Sunday, November 13, 2022

Other Thread Under Same Video


HomeSchooling, Germany and US · Other Thread Under Same Video · When bullies and bullied are both stuck in the same school ... · There are Other Debates Too

Prototypical
I was homeschooled from elementary through high school in the US, and honestly I don't have the highest view of the way a lot of us in our homeschool circles were taught. Religious fundamentalism and suspicion of authority were major themes in the curriculum and instruction we received. I graduated 8 years ago, and I'm still discovering things I should have been taught.

The parents of my homeschooled friends loved to point out the SAT/ACT numbers and the other performance metrics you brought up in the video, but I don't think any of them even realized there might be flaws in the studies reporting the numbers they loved so much. I wasn't really taught how to evaluate a source for reliability, quality, and bias in my homeschool career.

Overall I'm not a fan, it was a fairly isolating experience.

Jürgen Erhard
I wasn't really taught how to evaluate a source for reliability, quality, and bias in my homeschool public school career.

At least not that can remember.

That said, I still think mandatory public schooling is generally a good idea. I was bullied in school, but I also know that my parents could never give me the education I craved.

Dan Kay
Suspicion of authorities? So, you DID learn something useful!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[@Prototypical]
"Religious fundamentalism"

Like what is wrong with that?

"I wasn't really taught how to evaluate a source for reliability, quality, and bias in my homeschool career."

I wasn't taught very much in my carreere in public school on that.

"it was a fairly isolating experience."

Are you a fan of Blimy Cow?

Michael Utech
@Jürgen Erhard Since we are on YouTube: Do you read comment sections of English language videos on YT? I have the impression that discussions on German language/media videos show overall a much more critical response. Not in the sense that people criticise, but in that arguments tend to be evaluated critically instead of the usual sending of tribal messages.

That has nothing to do with home schooling, it's too recent a trend in the USA to have an impact. I remember that most of what I did in non-technical subjects in school was to consume information (books, sources, etc.) and then learning to reproduce them in my own words followed by discussing the topic in class. That was daily routine.

This focussed training had a huge impact on how I'm doing my job, even though that is not related to processing text or writing. On the other hand, I have deficits in memorisation and if I was not curious by nature, I would have a lot of deficits in passive knowledge (historical dates? Ugh.)

If I compare this with what I saw from education systems that have a different focus (France, former french colonies, US) and if I assume that my observation is not based on bias, then this has a huge impact.

I also did not learn explicitly how to evaluate the credibility of source, but discussing a subject based on a source did the job well enough and awareness that sources should not just be trusted is just math.

I was also bullied in school. I guess most if not all of us were. But I also experienced that most of the time there was someone, a teacher or another kid who stood with me. I have a lot of discussions about bullying with my kids and their teachers. If my kids bully each other at home, they usually hear something like 'guys, stop that' rather than a discussion about justice and teachers that we actually have at least once a week. I also bullied kids in school, but it didn't really worked out well, so somebody taught me to behave.

Dan Kay
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
What is wrong with religious fundamentalism? The same that's wrong with religion in general:

Everything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Dan Kay OK, I take it that you went from Fundie to Atheist / Agnostic / Other non-believer, then.

Mind if I ask you a question - was learning about Evolution outside your home schooled family a factor in the .... I'll spare you the term I would use and say ... change?

Martin Ohnenamen
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Everything, if it is imposed on somebody through "schooling"

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Martin Ohnenamen OK ... sounds like an excellent reason to avoid imposing Evolution belief by schooling!

Dan Kay
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "OK, I take it that you went from Fundie to Atheist / Agnostic / Other non-believer, then."

Not quite. I was kicked out of Sunday school at age 9 because I set a bible on fire.

I hope that clears things up for you where I'm coming from, and how much sense it makes to blow any religious bullshit into my direction.

If your opinion differs from scientific findings, your opinion is wrong. Not science.

Martin Ohnenamen
@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you look at the topic of the video and at home schooling in the US for religious reasons where is there the Evolution? Their religious ideas are all in the oppisite directiono evolution and back to dark ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Martin Ohnenamen The thing is precisely that "evolution" in the sense of The Synthetic Theory of Evolution is not the least synonymous with technological evolution, and on top of that, the Dark Ages weren't that dark.

SusA
@Hans-Georg Lundahl do you really think religious fundamentalism is okay and that it should be taught to children in school? Maybe I understand religious fundamentalism in another way than you do.

You can choose a religion class in school in Germany depending on which is taught in school, but religion at all isn't such a big theme here. I had one hour per week in school and it showed us not only our own religion but others as well.

If someone ist very religious they can pray at home or Go to church, but in Germany we devide school learning from religious learning in most schools. There are some private religious schools of course. But it's not very common today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Dan Kay In other words, you make science your religion and Nature Magazine (or similar) your Bible.

I am sorry for the confusion, I was tired and confused you with Prototypical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@SusA "do you really think religious fundamentalism is okay"

As it used to be defined before we had to do with one branch of Muslims who got the same name, yes.

