I tried to go back to the video that Suris was commenting on, comment under William Kalal's video, and take a link to it with my commments first. When I was putting comment 2 under comment 1, comment 1 disappeared after comment 2 did so.
Perhaps it's just a kind of delay, and in an hour I may see both of my comments, perhaps it was William Kalal, and perhaps it was the Georges Pompidou library. Anyway, for starters, I post Suris' video, with my comments below it.
William Kalal Thinks ONLY the Tower of Babel Explains LANGUAGE?!
25.II.2020 | Suris
- 2:36 I think that the video is adressing a problem internal to Creationism.
We all came from an Ark on Mountains of Ararat 3000 BC. On the Evolutionist view of language change, at least, we would now have less overall human diversity than the diversity within Indo-European family, which is supposed to have started diverging from c. 4000 BC. And there is maybe somewhat more to be said for the Evolutionist view of how languages typically evolve new values in the parameters and keep traces of earlier stages, than for Evolutionist view of other things.
We creationists therefore cannot explain a diversity which spans Niger-Congo diversity from Greenlandic by referring to a common proto-language, as Greenberg / Ruhlen confidently do.
2:54 - as said, I don't think the video you are watching is adressing the conclusions of us all coming from a mutation leading to Homo sapiens supposedly 300 000 years ago or of us all coming from a group of mutations honing out Homo erectus from Homo habilis 1 million supposed years ago.
In that time scale, the chances are ALL daughter languages to the first group of humans having and exploiting this capacity would have lost ALL concrete similarities to the earliest language, and so language diversity would not be a problem.
He is speaking about language diversity as seen in the light of coming from an Ark 5000 years ago, or on his view more probably just 4400 years ago. Obviously, in 101, 401 or 529 years from Flood to end of Babel (depending on text variety), you don't have time to evolve radical language differences.
3:41 Yes, exactly - he just stated exactly what problem he was trying to answer in the video, namely the one I outlined.
- 3:52 How certain languages come from Latin - namely around the Middle of the last 2000 years.
"And Germanic" - you mean and from *PROTO-Germanic, and no, we are probably right in deducing it's existence, but we cannot guarantee *Proto-West-Germanic and *Proto-Gothic 2000 years ago were identic to Proto-Norse (a language actually attested, therefore no asterisk behind), and thus a late form of a *Proto-Germanic supposed (and probably rightly) to have emerged c. 500 BC when Indo-European words underwent a series of phonetic changes called Grimm's law (which could theoretically have been the reverse of the real sound shift) and then Verner's law (which couldn't, plus Verner could have taken place before all of Grimm's was finished). We cannot actually trace back "himin" or "himil" to any pre-Grimm *kemen- or *kemel- nor identify what declinsion these words would have had, nor even decide how Anglo-Saxon "heafon" (English "heaven") came to diverge from medial "m" in this word.
In other words, when we trace back Germanic languageS to *proto-Germanic, we do so by inventing *proto-Germanic nearly as much as Tolkien invented Quenya. And this is even more the case when we deal with tracing *proto-Germanic, *proto-Italic (hypothetically 1000 to 1500 years prior to our Era, Terramare and Villanova archaeology) and some other *proto-languages back to *proto-indo-european. There's a PIE in the sky for the linguists, but on earth, PIE has changed faster than any other language has since 1868.
So, we definitely cannot historically trace even all Indo-European languages back to Proto-Indo-European, many believe this was spoken by the Kurgan culture supposedly 4000 BC (by carbon dates that need reduction to close to 2000 BC on my Creationist view), some fewer ones agree with Alinei it was spoken in Turkey in the Neolithic, and some others or at least one before me consider the language group a Sprachbund rather than a Family.
This is a very far cry from our historical knowledge of many stages of the process how natively spoken Latin diverged into natively spoken French and learned only Latin.
4:07 With British and American, we can definitely accept we are talking of a historic divergence actually observed.
As we are talking of British and American, that is the maximum divergence one could expect between Flood and Babel event. I. e. after Flood, 101 or 529 years later, you would not have a divergence comparable to Spanish from French or English from German even. By the way you are talking about. Yet soon after, we see languages as different as Elamite, Hebrew with Akkadian and Aramaic, Egyptian, Sumerian, and soon after Mycenaean Greek too, the earliest attested language in the loose Indo-European group.
