in a corporeal form" - i e, Jacob had not seen God in His own nature face to face.

Ver. 11. Saw God, under the appearance of a burning fire, ver. 17. They beheld some rays of his glory, but no distinct similitude, (Deuteronomy iv. 15,) though Cajetan thinks that God appeared in a human form. (Calmet) --- Drink. They made a feast of thanksgiving for so great a favour, and for the preservation of their lives, after beholding such a glorious apparation. (Vatable)

Key words "under the appearance of a burning fire" - also sth other than what Exodus 33:20 is about.

"Did Paul's( Saul's) companions hear the voices that spoke to him ?"

[Missed the plural, as with "hearing voices"!/HGL]

I quoted Haydock on my comment on this one:

9 : Ver. 7. [...] Hearing, &c. This may be reconciled with what is said in the 22nd chapter by supposing they heard only St. Paul speak, or heard only a confused noise, which they could not understand. (Calmet)

22 : Ver. 9. Heard not the voice. To reconcile this with chap. ix. ver. 7. where it is said that they heard the voice; it may be answered that they heard a noise, and a voice, but heard it not distinctly, nor so as to understand the words. (Witham) --- They heard not the voice of him who spoke to the apostle, but they heard the latter speak; (Acts ix. 7.) or perhaps they heard a noise, which they could not understand. They perhaps heard the voice of Paul answering, but not that of Christ complaining.

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2014/12/refuting-sceptics-annotated-on.html

Seems you like sceptics' annotated ...

Ecclasiastes 1:4

Ver. 4. Ever. Its substance remains, though the form be changed. (Calmet) --- At the end of time, it will be purified to continue for ever. (Worthington)

In other words, burning up in II Peter is not wrong, since involved in the changing of form or purification.

"How many men have ascended to Heaven ?"

Quote from Kings involves only one man, Elijah, but there is also Henoch.

However, it is easily solved if we consider "heaven" is more than one heaven. Gagarin also ascended to Heaven - lower than Henoch and Elijah. And they lower than where Christ was talking about, where angels are adoring God.

"How many men drew swords for Israel , as counted by Joab?"

II Kings 24:9 speaks of how many Joab reported.
I Paralipomenon 21:5 speaks of how many he actually found.

And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel, was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda, four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men.

Could also be explained by the counting of Levi and Benjamin being made outside his reckoning, as per following verse, *But Levi and Benjamin he did not number: for Joab unwillingly executed the king's orders."

So much for supposed contradictions. Except, I have Micah and Jeremiah left.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl.. """James 1:13 is of temptations to sin. Genesis 22:1 is on "temptation" or rather test on righteousness."""

And God was said to not tempt man, and then did. Contradiction? Yes.

"""Matthew 19:17 says works of righteousness are needed (ten commandments = outline of righteousness), but not that they are sufficient""' And goes on to say that relieving oneself of wealth is the rest. Nothing about faith. So, either Jesus did not care to tell them the rest, or, contradiction. Which is it? Was Jesus hiding some of the requirements of salvation or a contradiction?

"""Seeing God:

Ver. 30. Phanuel. This word signifies the face of God, or the sight, or seeing of God. (Challoner) --- Hebrew reads here Peni-el, though it has Phanuel in the next verse. Jacob thus returns thanks to God for the preservation of his life, after having seen God or his angel in a corporeal form, and not in a dream only. (Calmet)

Key words "in a corporeal form" - i e, Jacob had not seen God in His own nature face to face.

Ver. 11. Saw God, under the appearance of a burning fire, ver. 17. They beheld some rays of his glory, but no distinct similitude, (Deuteronomy iv. 15,) though Cajetan thinks that God appeared in a human form. (Calmet) --- Drink. They made a feast of thanksgiving for so great a favour, and for the preservation of their lives, after beholding such a glorious apparation. (Vatable)

Key words "under the appearance of a burning fire" - also sth other than what Exodus 33:20 is about."""

I thought that God had to have Jesus born to have a corporeal form that was safe for humans to behold. So, it still goes back to humans both can and cannot behold the face of God without dying.

""They perhaps heard the voice of Paul answering, but not that of Christ complaining""" Stretching here. Much of it.

""Seems you like sceptics' annotated ..."" Where can I find this??

"""Ver. 4. Ever. Its substance remains, though the form be changed. (Calmet) --- At the end of time, it will be purified to continue for ever. (Worthington)
In other words, burning up in II Peter is not wrong, since involved in the changing of form or purification"""

Question here was whether or not God wanted or requested burnt offerings, nit whether burning is "wrong".

Quote from Kings involves only one man, Elijah, but there is also Henoch.

""However, it is easily solved if we consider "heaven" is more than one heaven. Gagarin also ascended to Heaven - lower than Henoch and Elijah. And they lower than where Christ was talking about, where angels are adoring God."""

So. since when are there "multiple heavens". If there are, someone should tell Jesus/God, as , throughout the scriptures they both often refer to " THE kingdom of Heaven", not " A kingdom of heaven".

"""II Kings 24:9 speaks of how many Joab reported.
I Paralipomenon 21:5 speaks of how many he actually found""" ... WHAT?

"""Could also be explained by the counting of Levi and Benjamin being made outside his reckoning, as per following verse, *But Levi and Benjamin he did not number: for Joab unwillingly executed the king's orders.""""...So...which is it? Stretching here, plus, still contradictions. The numbers are different, therefore, contradicting each other. Why would the bible report the wrong number, without pointing it out or giving a reason. Could it be that most of these stories were passed down in verbal form for generations and then recorded at different times by different people, and were not, in fact, the inspired word of any god???

The contradictions remain contradictions, despite the stretching and dancing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And God was said to not tempt man," to sin "and then did." About sth else "Contradiction? Yes." No.

"And goes on to say that relieving oneself of wealth is the rest. Nothing about faith."

The rich man, by enumerating and believing the ten commandments had shown he had faith as available in Old Covenant. It is a prequel to what Christ was asking from him and therefore not absent.

"So, either Jesus did not care to tell them the rest, or, contradiction. Which is it? Was Jesus hiding some of the requirements of salvation or a contradiction?"

Or, the faith part was here presumed as already known by the man. Elsewhere, in John 3 - whole chapter, not just verse 16, please! - this is confirmed when He gives a fuller outline on conditions for salvation.

"I thought that God had to have Jesus born to have a corporeal form that was safe for humans to behold."

Indeed, now He has it. Than He assumed it. It could even be the person was just an angel and Jacob attributed seeing the angel as seeing the Lord.

But if it was God, it was a momentarily assumed form, not a permanent one as with Incarnation.

"So, it still goes back to humans both can and cannot behold the face of God without dying."

Not unless you are scrambling for contradictions.

"Stretching here. Much of it."

Not really.

"Where can I find this??"

If you had looked up my link, you would have known that I link both to sceptics annotated and to Haydock. At the bottom I state: As in previous, I exchange the link to their Acts 9 comment to a link to the Haydock - and same for Galatians.

Haydock is a Catholic resource which would answer very much of sceptics' annotated.

"Question here was whether or not God wanted or requested burnt offerings, nit whether burning is "wrong"."

Can you read? I said nothing of burnt offering. What you construed in II Peter as Earth being destroyed is, word by word, heaven and earth burning. If there is a contradiction to the other passage, that would according to other passage make the burning of earth at the end of time doctrinally wrong, an error, but the passages do not.

"So. since when are there "multiple heavens". If there are, someone should tell Jesus/God, as , throughout the scriptures they both often refer to " THE kingdom of Heaven", not " A kingdom of heaven"."

In Latin it is called Regnum Coelorum, that is THE Kingdom of the heavenS.

Hope that answers the question.

Since when? Check St Paul speaking of third heaven, but unsure if he came up bodily or in a vision.

"So...which is it? Stretching here, plus, still contradictions. The numbers are different, therefore, contradicting each other."

You are so impatient, you are missing explanations given.

The numbers are different, because the one is what Joab actually found, the other what he reported, or because the one is what Joab and later others found and the other what he found and reported himself. Either way, there is no contradiction. Bible could be saying Joab gave too small a number or that someone else completed what he deliberately left uncompleted.

"Why would the bible report the wrong number, without pointing it out or giving a reason."

Reason is given, if you look. Why "without pointing it out"?

• a) because irrelevant in context, the plague was a punishment for the counting, not for the false reporting of Joab;
• b) as with other seeming contradictions, God could have had you in mind and how you could show off your capacity of jumping to conclusions.