"and that it should be taught to children in school?"

In such schools (including the family home of Wunderlich and Romeike families) that fundie parents chose, yes.

"Maybe I understand religious fundamentalism in another way than you do."

Maybe. Were you referring to Muslims changing our society so pork and wine is banned and veils are required? I'm against that too. But I am not against the Muslims having their children taught in Muslim schools, including the ones who erroneously present the Quran as a miracle.

"You can choose a religion class in school in Germany depending on which is taught in school, but religion at all isn't such a big theme here."

This was not quite the case in Austria in late 70's. My ma had to chose Evangelisch or Katholisch, as Lutheran and Salvationist, back then, she chose Katholisch, and it very much was involved in teaching Biblical history (I did well there) and in motivating certain Catholic doctrines (Eucharist and Papacy, stayed with me even the remaining time I had as a Protestant).

"I had one hour per week in school and it showed us not only our own religion but others as well."

Sounds like the Swedish system, which actually doesn't even allow you to chose confession.

"If someone ist very religious they can pray at home or Go to church, but in Germany we devide school learning from religious learning in most schools."

Most, yes.

"There are some private religious schools of course. But it's not very common today."

I am no longer into FSSPX, but their school system is a good alternative for most Catholics.

Sven Weihusen
@Hans-Georg Lundahl The basic is that you can choose. You learned Evolution theorie and that it is scientific standard. What you are actually believing is your CHOICE. And that is the important part. You get the choice.

You learn that some kid from a traditional family may be a bully while a kid from an LGBTQ family is okay. Or the other way around. Basically you are in contact with lots of other opinions, people and believes and have to figure out your own way.

And school is way more than learning it is also a social event where you make and meet friends and enemies.

What's the value of believing in the evolution theory from the bible if you never heard about Darwin and his reasoning and proofs? For example I believe in god but the "evolution" theory from the bible is just a myth created to explain something people couldn't explain at that time. Which leads to the question why god would allow such BS in his holy book if you believe that the whole bible is directly from god. For me it is a moral guideline not a law that must be followed down to the last word. But that is just my interpretation while others have other interpretations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Sven Weihusen "The basic is that you can choose. You learned Evolution theorie and that it is scientific standard. What you are actually believing is your CHOICE."

You are not taking into account how bullying affects this choice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Sven Weihusen "For example I believe in god but the "evolution" theory from the bible is just a myth created to explain something people couldn't explain at that time."

How many chapters of Genesis do you put down to that? Where and how do you find the transition?

For the part you just characterised, is there no likelihood Genesis incorporates tradition of actual history from the c. 3000 years prior to Abraham? Or the 3689 years up to the Exodus event? What is your argument against historical facthood and (after Adam's creation) historical transmission?

Tygat Tyche
Fundamentalist religious people tend to be dogmatic religious people - no matter what god they pray to.

And it does not make any difference if a fundamentalist muslim curses homosexual people or a fundamentalist evangelic christian curses divorced women.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Tygat Tyche "Fundamentalist religious people tend to be dogmatic religious people - no matter what god they pray to."

OK, what is your point against "dogmatic"?

The example you gave?

Do you believe homosexual behaviour and divorce and remarriage are no big deal?

David Powell
Are you comparing yourself to the average public school student, who can barely read and write or add and subtract, or the rare student who comes from an educated family and goes to exceptional schools where they are "taught how to evaluate a source for reliability, quality, and bias"? The SAT/ACT numbers are real--homeschoolers on average are better off than public school students, although of course every individual experience is unique.

SusA
@David Powell I wonder: where are you from that your public schoolkids can't read, calculate and so on in a normal way? 🤔

SusA
@Hans-Georg Lundahl why should sexual behaviour, divorce and remarriage be a big deal?

Do you think only homosexual people can have a problematic sexlife?

And no, I'm not homosexual. But I can't understand why people see this as a big problem. You can love who ever you love as long as you treat them well and they treat you well. That's for my understanding privat and doesn't matter for anyone else.

And for marriage: why should people live the rest of their lifes together if it doesn't work?

grandma k.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl there is nothing wrong with teaching scientific facts but that's not popular with creationists, is it ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@grandma k. "man evolved from apes and human language evolved from how apes communicate" is not a scientific fact, but a scientific impossibility - but that's not popular with evolutionists, is it?

Apes can't pronounce clear vowels like we do, their hyoids carry air bags that increase the volume and decrease the clarity.
Apes could possibly pronounce consonants like P and T, but could absolutely not hear them, they are too shrill for ape ears. This correlates to how the ears are thicker than ours.
Apes don't have, men do have two areas in the brain, Wernicke's and Broca's and Broca's leaves traces in the skull.
Apes and men have different versions of the FOXP2 gene.

Based on the testable parts, Australopithecus africanus is an ape, even if she possibly did walk on two, Neanderthal is a man.