- 5:35 As far as I know, Sargon per se is not Nimrod, even if the eye spoked out on his image may well have been a reference to Nimrod losing his right eye a bit earlier.
I find it annoying when either Genesis 10:8-12 or Genesis 11:1-8 is referred to anything Classic Mesopotamian.
Sure, we do find Classic Mesopotamian stages of Nineve, but this is later, Genesis 10:8-12 and Genesis 11:1-8 is referring to Neolithic, though some other serious Creationists (like CMI and AiG) would refer it to prior to Upper Palaeolithic ...
- 6:13 Functionally we would insofar as no heavy genetic disease (except perhaps a mutation preventing to synthesise our own vitamin C) was common to Noah, his wife and their three daughters in law.
- 6:37 "even when they are fantastical and certainly not |...| with reality"
You are taking the criteria for when to dismiss a legend too loosely.
I dismiss the order of events between Ramayana and Mahabharata because it makes more sense to have Mahabharata in a pre-Flood and Ramayana in a Genesis 10 (prior to verses 8 and 12) setting (Hanuman being a candidate for young Nimrod, before he went too ambitious).
I dismiss Perseus and Andromeda being taken up to the sky as constellations because Bible and Catechism tell me, as they told St. Justin martyr who pointed this out, that this is not how the afterlife works.
I dismiss Hercules having Zeus for father and having suckled Hera, and I dismiss his eleventh and twelfth labour. As well as probably his real participation in Gigantomachy, but not necessarily his having an impression he had participated in it, and as well as his wrestling with Thanatos to save Alkestis. But that's about it. I don't dismiss his interaction with Centaurs since St. Anthony of Egypt interacted with a faun and a centaur when trying to get to and actually reaching St. Paul the First Hermit. I don't dismiss Aeneas leaving Troy for Italy any more or any much more than St. Augustine did so.
- 7:17 If we read the text, we actually do not see God "was concerned" with any specified thing.
Genesis 11:5-7 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building. And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
This is cryptic enough to allow both his guess - and mine, that Nimrod was going to use Uranium for rocket fuel when trying to reach Upstairs or Galaxity, and God wanted technology and science to progress somewhat before we could test that the plan is useless. Voyager 1 and 2 do not have enough space either of them to keep passengers alive on board for the time they have been in space, and they still have not found anywhere we could actually inhabit. But at least there was no mushroom cloud over Cape Canaveral.
- 7:37 No one pretends anyone would suddenly lose the ability to communicate by natural means.
If you do not believe in supernatural agencies the story becomes impossible.
However, we do insist, the things we know about language do not exclude God bypassing this and changing the settings on each person's or group of persons' language competence.
- 7:55 "Why there are diverse languages within the human race" - as is also the case with the Greenberg Ruhlen scenario. A purpose does not equal a lack of literal truth to the story.
"and you can find similar stories"
Can we? If we could, well, so much confirmation of this one in at least general outline, but I'm afraid you don't get very far.
Greeks do not on the Homeric level of non-curiosity explain the diversity of human languages (unless you think Achaeans literally thought Luvian was merely human, but Mycenaean Greek the "language of the gods" - but Homer never bothers to flesh out an explanation and neither does as far as I know Hesiod).
- 8:20 PIE is in fact an extrapolation.
As to Tower of Babel, we would have a "chain of remembrance" from the parents of Peleg to Abraham. Not too many generations or centuries. Even if Abraham was born 541 years after the event, in the LXX chronology.
- 9:00 "the existence of a place called Babel"
I suppose the guy is referring to 32° 32′ 31″ North, 44° 25′ 12″ East. Like the area in which Sargon was relevant.
Babylon is called Babil in Arabic.
I do not the least think Nimrod did anything in 32° 32′ 31″ North, 44° 25′ 12″ East except perhaps briefly passing through.
Why? Because we are dealing with Classic Mesopotamian in Babylon.
"Babylon was originally a small Akkadian town dating from the period of the Akkadian Empire c. 2300 BC."
