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

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

Christopher Bell

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

[I have answered this on an earlier one.]

ItsBornstar

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

Skipping

some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Charles Darwin married his first cousin and all of his babies came out retarded"

Source please?

Here I have one which argues otherwise:

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

Skipping

some.

Dave Robson

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

1-Two of his children dies in infancy.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, hardly "retarded"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skipping

some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I endorse most of Dave Robson's answer.

I do not endorse the endorsement of Evolution.

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

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

Little note

Darwin lived more recently, after the Industrial Revolution.

Dave Robson

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

Well, because I am a Creationist.

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

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

Dave Robson

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because it makes sense.

Dave Robson

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Don't feel shy to ask for the details ...

Dave Robson

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"feel", "free", "to", "provide", "them"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Robson

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

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

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A disputed statement

and what I meant

"Carbon 14 makes relative sense even for distant past, and plain sense for historic recent past."

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

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

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

Dave Robson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

That being my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have a science to study this ."

No, we don't.

"It is called linguistics."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take Ilya Usoskin:

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

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

Obviously not on the front where we challenge them.

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

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

As you showed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the red haired painter painted the house green"

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

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

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

No contradictions.

Miracles don't qualify as such.

Miracles come in historic documents.

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

Yes, and as said, totally beside the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Gilgamesh, on its own admission.

Dave Robson

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

That being my point.""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure that you are a linguist??

Get back to this later. Must work on.

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

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

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

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

[see above]

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

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

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

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

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

Tree rings are used to calibrate radiocarbon measurements.

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

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

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

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

But, of course, you would probably know better.

More later.....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Useless tautology.."

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

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

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

We'll see about that.

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

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

"Same with their first car, first computer,"

Given by and invented by people already having a language.

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

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

"job, sexual encounter."

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

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

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

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

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

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

What language cannot have come from is Evolution.

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

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

"Now you would surprise the physicists."

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

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

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

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

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

BBL

Back now, here is more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am most certainly a definite Göbekli Tepe geek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a speleologist who knows better on speleothems:

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

Dave Robson

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

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

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

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

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

So you claim. Now provide evidence.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

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

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

Or you may have added it after my first reply.

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

"So you claim. Now provide evidence."

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

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

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

I have reasons for presuming so :

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

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

Oh, some do - but not the good ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, he admits as much from start.

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

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

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

[After reading some more]

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

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

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

Update

Me notifying him

Here is our debate so far:

[Linking here]

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