"Could it be that most of these stories were passed down in verbal form for generations and then recorded at different times by different people, and were not, in fact, the inspired word of any god???"

Apart from the question of inspiration, where I don't find an atheist a good person to ask common sense from, if so dedicated as to seek out sceptics' annotated (or repeat it by hearsay), no, the stories cannot have been passed down orally before being taken down much later.

Here : the four books of kings (first two also known as "book of Samuel" or "two books of Samuel", last two also known as "book of Kings" or "two books of Kings") and two books of Paralipomenon are very clearly cumulative works of history, probably done in parallel, and Paralipomenon starting earlier.

Both are very detailed works and therefore taken down more or less as soon as the events happened, in each case up to when someone made a finishing touch.

"The contradictions remain contradictions, despite the stretching and dancing."

No. You remain contradictive. You act like a general attorney treating the Bible as a suspect. Not like an impartial judge, able to say "not proven" about a charge.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl "And God was said to not tempt man," to sin "and then did." About sth else "Contradiction? Yes." No.""

So, you willing to go so far as to state that murdering one's own offspring is NOT A SIN to defend your position( and a book) here. Just WOW.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You maybe missed it, but Abraham did not murder anyone.

God was not tempting him to it either, since actually stopping him.

And, if you are a paramedic with those feelings on "murdering one's offspring", I hope you joined the nearest march for life to stop abortion.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
'''And, if you are a paramedic with those feelings on "murdering one's offspring", I hope you joined the nearest march for life to stop abortion'''

I am anti abortion, but, have respect for the sanctity of ones own body, so the argument of mothers as to the determination of what they can do with their bodies keeps me from being to strident on this . Hell . I am so libertarian that I am in favor of the legalization of most drugs and am anti seat belt laws.

And if you are a follower of an Abrahamic religion, I would hope you are out there stoning/killing unruly children....

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.""

...or adulterers...

Leviticus 20:10 "“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:22 "“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel"

...or homosexuals..

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."( Well, male homosexuals, at least, I guess lesbians are ok).

...or witches...

Exodus 22:18 "“You shall not permit a sorceress to live."

or one who works on the Sabbath...

Numbers 15:32-36 "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses."

..or blasphemers..

Leviticus 24:16 "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death"

..or rapists and , at least in cities, their victims...

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 " If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her. Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst"

.... or at least go out there and lobby for laws allowing for the death penalty to be enforced in these cases...

And , still, are you claiming that killing a child is not a sin? Are you claiming that it is not " tempting" if you intended to stop the target from committing the sin? Abraham was still " tempted" to the act, even if he did not complete it. The intent was in his mind and he was about to do the deed. If I get you to plan and equip for a crime, but stop you just before you commit it , I am still guilty of criminal conspiracy. Hell, if I sell you fake cocaine I am still guilty of dealing drugs. Abraham was preparing to do the deed. And where did he get the idea?????

Hans Georg Lundahl

"I am anti abortion, but, have respect for the sanctity of ones own body, so the argument of mothers as to the determination of what they can do with their bodies keeps me from being to strident on this . Hell . I am so libertarian that I am in favor of the legalization of most drugs and am anti seat belt laws."

Abortion involves more bodies than one. Are you so libertarian you consider an employer can force his employee to mutilation too?

Or does the employee have a freedom to be protected? If so, why not the fetus?

"And if you are a follower of an Abrahamic religion, I would hope you are out there stoning/killing unruly children...."

It is more like adults disrespectful to old and disabled parents who are the target of that law. If you are libertarian, you are probably for children caring for their parents as opposed to parents relying on the state for sustenance.

And, of course, during Old Testament, the freedom to be glutton and drunkard was limited to what your parents would tolerate. Israel was a Holy people, prefiguring the Church. That stoning porefigures excommunication.

"...or adulterers..."

During the Old Testament, death penalty was max for adultery. Constantine tried to imitate that, King Arthur refused to apply it to Guinevere, Justinian changed the law so max penalty was imprisonment in a monastery for the adulterous wife, with an option for husband to forgive her and take her back during three years.

Note, OT involves the penal code which was in vigour from Moses to Herod the Great.

Then Romans abolished Jewish independence, for the first time excluding them from carrying out death penalties, which means when Christ was an adult, stoners were llynch mobs, hiding from Roman authorities.

"...or homosexuals.."

Max penalties for sodomy have varied in Christendom. Under Old Régime in France it was death, but more recently we have had "three years of forced labour" (supposing Oscar Wilde got max penalty) or "seven years prison" (Cyprus up to recently).

"( Well, male homosexuals, at least, I guess lesbians are ok)."

Actually, Medieval France agreed with you, only Renaissance France extended the death penalty to lesbian acts and solitary masturbation in women.

"...or witches..."

I have been answering Dillahunty more fully on that one under another video, one of his, which involves the topic. Short story : witches involve poison murder and idolatry. Not just fluff bunny Wiccans.

"or one who works on the Sabbath..."

In the OT the complete Sabbath rest was a prophetic prefiguring of Christ's body resting in the tomb all 24 hours of Holy Saturday (6pm Friday to 6pm Saturday, in Hebrew terms). Working on the day would have been equivalent to heretical denial of Christ's really being a dead body in the tomb. And heresy - well, max penalty is death, as Giordano Bruno found out.

"..or blasphemers.."

The idea behind the Inquisition was that Heresy is a kind of blasphemy, a continuous and habitual blasphemy.

"..or rapists and , at least in cities, their victims..."

When it comes to victims, Christian legislations are more lenient. Remember ancient Israel, as a nation, prefigured the Church, not only that, its women were potential ancestresses of Our Lord.

Certain sins which among us would be merely sexual (bad enough) would in their case have been a kind of sacrilege against the ancestry of God in the Flesh.

".... or at least go out there and lobby for laws allowing for the death penalty to be enforced in these cases..."

No, it is sufficient for me to defend what Christian countries have done, while uniformly Christian - that is Catholic.

"And , still, are you claiming that killing a child is not a sin?"

No, I am not claiming that. However, I also claim, God being over His commandments would be able to dispense one from the sin, if He had wanted to.

"Are you claiming that it is not " tempting" if you intended to stop the target from committing the sin?"

More like it.

"Abraham was still " tempted" to the act, even if he did not complete it. The intent was in his mind and he was about to do the deed."

The intent was obeying God and that is the exact intent which stopped him from killing.

"If I get you to plan and equip for a crime, but stop you just before you commit it , I am still guilty of criminal conspiracy."

If you are a policeman, you are more like guilty of provocation to crime than of criminal conspiracy (I'd better check that with my lawyer friend Anthony Zarrella on quora).

"Hell, if I sell you fake cocaine I am still guilty of dealing drugs."

Is that so? If the fake coke involves some weaker drug which is less attractive but still not legal, yes, but if it is giving you sugar you could sweeten your coffee with, probably no.

"Abraham was preparing to do the deed. And where did he get the idea?????"

From the exact same obedience which stopped him from it - to God.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Abortion involves more bodies than one. Are you so libertarian you consider an employer can force his employee to mutilation too?"

Sloppy , false, and unrealistic , forced analogy. The employee does not live off of, or inside of, the body of the employer.

On the other hand..........If you are a follower of Abrahamic religion, you SHOULD be comfortable with that situation. As long as said employee did not die shortly.

""Or does the employee have a freedom to be protected? If so, why not the fetus?""

Of course they do. In this case though , there is a conflict of interests. Notice how I stated I was anti-abortion.

"It is more like adults disrespectful to old and disabled parents who are the target of that law."

And if Deuteronomy 21:18-21 had stated that the parents were "old and disabled " you would have ground to stand on here.

"Constantine tried to imitate that, King Arthur refused to apply it to Guinevere,..."

Funny. Everything I have read about the reality of Arthurian legend points to Arthur having not been a real person, or, at best, a mish-mash of people that did exist and myth.

"Then Romans abolished Jewish independence, for the first time excluding them from carrying out death penalties, which means when Christ was an adult, stoners were llynch mobs, hiding from Roman authorities"

So, the ROMANS were a more moral people . Yikes. And then the devout followers of Abrahamic religion kept right on doing it, regardless of the law and morals. Yikes again. At least Jesus seemed to be against it.

""Remember ancient Israel, as a nation, prefigured the Church, not only that, its women were potential ancestresses of Our Lord."

So, again, how does that justify the killing of rape victims. Oh, yes, they perhaps did not scream loudly enough. Serves them right, huh.