NB, Carbon dated 2300 BC. In fact after Joseph lived in Egypt, since his pharao would have been Djoser, see Hunger Stele's reference to Imhotep, and Djoser's coffin is carbon dated to 2600 or 2800 BC for a real date around 1700 BC.
Nineveh (mentioned in Genesis 10:8-12) is older:
"Nineveh was one of the oldest and greatest cities in antiquity. The area it occupied was originally settled as early as 6000 BC during the late Neolithic period."
Which was, if after Babel, at least in Nimrod's post-Babel lifespan, unless Ashur lived later than Nimrod, which is also probable. Way before Classic Mesopotamian.
"Deep sounding at Nineveh uncovered soil layers that have been dated to early in the era of the Hassuna archaeological culture."
"The Hassuna culture is a Neolithic archaeological culture in northern Mesopotamia dating to the early sixth millennium BC. It is named after the type site of Tell Hassuna in Iraq. Other sites where Hassuna material has been found include Tell Shemshara."
This would arguably make Hassuna the later limit of Genesis 10:8-12 related archaeology.
Obviously, as Creationist I am reducing "6000 BC" carbon date to a more modest age, between Peleg's and Abraham's births.
- 9:15 Would you mind telling what exact documented accomplishment of Alexander the Great you consider as historically non-factual?
9:37 The US story of Columbus and Mayflower is white washed, and therefore fragmentary as to original events, but each part still took place.
9:50 Amerigo Vespucci didn't discover Americas as to land, he only discovered by mapmaking these lands were not East Asia, but sth different.
Plymouth colony less friendly, granted. Doesn't make the first winter and the needed friendship from Amerindians untrue.
There is another part of the Plymouth story that is really untrue: Pilgrim Fathers coming for religious freedom ... er, no, they came to have the freedom to persecute Catholics and Baptists, something Stuarts were denying them.
William Penn came to an agreement with Charles II about religious freedom in Pennsylvania. For Anglicans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, even Puritans if they would like to come.
The Puritans had, though, perhaps been paranoid about Charles I admitting Catholics to the army being a first move before "reintroducing the Inquisition" (even though England never had the system called Spanish Inquisition and even though they misrepresented what the Spanish Inquisition was).
- 10:29 Ouch ... he considered Akkadians (a post-Babel people with a post-Babel language different from Hebrew!) as the population of Nimrod ... and he also considered Akkadian cultures of Classic Mesopotamian type as contemporary with Nimrod building Babel ... ouch!
- 11:38 Georgia's been there since the beginning of time. Russia's been there since the beginning of time.
Is he speaking of physical Geography?
Because Kievan Rus' was founded in the centuries recently prior to 988 AD, at which time Kievan Rus' became Christian.
As to Georgia being there since the beginning of time, or post-Flood time, Shota Rustaveli, unlike Armenian chroniclers, is not tracing Georgia back to post-Flood and post-Babel events.
12:02 I was precisely thinking he can hardly have been referring to the actual communities, given what he was just saying about Babel ...
- 13:03 I think he was referring to this:
"Georgian is the most prevalent of the Kartvelian languages, a family that also includes Svan and Megrelian (chiefly spoken in Northwest Georgia) and Laz (chiefly spoken along the Black Sea coast of Turkey, from Melyat, Rize, to the Georgian frontier)."
= Georgian IS basically Kartvelian.
"The Kartvelian family is not known to be related to any other language family, making it one of the world's primary language families."
Kartvelian does not come from *Proto-Indo-European or from *Proto-Afro-Asiatic, nor does anyone else have another very well established suggestion (OK Ruhlen may have considered it related to Na Dene languages* among Amerindians and to Sumerian, but that is about as loose as "Nostratic" - look it up).
13:19 Where the script is from is very irrelevant to where the language is from.
"Two inscriptions are dated AD 430 and the third one AD 532."
I think the gentleman is on the level of linguistic precision in which Stalin's mother tongue and the Bir el Qutt inscriptions are same language, like you are speaking the same language as Beowulf poem and I am speaking the same language Beowulf spoke ... Anglo-Saxon respectively Norse. Never mind linguists see some minor discrepancies of usage between Old English and Modern English or between Rune Norse and Swedish, or between Old Georgian and Modern Georgian.