""No, it is sufficient for me to defend what Christian countries have done, while uniformly Christian - that is Catholic.""

So, do you , or don't you support those acts of punishment as being moral? Why don't you support them being performed now?

"No, I am not claiming that. However, I also claim, God being over His commandments would be able to dispense one from the sin, if He had wanted to."

So. Special pleading, and forget "objective morality".

"The intent was obeying God and that is the exact intent which stopped him from killing."

Making Abraham, and those that see this story as a good lesson just as scary as the Islamic fundamentalist murdering their fellow Muslims, Jews, and Christians throughout the middle east today.

"If you are a policeman, you are more like guilty of provocation to crime than of criminal conspiracy (I'd better check that with my lawyer friend Anthony Zarrella on quora)."

In the states that would possibly be " entrapment" if involving law enforcement.

""Is that so? If the fake coke involves some weaker drug which is less attractive but still not legal, yes, but if it is giving you sugar you could sweeten your coffee with, probably no.""

In the states it is absolutely still illegal.

""Question: I sold a baggie of aspirins that I said was OxyContin to a guy at a concert. After the show, I heard that there were undercover officers in the crowd. Could I be busted for selling fake drugs?

Answer: Yes. States and federal laws make the sale of fake drugs illegal, and you can even be charged with an attempted drug sale under some laws.""(https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/drug-charges/jail-selling-fake-drugs.htm)
"""Seldom do people think that they can go to jail for selling a few allergy pills as ecstasy or a bag of flower as cocaine.
....The reality is, if you sell any item that you’re trying to pass off as an illegal drug, it is still illegal. In fact, you could be facing both state and federal charges for your actions"(https://www.criminaldefenselawyerbostonma.com/can-i-be-convicted-of-selling-fake-drugs/)
""Massachusetts General Law Chapter 94C, Section 32G makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly or intentionally:

Creating
Distributing
Dispensing, or
Possessing a counterfeit substance,
With the intent to distribute or dispense.""

"From the exact same obedience which stopped him from it - to God."

Making Abraham deranged and dangerous to any and all around him. Especially his own children.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Sloppy , false, and unrealistic , forced analogy. The employee does not live off of, or inside of, the body of the employer."

So? The fetal situation terminates after nine months. Most abortions are motivated by prospects about the future after that.

"On the other hand..........If you are a follower of Abrahamic religion, you SHOULD be comfortable with that situation. As long as said employee did not die shortly."

Exodus 21:20 He that striketh his bond-man or bond-woman, with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.

21 But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.

Striking is different from mutilating. If someone dies after a few days, he is certainly not intentionally killed, since dying after a few days or surviving and recovering is not controllable. The striking as such is not inflicting a permanent disability, usually. A mutilation or an abortion does.

"Of course they do. In this case though , there is a conflict of interests. Notice how I stated I was anti-abortion."

Good as far as it goes.

"And if Deuteronomy 21:18-21 had stated that the parents were "old and disabled " you would have ground to stand on here."

Except that the exegesis given by Jesus involved refusing your parents this or that precious object, so would naturally happen when the parents were no longer in business and therefore no longer able to buy or sell themselves.

"Funny. Everything I have read about the reality of Arthurian legend points to Arthur having not been a real person, or, at best, a mish-mash of people that did exist and myth."

Then you have read the wrong things.

"So, the ROMANS were a more moral people . Yikes. And then the devout followers of Abrahamic religion kept right on doing it, regardless of the law and morals. Yikes again. At least Jesus seemed to be against it."

Well, Romans became the New Israel, through the Catholic Church.

"So, again, how does that justify the killing of rape victims. Oh, yes, they perhaps did not scream loudly enough. Serves them right, huh."

There is such a thing as consenting "rape victims".

"So, do you , or don't you support those acts of punishment as being moral? Why don't you support them being performed now?"

I do support the Christian legislations and would support bringing at least prison punishment back.

"So. Special pleading, and forget "objective morality"."

Nope, objective morality involves obeying God.

"Making Abraham, and those that see this story as a good lesson just as scary as the Islamic fundamentalist murdering their fellow Muslims, Jews, and Christians throughout the middle east today."

Even if they were then and there the ones opposing child sacrifice?

"In the states that would possibly be " entrapment" if involving law enforcement."

Since God is ultimate law, entrapment would be the word, except God dis not let it get that guilty. So, no, not even that.

"In the states it is absolutely still illegal."

OK ... I'd like to ask Zarrella on that one.

""Question: I sold a baggie of aspirins that I said was OxyContin to a guy at a concert. After the show, I heard that there were undercover officers in the crowd. Could I be busted for selling fake drugs?

Answer: Yes. States and federal laws make the sale of fake drugs illegal, and you can even be charged with an attempted drug sale under some laws.""(https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/legal-advice/criminal-defense/drug-charges/jail-selling-fake-drugs.htm)
"""Seldom do people think that they can go to jail for selling a few allergy pills as ecstasy or a bag of flower as cocaine.
....The reality is, if you sell any item that you’re trying to pass off as an illegal drug, it is still illegal. In fact, you could be facing both state and federal charges for your actions"(https://www.criminaldefenselawyerbostonma.com/can-i-be-convicted-of-selling-fake-drugs/)
""Massachusetts General Law Chapter 94C, Section 32G makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly or intentionally:

Creating
Distributing
Dispensing, or
Possessing a counterfeit substance,
With the intent to distribute or dispense.""

OK, at least for Massachusetts.

"Making Abraham deranged and dangerous to any and all around him. Especially his own children."

Most definitely not. Obeying God and being deranged are not the same thing.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl.
"So? The fetal situation terminates after nine months. Most abortions are motivated by prospects about the future after that."

Realistically, yes. No longer a fetus. Actually, US has laws against late term ( third trimester) abortions. Regardless of what the motivations are , it does not negate the belief in sanctity of others own bodies, unless they are demonstrably " incompetent " to make their own decisions.

"Striking is different from mutilating. If someone dies after a few days, he is certainly not intentionally killed, since dying after a few days or surviving and recovering is not controllable. The striking as such is not inflicting a permanent disability, usually. A mutilation or an abortion does."

Striking is different.But, striking, can indeed, cause mutilation. And everything short of death after a few days is stated to be ok. So, that includes a whole slew of injuries that can be visited upon the human form, including mutilation. The part about the " if someone dies after a few days" is not at all true. It can take a person days to die if it is intentional. Happens all of the time. This makes you " certain" of something that s blatantly false. It is often controllable. People can die from lack of care, much more now than then, but, an unresponsive person, in a short term coma, from a brain injury, can die a few days later due to lack of care, even back then, so, it can, very well, be controllable. Permanent injury is not stated to be considered a crime if visited upon a slave, so, it is permitted. So, I ask you. ARE YOU ok with this? And also, are you ok with slavery? You should be, if you are a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

""Except that the exegesis given by Jesus involved refusing your parents this or that precious object, so would naturally happen when the parents were no longer in business and therefore no longer able to buy or sell themselves""

Conjecture on your part. Especially as Deuteronomy states that the parents should" take hold of" the son, and " take him before the elders". If they were old, retired, and disabled, to the extent you suggest, taking hold of him, in this manner would not seem feasible. If you are going to claim that all of Deuteronomy 21 is about people that are " refusing your parents this or that precious object( like that should end you up stoned to death)" I would point out that Deuteronomy 21:22-23- states “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God."

So, either this is about some other crimes, or , a contradiction as the man referred to previously was to be stoned, and this one is to be hung. So. Not the same situation. Other parts of it are about how to treat your female war booty. Other parts speak to finding a dead body of unknown origin in a country you have conquered . It is not all about " retired people".

""So, again, how does that justify the killing of rape victims. Oh, yes, they perhaps did not scream loudly enough. Serves them right, huh." There is such a thing as consenting "rape victims"."

Note, it does not read " consenting" It states that there is an assumption that the victim did not scream, so she is complicit in the rape. Assumed then gets a woman dead because she may not have screamed out of fear, may not have screamed loudly enough, or may have been rendered unconscious. There are no stated remedies for her then. She must just die, for the crime of being overpowered by a rapist before she could scream loudly enough to satisfy the people judging her, again, for being a victim. Note how you don't find that a man assaulted, that is not heard to scream in a city , looses the ability to seek justice on his attacker, as he may have been ok with said assault. Why? Because women back then were less than second class citizens. People get into consentual fights. A " consenting assault victim".

Back to it, are you in favor of this , and the other ones I noted?

Also, please never serve on a jury.

"I do support the Christian legislations and would support bringing at least prison punishment back"

Disturbing, and you still have not answered the question I posed.

"So. Special pleading, and forget "objective morality"."

Nope, objective morality involves obeying God.""

Disagree . If the morality were "objective" it would not be subject to changes and whims of anyone, even God. As stated by you it is subjective morality , SUBJECT to God's whims.

"Making Abraham, and those that see this story as a good lesson just as scary as the Islamic fundamentalist murdering their fellow Muslims, Jews, and Christians throughout the middle east today."

Even if they were then and there the ones opposing child sacrifice?""

Then they were obviously not being good followers as they were not in the way of God, at that time. I would say they were then "good people", not good followers. As is, I had stated those that " see this story as a good lesson", not just " anyone".

" OK, at least for Massachusetts."

You missed the " federal laws.." part in the first quote. I have posted the federal statute . Here it is again.

Federal Anti-Counterfeit Drug Laws
" U.S.C. Section 331, which makes it illegal to sell an adulterated or misbranded drug in interstate commerce. This means that if you take a bottle of aspirin from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, and sell it to someone representing that bottle of aspirin to be ecstasy, then you may find yourself facing charges under section 331.

In addition, it is possible that you may be charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which addresses criminal fraud. According to this federal law, you could be charged for knowingly and willfully:

Falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact;
Making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or
Making or using any false writing or document knowing that it contains materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.""(
https://www.criminaldefenselawyerbostonma.com/can-i-be-convicted-of-selling-fake-drugs/)

"Most definitely not. Obeying God and being deranged are not the same thing."

So, how did he know it was "GOD" telling him to do this??? He was being ordered to do something that God had previously stated was a big no no. He just went " what? Kill my son for the God that stated previously that such burnt offerrings of humans is wrong? Okey dokey..."

As far as he knew it could have been Lucifer, a demon, some other fallen angel. Or, his own addled brain. And he was about to do it. Deranged. He had to believe that his God, who was stated to not tempt people , and was stated to be against human sacrifice, had gone back on all of that, just for this situation. Deranged.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Realistically, yes. No longer a fetus. Actually, US has laws against late term ( third trimester) abortions. Regardless of what the motivations are , it does not negate the belief in sanctity of others own bodies, unless they are demonstrably " incompetent " to make their own decisions."

Why would that matter? Someone is knocked out and is unconscious, can someone else legally decide to kill him?

"Striking is different.But, striking, can indeed, cause mutilation."

If so, accidentally.

"And everything short of death after a few days is stated to be ok."

Not really. Death after a few days is considered no murder, death on the spot is considered murder. No indication other situations than beating are at all concerned.

"So, that includes a whole slew of injuries that can be visited upon the human form, including mutilation."

If unintentional during beating, presumably it would have been so.

"The part about the " if someone dies after a few days" is not at all true. It can take a person days to die if it is intentional. Happens all of the time. This makes you " certain" of something that s blatantly false. It is often controllable. People can die from lack of care, much more now than then, but, an unresponsive person, in a short term coma, from a brain injury, can die a few days later due to lack of care, even back then, so, it can, very well, be controllable."

The point is, the master in this case has not shown he continued beating someone till he was sure he was dead.

The cases you consider would be harder to prove. Remember, one has to prove a crime to punish it.

"Permanent injury is not stated to be considered a crime if visited upon a slave, so, it is permitted."

It is not punishable as murder in this context. That does not mean it is permitted. Even beating someone to he dies is not per se permitted, it is just not punishable as murder.

Also, a master who had permanently disabled his slave - even if unintentionally - would be losing money, since the slave would have become less useful, usually.

"So, I ask you. ARE YOU ok with this?"

Given slavery existed and that criminal intent needs to be proven, I think this was the best protection God could extend to slaves.

"And also, are you ok with slavery? You should be, if you are a follower of an Abrahamic religion."

If you consider that people can be put into prison or mental hospital, you are yourself OK with slavery (under certain circumstances) even if you are NOT a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

I am OK with slavery under certain circumstances, one of which is not in France, since here slavery was abolished by Queen St Bathilde. At least slave trade was.

Another of which is, the master has no power over the body of the slave, beating as to correct bad behaviour, yes, mutilation or murder no.

A third of which is, when slavery has begun on somewhat fair reasons (like slave being criminal, asking to become one to get out of economic trouble, or being born in slavery), it can be ended, but once a slave has (individually or by state decisions like that of St Bathilde) been freed, the freedom is unrevocable.

"Conjecture on your part. Especially as Deuteronomy states that the parents should" take hold of" the son, and " take him before the elders". If they were old, retired, and disabled, to the extent you suggest, taking hold of him, in this manner would not seem feasible."

Unless getting help from other young people.

"If you are going to claim that all of Deuteronomy 21 is about people that are " refusing your parents this or that precious object( like that should end you up stoned to death)"

No. It is about more than one subject. Douay Rheims gives the following summary : The expiation of a secret murder. The marrying a captive. The eldest son must not be deprived of his birthright for hatred of his mother. A stubborn son is to be stoned to death. When one is hanged on a gibbet, he must be taken down the same day and buried.

In other words, the chapter is about more than one subject, as said.

"I would point out that Deuteronomy 21:22-23- states *“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God."* So, either this is about some other crimes, or , a contradiction as the man referred to previously was to be stoned, and this one is to be hung. So. Not the same situation."

No contradiction, if you look at the fact that hanging on a tree is mentioned after putting to death.

As I mentioned Our Lord's exegesis, the reference is to Mark 7:9-13.

"Other parts of it are about how to treat your female war booty. Other parts speak to finding a dead body of unknown origin in a country you have conquered . It is not all about " retired people"."

Note, I did not say it was all about what you could read in that chapter, but what you can read on Our Lord's exposing on it.

"Note, it does not read " consenting" It states that there is an assumption that the victim did not scream, so she is complicit in the rape. Assumed then gets a woman dead because she may not have screamed out of fear, may not have screamed loudly enough, or may have been rendered unconscious. There are no stated remedies for her then. She must just die, for the crime of being overpowered by a rapist before she could scream loudly enough to satisfy the people judging her, again, for being a victim."

Except that such circumstances could be mentioned in court and that the law did not provide for absolutely every case, but for a certain number of type cases. "She was gagged first" - "oh, sounds like, 'out in the wilderness' clause would be applicable, despite it being in a city".

"Note how you don't find that a man assaulted, that is not heard to scream in a city , looses the ability to seek justice on his attacker, as he may have been ok with said assault. Why? Because women back then were less than second class citizens. People get into consentual fights. A " consenting assault victim"."

You know, getting a fist in your face or giving someone property of yours is not doing sth you are not allowed to do under pain of stoning. Lying with a man not your husband, for most women, unless there was an excuse - like out in the wilderness - would have been, back then, a stoning offense. The point is, a girl was not supposed to get away from that as simple as saying "what could I do, he was stronger than I?" The least one would ask in court was "why didn't you shout".

"Back to it, are you in favor of this , and the other ones I noted?"

I consider these were OK under the Old Law, in which - as already mentioned - a woman could potentially be a female ancestor of God. Sacrilege had to be avoided. Under the New Covenant, the New Law, these punishments would be too harsh.

"Also, please never serve on a jury."

Why?

"Disturbing, and you still have not answered the question I posed."

As I recall it, your main point was whether the Old Testament death penalty for sodomy was OK, next point whether I would lob for getting it back. Answer : yes, it was OK, no, I don't lob for getting death penalty back, but getting back some penalty would be OK.

"Disagree . If the morality were "objective" it would not be subject to changes and whims of anyone, even God. As stated by you it is subjective morality , SUBJECT to God's whims."

Except that if God is indeed the foundation of morality (what is that on your atheist conviction, btw?) obeying God is always objectively being moral.

"Then they were obviously not being good followers as they were not in the way of God, at that time. I would say they were then "good people", not good followers. As is, I had stated those that " see this story as a good lesson", not just " anyone"."

The point is, the story is a good lesson on God NOT wanting child sacrifice.

"You missed the " federal laws.." part in the first quote. I have posted the federal statute . Here it is again. Federal Anti-Counterfeit Drug Laws " U.S.C. Section 331, which makes it illegal to sell an adulterated or misbranded drug in interstate commerce. This means that if you take a bottle of aspirin from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, and sell it to someone representing that bottle of aspirin to be ecstasy, then you may find yourself facing charges under section 331.

I wonder what "interstate commerce" makes for a difference ...?