*[I am not sure that Na Dene-Caucasian group as per Ruhlen isn't actually rather involving North Caucasian than Kartvelian, these are not the same group!]
- 13:39 You just disqualified yourself from discussing linguistics.
No, just because Old Georgian Script comes from Greek Script does not mean Old Georgian Language comes from Greek language. And just because Greek alphabet came from Phoenician, it does not mean Greek Language came from Canaanean Language.
- 14:06 More to the point, perhaps, Georgians and some South Russians are basically same race type.
Nevertheless, they speak different languages. Despite common origins closer than those of mankind as a whole.
- 15:39 You take on William Kalal if you like, I'm taking on you.
Blog posts are less exhausting than animated videos to make.
- Colour Blind Cross Stitch
- As a linguist, that was beyond painful. That's not how ANY of that works.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You think the story in Genesis 11 is just about explaining normal language change?
- Colour Blind Cross Stitch
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, no. It's obviously a myth written by an ancient people to try and explain a phenomenon they didn't understand (in this case, the existance of different languages). We see myths like this in just about every culture, as far as I'm aware. But watching someone take this ancient myth literally, and try to use a modern map as "proof" was, yes, painful. Because normal language change gets you, eventually, to all the different languages that exist, and we can explain, and show that evolution from one language into another. I know this guy's working with the best information he has, but oof. He really needs a better epistemology than 'because the Bible said so'.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Colour Blind Cross Stitch You claimed to be a linguist, right?
"Because normal language change gets you, eventually, to all the different languages that exist,"
That is much more than can be proven even on the grounds accepted as proof by those who consider PIE a proven fact (I tend to take the Sprachbund or series of Sprachbünder hypothesis of IE meta-group).
You cannot trace *proto-world to *proto-indo-european and *proto-kartvelian.
"He really needs a better epistemology than 'because the Bible said so'."
You really need a better epistemology than "this is ridiculous" especially when it is so only because "this" is not what you usually think of in the question.
- Colour Blind Cross Stitch
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I am a linguist, yes, but admittedly, not a historical linguist, so I'm not, perhaps, as well-read on the history of various Indo-European languages as you appear to be.
What I do know is that we've figured out many (though probably not all) factors that cause languages to change over time. And given enough time, one language can develop into a wildly different language. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that back. And thus we have an explanation for how there are so many different languages without a God. I don't see a point in complicated that explanation by interpreting a myth literally.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that language probably developed independently in several places in the world (we know, for example, that writing developed independently in three different places), rather than there being a *Proto-World from which all other languages are derived.
It also has to be acknowledged that linguistic reconstruction is a best guess, nothing more. Until time travel is invented, and someone can go back and actually see what language they spoke back then, we just have no way of knowing for sure. After all, we have no record of what they spoke back then because they hadn't invented writing yet.
But yes, I still maintain that given enough time (i.e tens of thousands of years), and the various mechanisms for language change that linguists have already discovered, you would be able to eventually go from one language to hundreds, or even thousands.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You really need a better epistemology than "this is ridiculous" especially when it is so only because "this" is not what you usually think of in the question."
I'm sorry. I do not understand your point here. "This is ridiculous" is a conclusion I have come to based on years of study about how languages work. Arguing that the Tower of Babel was a real thing that happened because two countries on a modern map speak different languages is, yes, pretty ridiculous. I know that a study of European history would give me a better understanding of how that situation came to be that way, along with a study of the history of the Russian and Georgian languages, if I chose to dive in to those studies.
No, I can't give a detailed explanation of how Russia and Georgia and neighbours who speak different languages, but all the accumulated knowledge I do have suggests that it wasn't because of the events in the Tower of Babel story. If you have further evidence for the Tower of Babel beyond "the Bible said so", I'd love to hear it. I will evaluate it, and if it seems like good evidence, revise my beliefs accordingly. Because in the end, I'm not wedded to the idea that the Bible must NOT be true. I'm trying to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible. So far, I have not seen sufficient evidence for the fantastical claims in the Bible, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.