In addition, it is possible that you may be charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which addresses criminal fraud. According to this federal law, you could be charged for knowingly and willfully:

Falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact;
Making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or
Making or using any false writing or document knowing that it contains materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.""( https://www.criminaldefenselawyerbostonma.com/can-i-be-convicted-of-selling-fake-drugs/ )

I read up on it. God did not make a false statement, and the order He revoked was not a "material statement".

"So, how did he know it was "GOD" telling him to do this??? He was being ordered to do something that God had previously stated was a big no no."

Previously?

"He just went " what? Kill my son for the God that stated previously that such burnt offerrings of humans is wrong? Okey dokey...""

No. God's telling him to stop the knife was the FIRST time God revealed to Abraham and his seed child sacrifice was wrong. Possibly because Canaaneans hadn't started it yet. It was a story which certainly helped to inspire the hatred Moses and later people showed against child sacrifice when it turned up.

"As far as he knew it could have been Lucifer, a demon, some other fallen angel. Or, his own addled brain."

Definition of God is "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" - the way we know what God we talk about is precisely in reference to the revelation God gave these men.

"And he was about to do it. Deranged. He had to believe that his God, who was stated to not tempt people ,"

Thousands of years later He was so stated by someone certainly weighing in that God was in this situation not tempting Abraham to evil. Theologians have stated if Abraham had NOT believed God could raise Isaac, the intent WOULD have been murder. But as he did believe that, his intent was not murderous.

"and was stated to be against human sacrifice,"

By Moses, about half a millennium later.

"had gone back on all of that, just for this situation. Deranged."

I actually got some answers for you on this one, that is one reason I waited with answering. One atheist agrees with you, the rest of the quorans responding do not.

I posed a Question on Quora : If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-posed-question-on-quora-if-god-had.html

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Why would that matter? Someone is knocked out and is unconscious, can someone else legally decide to kill him?"

You are just a master of the poor analogy .

- "Striking is different.But, striking, can indeed, cause mutilation."
- If so, accidentally."

Are you claiming that mutilation by striking can only be caused "accidentally", because almost every court on the planet will immediately disagree with you.

"Not really. Death after a few days is considered no murder, death on the spot is considered murder. No indication other situations than beating are at all concerned."

That is my point. Nothing is considered except the slave/master relationship and whether or not the slave dies in a day or too. Why the beating occurred. Whether or not it was just. The extent of injuries. None of it matters in this except the above. My point.

- "So, that includes a whole slew of injuries that can be visited upon the human form, including mutilation." - If unintentional during beating, presumably it would have been so"

Again. You are adding things not in the scripture. It does not read that there is any punishment for anything short of death. It does not read that intent has anything to do with it. It reads that , short of death, the master can beat the slave to within an inch of his/her life, without consequence. Even if the slave is disabled, mutilated, blinded, deafened, lamed, or, in fact does die, as long as it is more than a few days later. You keep trying to write in your own interpretations not supported by the scriptures. If I am wrong, please cite the correct passages that I have missed.

"The point is, the master in this case has not shown he continued beating someone till he was sure he was dead."

Again, my point is , " anything less than death is NOT PUNISHABLE".

"It is not punishable as murder in this context. That does not mean it is permitted. Even beating someone to he dies is not per se permitted, it is just not punishable as murder."

Again. My point is that anything less than death is not punished. Not, " not punished as murder", but "NOT PUNISHED"!!!!!! Again. If I am wrong about this not being in the scripture, please cite the relevant passage(s).

"It is not punishable as murder in this context. That does not mean it is permitted. Even beating someone to he dies is not per se permitted, it is just not punishable as murder."

As I have stated. I never claimed that one could just kill their slave under this law. I pointed out that one could do anything short of it, and NOTHING you have stated argues against that point.Is this thing on???

"Also, a master who had permanently disabled his slave - even if unintentionally - would be losing money, since the slave would have become less useful, usually."

And a man who caused massive injury to his wife would be stuck, unless he abandoned her, with a cripple he would then need to take care of, or utilize more money to support, and we don't say" good enough. He got the punishment he deserved." Also, note,it does not state that he then must do more than provide food and water for this slave , and, if the slave dies a week later, he gets off, scot free.

"Given slavery existed and that criminal intent needs to be proven, I think this was the best protection God could extend to slaves"

So, with about 611 accepted commandments GOD could do no better than " your master can beat you "almost" to death, but not " to death".". Lame. God, you would think could state " Thou shalt not have any slaves from mankind."

Done. No slavery. No slave beating. None of this despicable crap you are trying to defend so hard.

"If you consider that people can be put into prison or mental hospital, you are yourself OK with slavery (under certain circumstances) even if you are NOT a follower of an Abrahamic religion."

OOOooooh no. You don't get away with this. Not the same at all. These people are not bought and sold. These peoples children do not become property of other citizens to be done with as they will( short of beating them to death". These people are being either protected or punished for crimes.

"I am OK with slavery under certain circumstances, one of which is not in France, since here slavery was abolished by Queen St Bathilde. At least slave trade was."

FINALLY. An answer to the posed question. Now I know that you support one of the most horrendous practices in the history of our species. You still qualify it, but you show you are ok with it.

"Another of which is, the master has no power over the body of the slave, beating as to correct bad behaviour, yes, mutilation or murder no."

Where does it state this, other than the " murder no" part?

"A third of which is, when slavery has begun on somewhat fair reasons (like slave being criminal, asking to become one to get out of economic trouble, or being born in slavery), it can be ended, but once a slave has (individually or by state decisions like that of St Bathilde) been freed, the freedom is unrevocable."

If they were Israelites.

"Unless getting help from other young people."

Again. You are reading/writing in your own ideas. Does not state this. Directs the parents to " take hold of".

"In other words, the chapter is about more than one subject, as said."

Again. MY POINT.

"Except that such circumstances could be mentioned in court and that the law did not provide for absolutely every case, but for a certain number of type cases. "She was gagged first" - "oh, sounds like, 'out in the wilderness' clause would be applicable, despite it being in a city"."

As other parts of the scriptures state clearly exceptions to directions ( like the ever so close arsing about slaves having to die in a day or two for it to be considered murder from a master) this is more of your " reading in".

"The point is, a girl was not supposed to get away from that as simple as saying "what could I do, he was stronger than I?" The least one would ask in court was "why didn't you shout"."

Again. It does not say " if she did not scream", it " assumes" that she did not scream if the rape occurred in a city. The onus is on " kill the victim" unless she can prove her innocence. How does one, back in that day, prove that one was not rendered unconscious or unable to scream in some other way???? As one who has trained in jujitsu I can assure you that you can be rendered unable to scream before you can scream, even while retaining consciousness. You read in defenses and maybes, and coulds, that are not listed, despite several instances in the scriptures of just such fine parsing of rules being shown.

"You know, getting a fist in your face or giving someone property of yours is not doing sth you are not allowed to do under pain of stoning"

But......Selling another man such property then claiming theft, or, getting in a fight , loosing and then claiming an assault over a consensual fight is. The whole " baring false witness " stuff. So, why not require proof that one tried to stave off a theft, before believing the theft, instead of believing that the accuser is a con man who wants to sell his property, claim theft, and then get the property back and keep the money paid. Why? Because he is a man. As such , an actual being, valued over his reproductive ability.

- "Also, please never serve on a jury."
- Why?""

Show these posts to pretty much anyone not interested in defending religion to the end and they can explain it to you.

"s I recall it, your main point was whether the Old Testament death penalty for sodomy was OK, next point whether I would lob for getting it back. Answer : yes, it was OK, no, I don't lob for getting death penalty back, but getting back some penalty would be OK."

Also explains why you should " never serve on a jury."

Get out of consenting adults bedrooms and worry about other things.

Also, why not death penalty? Do you actually think that it was wrong, but are trying to walk a( razor) thin line between not being seen as a horrible person and still being seen as supporting your religion?

"Except that if God is indeed the foundation of morality obeying God is always objectively being moral"

You seem murky on just what " objective" means.

Your question "(what is that on your atheist conviction, btw?) ", is unclear.

"The point is, the story is a good lesson on God NOT wanting child sacrifice."

The point is that it is a good story in how your God will lie to you, and how blind obedience is good, even if it contradicts everything you have been told before( which, by the way , is what shows that this morality is definitely NOT objective).

" I read up on it. God did not make a false statement, and the order He revoked was not a "material statement"."