The man Suris is arguing against in this video is starting with "the Bible must be true" as his base assumption, and then doing his best to shoehorn the facts in to line with that assumption. That's not a good way to figure out what is true. He's starting with his conclusion already in place. I'd maintain that is absolutely some bad epistemology.
If this does not actually address your point, I'm sorry. I tried, but as I said, I'm not sure if I properly understood the point you were trying to make.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Colour Blind Cross Stitch "What I do know is that we've figured out many (though probably not all) factors that cause languages to change over time. And given enough time, one language can develop into a wildly different language."
In fact how wildly depends also on whether a written language is preserved all this time.
But yes, with 20 000 years, one could have Japanese, Greenlandic, all of Indo-European from one source, with 40 000 years or 100 000 years perhaps all of the world's languages by this process.
However, you can get wine from water via soil, vine plants, fruits called grapes, pressing of grapes and fermentation. This does not mean the miracle of Cana didn't happen. Where water came from wine* over a matter of seconds or minutes.
"The man Suris is arguing against in this video is starting with "the Bible must be true" as his base assumption,"
That he is right in, if not the best proponent for.
And as a linguist, you have precisely nothing to be said against all the languages as different as Sumerian from Old Egyptian coming in a very short time after the Flood via a miracle at Babel.
Suris pretended we have historic knowledge of opposite, as we know French and Italian are not two languages diversified at Babel, since slowly diversified since Caesar instead. Reconstruction is not historic knowledge and even reasonable reconstructions need to step beck for historic documentation of actual data.
*[correction:] Er, sorry, it was wine that came from water at Cana!
- Colour Blind Cross Stitch
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I will grant that 6,000 years is not enough time to get to all the diversity of languages that we see around the world. However, we have archaeological evidence for humanity being around much longer than that, plenty of time for languages to change and diversify through completely natural means. And we have further evidence that the Earth is much older still, plenty of time for humans to have evolved language in the first place. All this evidence is stacked up again what one, single book says. I'm sorry, but I'm going to believe that overwhelming body of evidence over one, single compilation of stories. We don't have any extra-Biblical evidence for things like the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus from Egypt, &c.
Yes, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the events definitely didn't happen (so many things don't survive for archaeologists to find later), but how complete the lack of evidence is, there is such a high probability that those things didn't happen that I'm not going to believe that they did. It's the same with Jesus turning water into wine. I can't say for certain that it definitely never happened, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and someone writing it down claiming it happened is not evidence of that claim.
I would further contend, if you are willing to believe something just because someone wrote it in a book (even a fairly old book), that has the potential to get you in alot of trouble, because lots of people have put all sorts of absurd claims into books that could be detrimental to your health and well-being if you followed them. How do you determine that the Bible is the old book with the truth in it, and not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (to pick a couple other super old books, for example)?
This is why I think it's very important to evaluate what you believe and why, why epistemology is so important, why we need to practice critical thinking in all areas of our lives, because not doing can, and does get people into trouble (for example, the anti-vax movement and the return of measles). We need to follow the evidence where it leads, even if we don't like it, or it makes us uncomfortable. And so far, the evidence is definitely not pointing to the Bible being literally true in all particulars, the Tower of Babel story being one such example.
If you are going to insist and starting with the premise that the Bible is a true and correct historical document, I think we are just never going to agree, and will keep going around in circles, getting nowhere. But I would encourage you to always question, and doubt, because if it is the truth, it will stand up to the test of scrutiny, so let's not be afraid to apply that test. So far, for me, the Bible has not withstood that test of scrutiny, so, while I think there are many historical facts and incidents described in the Bible, it is also full of many myths and stories with no historical basis. If I am later shown to be in error, I will revise my beliefs accordingly, at the time.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Colour Blind Cross Stitch "I will grant that 6,000 years is not enough time to get to all the diversity of languages that we see around the world."
"However, we have archaeological evidence for humanity being around much longer than that,"
Not linguistic evidence, though.
So, as more or less linguists we are both amateurs on archaeology.
"plenty of time for languages to change and diversify through completely natural means."
Unless of course the dating is wrong.
"And we have further evidence that the Earth is much older still, plenty of time for humans to have evolved language in the first place."