Except that he did( ask your friend what a " material statement" is) . BTW. It was. And this was about showing you that , in the US you very well can be punished for selling fake drugs. It was never meant to prosecute a case against your god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are just a master of the poor analogy ."

You are saying someone knocked unconscious is capable of deciding for himself? I think not.

"Are you claiming that mutilation by striking can only be caused "accidentally", because almost every court on the planet will immediately disagree with you."

That is why I think Employees should be protected against Employers wanting to mutilate them, like if an Employer who was denatalist were requiring castration.

I am claiming that mutiliation originating in a situation of "striking" is different from a planned mutilation, and the latter is not mentioned in the passage you cited. What is mentioned is, dying quickly or slowly after being struck.

"That is my point. Nothing is considered except the slave/master relationship and whether or not the slave dies in a day or too. Why the beating occurred. Whether or not it was just. The extent of injuries. None of it matters in this except the above. My point."

The rules are for if a master after a beating is accused of murder. Those considerations are the relevant ones for that kind of case.

However justified the beating would have been, if the slave dies under the master's hands, during the beating, the master is held guilty.

[18] If men quarrel, and the one strike his neighbour with a stone or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: [19] If he rise again and walk abroad upon his staff, he that struck him shall be quit, yet so that he make restitution for his work, and for his expenses upon the physicians. [20] He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime. [21] But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.

Here is more:

[26] If any man strike the eye of his manservant or maidservant, and leave them but one eye, he shall let them go free for the eye which he put out. [27] Also if he strike out a tooth of his manservant or maidservant, he shall in like manner make them free.

Any code in the region from comparable times which would have punished a master for killing his slave or for accidental mutilation, in the latter case with the slave freed?

Hammurapi? Egyptian?

"Again. You are adding things not in the scripture. It does not read that there is any punishment for anything short of death. It does not read that intent has anything to do with it. It reads that , short of death, the master can beat the slave to within an inch of his/her life, without consequence. Even if the slave is disabled, mutilated, blinded, deafened, lamed, or, in fact does die, as long as it is more than a few days later. You keep trying to write in your own interpretations not supported by the scriptures. If I am wrong, please cite the correct passages that I have missed."

Just did, Exodus 21:26-27.

In fact, you were adding, since you were presuming the verses you cited were all the regulations that there were on violence between masters and slaves. You strike a slave one eyed but he doesn't die? You are not a murderer, but you owe him his freedom.

This rule was later adopted by Caesar Augustus too.

"Again, my point is , " anything less than death is NOT PUNISHABLE"."

... as murder, which is what the cited passage was talking about, as you can see from the context of verse 12.

[12] He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death. ... [20] He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.

Once again, another code that time and region which would punish a master for wilful if unplanned killing of his slave? Another code from that regionj or time which would allow a slave freedom as damages for even accidental mutilation? Hmmm?

"Again. My point is that anything less than death is not punished. Not, " not punished as murder", but "NOT PUNISHED"!!!!!! Again. If I am wrong about this not being in the scripture, please cite the relevant passage(s)."

Did.

"As I have stated. I never claimed that one could just kill their slave under this law. I pointed out that one could do anything short of it, and NOTHING you have stated argues against that point.Is this thing on???"

You have cited nothing allowing you that conclusion. You are so bad at logic, you should not serve on a jury. A suspect could say sth completely normal, if unsympathetic, and you could construe it as insanity or as intent to kill or whatever would be relevant for making some suspect's life short and miserable or either of them.

"And a man who caused massive injury to his wife would be stuck, unless he abandoned her, with a cripple he would then need to take care of, or utilize more money to support, and we don't say" good enough. He got the punishment he deserved." Also, note,it does not state that he then must do more than provide food and water for this slave , and, if the slave dies a week later, he gets off, scot free."

Note, Mosaic law did not provide for police departments. All crimes cannot be detected by such, and some crimes cannot be very well detected in absence of such.

When culprits go to court by citizen's arrest, there is a limit on how subtle you can make the crime, since some subtle crimes are less easy to detect.

"So, with about 611 accepted commandments GOD could do no better than " your master can beat you "almost" to death, but not " to death".". Lame. God, you would think could state " Thou shalt not have any slaves from mankind.""

If he had, would you have renounced prison punishment, death penalty and forensic psychiatry?

Would you have made employer-employee relations illegal?

I don't think you would have obeyed that law.

"Done. No slavery. No slave beating. None of this despicable crap you are trying to defend so hard."

OK, you show me your efforts to abolish criminal justice .... wait, in fact you said you are for keeping it, therefore you are for a kind of slavery yourself.

"OOOooooh no. You don't get away with this. Not the same at all. These people are not bought and sold. These peoples children do not become property of other citizens to be done with as they will( short of beating them to death". These people are being either protected or punished for crimes."

• 1) if you don't have a prison system, a condemned culprit can perhaps be best disposed of, short of death, by selling to private persons
• 2) part of the OT slavery was for protection too, in that case on demand, and in the context of protection against poverty
• 3) mental hospitals may pretend to protect, it does not mean they are not enslaving.

As you cited the chapter, here is a verse for you:

[16] He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death.

Mental hospitals steal men. They also sell them to the community paying tax money for their stay. Doctors are making judgements on people's sanity in ways that will please the people who pay taxes for this kind of thing willingly. They are also selling out to pharmaceutic companies, who earn money on that misery, since these sponsor doctors using their medicines.

So, as you mentioned buying and selling, mental hospitals are more guilty of that than ancient Israel.

For their protection? Bah, humbug!

"FINALLY. An answer to the posed question. Now I know that you support one of the most horrendous practices in the history of our species. You still qualify it, but you show you are ok with it."

You are OK with some of the worst instances of it, which I am not.

"Where does it state this, other than the " murder no" part?"

Doesn't need to, since the legal code is not construed on the basis of providing one rule for every possible case, the "title" of the chapter is [1] These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

In other words, these are example judgements. Again, if even accidental maiming involves a slave automatically freed, intentional maiming is obviously not acceptable.

"If they were Israelites."

You are confusing issues. Don't serve in a jury.

• 1) In Ancient Israel, Hebrew slaves were OWED a liberty that, once accepted, was irrevocable.
• 2) Non-Hebrew slaves were not owed liberty, but obviously a voluntary liberation of them was also irrevocable.
• 3) The laws of Queen St Bathilde make no difference of either race or confession, as long as it is about people residing in Francia (not quite same thing as France, since Germany, Benelux, Switzerland, Austria and North Italy also can claim to succeed Francia).

Sweden - where I come from - ended slavery in 1348. It did so later than some European countries and it did so, like the rest, for Christian motives, but had become Christian later than Francia.

"Again. You are reading/writing in your own ideas. Does not state this. Directs the parents to " take hold of"."

Caesar aedificavit pontem ad lacum Genavam. In Classic languages, what you do with your own hands or by ordering others both counts as your deeds.

Obviously Julius Caesar was not cutting logs and tying them together, nor hammering down poles in the lake bottom when he "built" a bridge over the Lac Leman, he is said to have "built" it because he ordered other people to do so.

"Again. MY POINT."

For what?

"As other parts of the scriptures state clearly exceptions to directions ( like the ever so close arsing about slaves having to die in a day or two for it to be considered murder from a master) this is more of your " reading in"."

No, on your side.

Providing rules for two contrasting cases does not divide every case other than these two between the two only.

"Again. It does not say " if she did not scream", it " assumes" that she did not scream if the rape occurred in a city."

It is presumed that if she had screamed in the city, the rape would have been prevented.

"The onus is on " kill the victim" unless she can prove her innocence. How does one, back in that day, prove that one was not rendered unconscious or unable to scream in some other way???? As one who has trained in jujitsu I can assure you that you can be rendered unable to scream before you can scream, even while retaining consciousness. You read in defenses and maybes, and coulds, that are not listed, despite several instances in the scriptures of just such fine parsing of rules being shown."

I think the rapists back then fortunately had no access to Jiujitsu training.

"But......Selling another man such property then claiming theft, or, getting in a fight , loosing and then claiming an assault over a consensual fight is. The whole " baring false witness " stuff."

You know, some kinds or proprietors are less likely than others to do that kind of thing. Shepherds have affection for their sheep.

The worst someone risks is having to pay back fourfold - that being the penalty for theft, as seen also from Levi and Zacchaeus converting from tax collection. There would not be a great gain in condemning someone for theft.

"So, why not require proof that one tried to stave off a theft, before believing the theft, instead of believing that the accuser is a con man who wants to sell his property, claim theft, and then get the property back and keep the money paid. Why? Because he is a man. As such , an actual being, valued over his reproductive ability."