Again, unless the dating is wrong, and on this one, how do you propose non-linguistic creatures could evolve language whatever the kind of time they were given?
"All this evidence"
"is stacked up again what one, single book says. I'm sorry, but I'm going to believe that overwhelming body of evidence over one, single compilation of stories."
Except that for one we have good evidence in tradition these stories are compiled from a series of factual accounts by contemporaries.
And except the evidence for an old earth is very far from overwhelming.
"We don't have any extra-Biblical evidence for things like the Flood,"
Yes, pretty plenty even.
"the Tower of Babel,"
Given the Flood and its recency and given language diversity, yes.
"the Exodus from Egypt, &c."
Ipuwer papyrus and Hyksos invasion.
"Yes, the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the events definitely didn't happen (so many things don't survive for archaeologists to find later),"
"but how complete the lack of evidence is,"
While it isn't.
"there is such a high probability that those things didn't happen that I'm not going to believe that they did."
There is such a high probability the traditions are correct that I am going to believe they did happen, so much more that they are also confirmed by Jesus (see next item).
"It's the same with Jesus turning water into wine. I can't say for certain that it definitely never happened,"
Well, if St. John was one of the guests he saw it happen (or if he was the bridegroom, as some have stated).
"but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,"
No. They require proof.
"and someone writing it down claiming it happened is not evidence of that claim."
It is indeed the main evidence we have for most if not all historic events.
"I would further contend, if you are willing to believe something just because someone wrote it in a book (even a fairly old book), that has the potential to get you in alot of trouble, because lots of people have put all sorts of absurd claims into books that could be detrimental to your health and well-being if you followed them."
We are talking of events, not about bad theories of medicine.
You can remember what you saw happen even if you are a lousy doctor.
Plus I don't think there are all that many old books of medicine where the recipes would be detrimental, it's just they had less than modern understanding of the reasons behind it.
"How do you determine that the Bible is the old book with the truth in it, and not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (to pick a couple other super old books, for example)?"
Bhagavad Gita and Book of the Dead happen to not be concerned with historic events, but theology, and I consider their theology as disproven by contradiction with Christian theology in some, not all particulars.
"This is why I think it's very important to evaluate what you believe and why, why epistemology is so important,"
Yes, indeed. So, why don't you evaluate how much of pagan histories (including what is often called myths) I believe?
"why we need to practice critical thinking in all areas of our lives,"
A scepticism against the main available source type of a certain truth type (written or spoken claim for past events) selectively in one particular instance or overall in instances when you really can't keep it up, is what I would not call sound critical thinking.
"because not doing can, and does get people into trouble (for example, the anti-vax movement and the return of measles)."
Yes, and getting measles is so horrible how?
"We need to follow the evidence where it leads, even if we don't like it, or it makes us uncomfortable."
I'd agree on the sentiment, but is there any relevance of it to either Bible belief or anti-vaxxers?
"And so far, the evidence is definitely not pointing to the Bible being literally true in all particulars,"
NO evidence provided so far. By you.
"the Tower of Babel story being one such example."
Except you have given no linguistic reason why it would not be true.
"If you are going to insist and starting with the premise that the Bible is a true and correct historical document,"
Several correct documentS, would be like it.
"I think we are just never going to agree, and will keep going around in circles, getting nowhere."
Except I can analyse why you pretend to reject it.
"But I would encourage you to always question, and doubt, because if it is the truth, it will stand up to the test of scrutiny,"
Doubt and scrutiny are two different things.
To me the Bible has stood up to the scrutiny of debate with several doubters and deniers.
"so let's not be afraid to apply that test. So far, for me, the Bible has not withstood that test of scrutiny,"
You have not presented to me how you conducted it. If you pretend to have linguistic reasons against the Tower of Babel, you are conducting it clumsily.
"so, while I think there are many historical facts and incidents described in the Bible,"
"it is also full of many myths"
What does the word "myth" exactly mean?
"and stories with no historical basis."
At least all stories from Genesis 2 onto Acts 28 have been presented within a framework allowing them to have as ample a historic basis as needed.
"If I am later shown to be in error, I will revise my beliefs accordingly, at the time."
Looking forward to your doing so next comment! Or one or two after that one.