You know, you are reading in motives that are not stated. Never serve in a jury.

"Show these posts to pretty much anyone not interested in defending religion to the end and they can explain it to you."

Oh, in other words, you have to be a secularist to serve in a jury. Nice.

"Also explains why you should " never serve on a jury."

"Get out of consenting adults bedrooms and worry about other things."

I disagree on no harm being done if between consenting adults.

Any kind of contraceptive sex (sodomy or condoms or pills) distorts the age pyramid. This destroys the relations between young and old.

"Also, why not death penalty? Do you actually think that it was wrong, but are trying to walk a( razor) thin line between not being seen as a horrible person and still being seen as supporting your religion?"

More like, while I think death penalty would per se be OK, I don't think it would be accepted these days.

Also, I owe some homosexuals in Paris region a debt of gratitude. It cannot sway me to pretending what they do deserves no punishment, but inclines me, I should not be lobbying for the harshest.

"You seem murky on just what " objective" means."

I don't think so; if by objective you mean following rules, one rule can be "always obey the ground for all morality, even if it means trumping other rules of morality".

"Your question "(what is that on your atheist conviction, btw?) ", is unclear."

Not the least. You are very clear on what things you consider part of any possible objective morality, but you are less clear on how you would, on atheist and evolutionist principles, explain there is such a thing as one. If you even believe there is, that is.

If not, your shockedness over my stands is simply chauvinism.

"The point is that it is a good story in how your God will lie to you,"

God did not lie.

"and how blind obedience is good,"

The obedience was not blind.

"even if it contradicts everything you have been told before( which, by the way , is what shows that this morality is definitely NOT objective)."

But Abraham had not been told these things before. You missed this in my previous answer.

The one thing it could contradict was Isaac being the son of promise, and Abraham (according to Catholic theologians) resolved that by God being able to resurrect Isaac.

"Except that he did( ask your friend what a " material statement" is) . BTW. It was."

An order is hardly a material statement. There is a difference between imperative and indicative moods. God never said "sacrifice your son and I will accept his death" or "kill his son and he will die". Such material statements are in fact absent from the actual text.

"And this was about showing you that , in the US you very well can be punished for selling fake drugs. It was never meant to prosecute a case against your god."

Nice, but since you are in practise prosecuting a case against what I believe in, I did a little "gallup" on quora.

By the way "otherwise your shockedness is simply cultural chauvinism" - no, more probably a disconnected of logical antecedent and consequence. But externally, and if explained as consistent, it would come off as chauvinism.

III

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2 days ago
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."""

OR..it is you PRESUMING that they are PRESUMING. Again, despite your protestations, you accuse them of being poor physicists.

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

Odd that. Who are the members of this "vast conspiracy" to deny Hans-Georg Lundahl equal access to education?

"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."""""

I think you misinterpret what they have done here. They are not [consciously] using the carbon dating to confirm their carbon dating. They are utilizing the ( carbon dating independent) method of COUNTING . Counting growth rings in living trees, and then corresponding rings in nearby, overlapping, fossil trees, and THEN utilizing carbon dating to compare and calibrate their methods. Or, they are idiots, don't know how to do their jobs, and are vastly inferior to your expertise in this field. Applause.

"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!""

No...They are. But, again, of course, you would know better. Your vast knowledge, superior to experts in the fields, is , indeed, staggering.

"""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."""

Again, you would know better. I wonder why these, so called, experts, in their fields, are not simply calling you up to tell them how to do their research. Would be a lot easier than the decades of work they dedicate themselves to. You should suggest this, or you are just being cruel by withholding your superior abilities in their fields?

""""But, of course, you would probably know better."
Here is a speleologist who knows better on speleothems:
https://creation.com/emil-silvestru-interview"""

So, he is right and the other experts he disagrees with are wrong because......he agrees with you???? That couldn't be it. Could it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"OR..it is you PRESUMING that they are PRESUMING. Again, despite your protestations, you accuse them of being poor physicists."

Nothing of the sort, just poor philosophers and logicians, due to evolutionary bias.

"Odd that. Who are the members of this "vast conspiracy" to deny Hans-Georg Lundahl equal access to education?"

It may not count as "equal access to education" and I do not count it as a "vast conspiracy" - necessarily. The question as posed is ironic not to say sarcastic.

It is twisted all the way over.

In actual fact, I think neither Usoskin nor the Egyptologists had heard of me beforehand, therefore not conspired against me.

I also think they both knew I had a point they didn't like and couldn't refute - and so blocked away too much communications with me.

[Which I count as a low intensity form of conspiring.]

"I think you misinterpret what they have done here. They are not using the carbon dating to confirm their carbon dating. They are utilizing the ( carbon dating independent) method of COUNTING . Counting growth rings in living trees, and then corresponding rings in nearby, overlapping, fossil trees, and THEN utilizing carbon dating to compare and calibrate their methods. Or, they are idiots, don't know how to do their jobs, and are vastly inferior to your expertise in this field. Applause."

Neither. You are incorrectly presuming dendro relies ONLY on counting and is to dates as far back as these self sufficient without using carbon.

In fact, for getting back to such ages, dendro uses carbon - and carbon calibrates by dendro. Neither is a bungler in his own field but neither knows the full extent of what the other is doing or lacking.

I do not claim to have a vastly superior expertise, I claim to stand outside their culture and be free to criticise it - in this case partly because I am inside another one, which specialises in doing so : creationism.

Dendro is very ill known to the common public. Nearly anyone can feel it relies only on counting - and from creationist literature I know it does not.

" Again, you would know better. I wonder why these, so called, experts, in their fields, are not simply calling you up to tell them how to do their research. Would be a lot easier than the decades of work they dedicate themselves to. You should suggest this, or you are just being cruel by withholding your superior abilities in their fields?"

While you are at it, why not ask why there are creationists not lying flat on their backs, stomach up, to their expertise? Because there are objections to it, that is why.

You don't care about technicalities, you seem to care ONLY about a non expert claiming "absurdly superior" expertise, which I did not.

"So, he is right and the other experts he disagrees with are wrong because......he agrees with you???? That couldn't be it. Could it?"

So, he is wrong, and the other experts he disagrees with are right because ... they agree with you? That couldn't be it, could it?

More seriously, if you think in lines of they are many, he is few, (but not alone), so why bother even looking up his arguments, well, social superiorities like that have varied very much between camps in the past, and IF they are right, that means everyone else in the more or less distant past was THEN wrong. I am not buying "now is right, past is wrong". You seem to be doing so, and on top of that to have a real axe to grind with those not agreeing with you.

IV

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl...."""Here is my analogy : you can't build a boat by exchanging spokes in a wheel. You can't prove a boat came from a wheel by proving parts of the boat have been exchanged"""

So, who is then claiming, to extend the analogy back to language, and living things, that language developed from by exchanging tendons in a leg? That seems to be the analogy you are making. But it doesn't seem to connect.

""It is as ridiculous to imagine that animal sounds and "signal systems" can develop to language.""

You think it is " ridiculous" , but others do not, and you have hardly proven or really offered evidence to support that assertion.

"""And human language can borrow sth from animal sounds, doesn't mean it developed from them."""

And nothing you have offered means that it did not. You CLAIM it , again and again, with nothing to support it. I know that evidence to support the idea is also lacking( where would one find it, other than allowing an isolated population of humans to develop without any outside contact and see if , when, how language developed. That would be unethical to do with humans, and doing so with any other species is less likely to show results and , even if it did, they would be ( with some validity) criticized as the subjects were not human).

By the way, I am such a poor " linguist" it probably took me 4-5 posts from you to get that when you typed "sth" you meant " something". Definitely not a linguist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"So, who is then claiming, to extend the analogy back to language, and living things, that language developed from by exchanging tendons in a leg? That seems to be the analogy you are making. But it doesn't seem to connect."

You were claiming that human language developed from animal sound signal systems by gradual change. I say, that is as absurd as claiming exchanging spokes in a wheel gives rise to a big yacht.

"You think it is " ridiculous" , but others do not, and you have hardly proven or really offered evidence to support that assertion."

Note, I said not "ridiculous" simply, but "as ridiculous".

My reason is in the analogy, which you misconstrued probably on purpose.

["""And human language can borrow sth from animal sounds, doesn't mean it developed from them.""" Scripsi ante]

"And nothing you have offered means that it did not. You CLAIM it , again and again, with nothing to support it."

Make it "nothing you received" - I gave an analogy, you didn't receive it.

"I know that evidence to support the idea is also lacking( where would one find it, other than allowing an isolated population of humans to develop without any outside contact and see if , when, how language developed. That would be unethical to do with humans, and doing so with any other species is less likely to show results and , even if it did, they would be ( with some validity) criticized as the subjects were not human)."

Indeed. A Pharao tried a similar experiment to get to know the first language, and he concluded Phrygian from first articulated word pronounced being "bekos", Phrygian for bread. I hope he interrupted the experiment and gave the children to parents able to give them a language, Phrygian or Egyptian, rather than continue to damage the children.

Child welfare is, by the way, also unethical.

"By the way, I am such a poor " linguist" it probably took me 4-5 posts from you to get that when you typed "sth" you meant " something". Definitely not a linguist."

An abbreviation you will find in many dictionaries.

What is worse, you are so poor a linguist to take for instance a "neurolinguist" for a linguist. A neurolinguist is medical faculty, even if he needs linguistic competence too.

Now my point is, evolutionary linguists are more like neurolinguists or psycholinguists, and can definitely not hijack the very certain and firm results of linguistics proper.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl
""You were claiming that human language developed from animal sound signal systems by gradual change. I say, that is as absurd as claiming exchanging spokes in a wheel gives rise to a big yacht.""

And I state, and I feel I am on rock solid ground here, that your analogy to " simple sounds being transformed , over time, to more complex sound, from " take bits off of a piece one type of vehicle to make another" is absurd. False analogy to prove your , unsupported, point.

"" Make it "nothing you received" - I gave an analogy, you didn't receive it."

Note that I need " evidence" not, " false analogy that makes no sense", which is what I received.

"Child welfare is, by the way, also unethical."

WHAT????? This needs explanation.

"Now my point is, evolutionary linguists are more like neurolinguists or psycholinguists, and can definitely not hijack the very certain and firm results of linguistics proper.""

Ok. Whatever. It hardly matters. You don't consider them linguists. They seem to. I am wrong. They are wrong. You are right. Can we move on from that pointless argument. I stipulate you are correct and ,from here forwards , I will never refer to anyone that studies the origin of language as a " linguist" only as a " evolutionary linguist".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And I state, and I feel I am on rock solid ground here, that your analogy to " simple sounds being transformed , over time, to more complex sound, from " take bits off of a piece one type of vehicle to make another" is absurd. False analogy to prove your , unsupported, point."

The point was not "simple" to "complex". The point was "phoneme = signal" to "phoneme+phoneme+... =morpheme AND morpheme+morphem+...statement".

As a non-linguist you clearly have less appreciation of this than Jackendoff.

"Note that I need " evidence" not, " false analogy that makes no sense", which is what I received."

The analogy makes perfect sense once you realise what the difference between animal signal systems and human language is.

I'll complete it for you, to make my point even better. Suppose the wheel had been a giant wheel the size of a yacht. Suppose the spokes had been added to the point of being as many parts as the parts of the yacht. Exchanging spokes could STILL not explain producing the yacht. Because the yacht and the wheel are two different plans.

These two plans correspond to the plan of an animal signal system, where one sound or phoneme = one signal, vs the human language, where a statement (or "signal") is made up of morphemes, where morphemes are made up of phonemes.

The change is as radical as between one celled and many celled organisms, you know, a many celled organism consists of tissues each of which consists of cells. You might as a medical professional have some more sympathy with why this is not sth which lends itself to gradual transition, though, as an evolution believer, I suppose you actually do believe that did happen too.

"WHAT????? This needs explanation."

Like that Pharao, it is exploiting the societal power it has to make experiments with human guinea pigs.

"Ok. Whatever. It hardly matters. You don't consider them linguists. They seem to. I am wrong. They are wrong. You are right."

Do they? I thought they were in cognitive sciences, like neurology and psychology - applying that on language, rather than studying language as such.

"Can we move on from that pointless argument. I stipulate you are correct and ,from here forwards , I will never refer to anyone that studies the origin of language as a " linguist" only as a " evolutionary linguist"."

If the study makes use of evolutionary assumptions, that would be fairly correct.

Dave Robson

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The change is as radical as between one celled and many celled organisms, you know, a many celled organism consists of tissues each of which consists of cells. You might as a medical professional have some more sympathy with why this is not sth which lends itself to gradual transition, though, as an evolution believer, I suppose you actually do believe that did happen too."

As it so happens, we have examples of life forms along the , very conceivable, path from regular single celled to multicellular. We have the immense number of single celled organisms that abound. The, we have colonies of undifferentiated single cells, then we have masses of single cells that, while not one creature with different tissues, are in fact differentiated members of the same species living in a colony and ACTING as one creature. We have different examples of those with different levels of cooperation . Finally we have the more conventional multicellular organisms. So. Good analogy. I accept it and it then explains that human language can indeed evolve from animals a sounds. Thanks.

Also, you can carve , cut, and recombine the wood from the spokes and make quite the spiffy yacht.

"Like that Pharao, it is exploiting the societal power it has to make experiments with human guinea pigs."

So, you consider society keeping horrible parents from abusing the living hell out of children or being so negligent with them that they end up weighing 50 pounds and being unable to walk at the age of 15 to be " experimenting" ??? Well then, a fine experiment. Are there examples of such organizations screwing up royally, or even abusing their power? Hell yes!. I have seen it in my work. Does it make the idea of child welfare a bad one? Hell no!. That would mean all ideas are bad ones as such failures and manipulations are almost universally possible. See .....pretty much all religious organizations over time.

"Do they? I thought they were in cognitive sciences, like neurology and psychology - applying that on language, rather than studying language as such"

Are you such a poor winner you cannot even accept your opponent conceding a point to you with grace? Guess not.

"If the study makes use of evolutionary assumptions, that would be fairly correct."

So. Do you intend to answer the question posed? ", that would be fairly correct." hardly answers the question " Can we move on ...".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As it so happens, we have examples of life forms along the , very conceivable, path from regular single celled to multicellular. We have the immense number of single celled organisms that abound. The, we have colonies of undifferentiated single cells, then we have masses of single cells that, while not one creature with different tissues, are in fact differentiated members of the same species living in a colony and ACTING as one creature. We have different examples of those with different levels of cooperation . Finally we have the more conventional multicellular organisms. So. Good analogy. I accept it and it then explains that human language can indeed evolve from animals a sounds. Thanks."

Which exact state would you count as coming immediately before a classic multicellular one? What kind of mutation could explain the transition?

Note, if you say "many mutations" you are not really accepting the challenge of immediately before classic multicellular.

"Also, you can carve , cut, and recombine the wood from the spokes and make quite the spiffy yacht."

There is a problem here. Carving, cutting and recombining seem to require having already a language to think these things through in.

It also involves a lot of time in which all remains so far useless between the old use of a wheel and the new use of a yacht.

This precludes this being a model for a gradual transition in which each case has to remain useful.

"So, you consider society keeping horrible parents from abusing the living hell out of children or being so negligent with them that they end up weighing 50 pounds and being unable to walk at the age of 15 to be " experimenting" ???"

Yes, I do.

I consider very horrible parents trying to sacrifice their children to any entity after Abraham's sacrifice and after God's words to Moses about Moloch sacrifice, taking those children away would not be experimentation. Thankfully, that would be rather rare, I hope.

You are repeating the officialese ideological excuses for such things, but in many cases, it is just a kind of slave hunt.

"Well then, a fine experiment. Are there examples of such organizations screwing up royally, or even abusing their power? Hell yes!. I have seen it in my work."

Examples of? You have seen too little to judge it, then.

"Does it make the idea of child welfare a bad one? Hell no!."

Penal justice is a much better idea. You risk far less as a suspect than as a child or a parent suspected by CPS of abuse or being abused.

"That would mean all ideas are bad ones as such failures and manipulations are almost universally possible."

No, there is a difference between a fair presumption of innocence in criminal justice, a fair presumption of fair dealing in commercial justice or in administration respecting parental rights, and a system where CPS experts can at a whim destroy lives.

"See .....pretty much all religious organizations over time."

Most not on a scale comparable to CPS.

"Are you such a poor winner you cannot even accept your opponent conceding a point to you with grace? Guess not."

Conceding a point with grace? I thought I detected some irony ... my bad, I guess?

We can move on whenever you find a next question to pose on origin of languages or a next claim to make or continue with those above and cut the stuff at the bottom, for next comment.