But how human structure is organised is another thing that is absolutely unique against non-human animals, there are at least four characteristics that all human languages and no ape "languages" or other bestial ones have, and the guys you rely on have known this for decades and are not even close to getting a solution for hos the transition happened.

Any given language can be a cultural artefact, someone can invent or revive it before it gets passed down. Some taught their children Klingon, and Theodor Herzl taught his children to speak in everyday life Biblical Hebrew (that's the basis for the official language in Israel). But any language inventor or language reviver first was taught a first language, and he started learning it after so and so many months but well before age 2. That is before he was able to invent anything. Therefore, human language cannot have even been an invention.

But all of this is obviously not quite popular with evolutinists, is it?

kleingezockt
@Hans-Georg Lundahl in german school you get thought in source reliability 😊

Peter Meyer
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Religious fundamentalism" - Like what is wrong with that?

So, you think the Taliban are right?

David Powell
@SusA In the United States, it is common knowledge that the public schools are awful. Many are unsafe and little learning goes on, and standardized tests often show that the students are years behind where they should be. This is why homeschooling has surged in popularity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Peter Meyer I think I already answered, Fundamentalism was originally defined in ways that don't involve the Taliban.

Fundamentalist means things like taking your religion as factually right on factual matters, specifically when it comes to Gospel miracles, Creation and Flood accounts, afterlife and the actors that are invisible like God, angels, devils all exist.

That said, the Taliban might be better than the Soviets, and need not be worse than the Westerners after 9-11. Oh, by the way, they weren't planning the attacks, they were just hosting the one who did. A bit like Serbians in 1914 weren't planning Gavril Princips attack, but hosting him after the fact.

Tygat Tyche
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am going to start to think about you as a troll. I can not imagine that questions like > Like what is wrong with that? < or > OK, what is your point against "dogmatic"? < are seriously meant to be serious...

> Do you believe homosexual behaviour and divorce and remarriage are no big deal? <
Yes, i do. And even if there is one or more gods with different point of views and which will send me to hell for this. Well ok, let them do, seems to be a part of the job description. But no human being shall do!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@kleingezockt Getting through and actually learning are two different things.

grandma k.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl now your arguments are beginning to become interesting. So you are one of those religious fundamentalists who abuse the bible to exercise their private moral standards and prejudices instead of living according to Jesus' words by leading a loving and forgiving life. You are making the rules that you demand other human beings to live by : no homosexuality, no divorce and remarriage etc. Say no more , I have no respect for sanctimonious people like you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@grandma k. "no divorce and remarriage"

What rule was Jesus making in his words here:

And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[Mark 10:11]

No divorce and remarriage.

If you don't think that should be lived by, I don't need your respect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Tygat Tyche No human being was sending you to Hell, you aren't dead yet.

No, I am not a troll. I am a Fundamentalist minded Catholic, who got through a school time fairly close to Hell thanks to Swedish authorities banning my mother's homeschooling and sending me to where Evolution should have the upper hand socially.

If you are arguing for the pseudo-laws and the regulations that helped make my life miserable, you are not entitled to tell me to get over it. Especially not as I am trying to get other people, still that age, or who will be, spared that chore.

Dan Al
@Hans-Georg Lundahl But evolution is grounded in fact. The proposed benefits of homeschooling aren't.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Dude, your ideas of Christianity are not the end-all, be-all of that religion.

My parents are a Syrian Christian and a German atheist. They divorced for completely non-religious reasons, then he remarried and my 3 half-siblings were born.

TW
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bro, do you really need to comment your extremist religious beliefs under every video. Nobody wants to hear that. Saying that Genesis is facts will get you laughed at in Germany even by believing Christians. There is nothing like "believing" in biological evolution. Evolution is a fact and therefore is universally true and not a matter of believe. Most sane Christians have absolutely no problem with that because we know that beliefs and science are two coexisting things.

Sven Weihusen
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you figure in social interaction and/or information withholding?

No system is perfect so you have to choose the best system because there is no perfect system. It is up to discussions what is the best system but this also depends on how you value certain things. If you value social interaction high this is a death sentence for home schooling. If you value protection from bullying etc. high, this will be a huge bonus for homeschooling. Or if you value the influence of the parents on the child.

As with all things in life: things are way more complicated when you try to find objective measurements.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Sven Weihusen Social interaction will work best in the rest of the life for someone not bullied.

Keeping someone in a school where he is bullied definitely destroys the proposed advantage in learning social interaction.

A homeschooler teaching creationism is not necessarily withholding what the text books of the public school say on evolution. They may be doing this: "this is what the text book says, have you thought about this" and the thing the Wunderlichs added may well be information totally withheld in public schools, except possibly extracurricular dialogues.

Tygat Tyche
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
When you are citing Mark 10:11 i guess you have your fun with Lev 11.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Tygat Tyche Leviticus 11:31 and 36
All these are unclean. He that toucheth their carcasses shall be unclean until the evening.
But fountains and cisterns, and all gatherings together of waters shall be clean. He that toucheth their carcasses shall be defiled.

Sounds like good advice to avoid epidepics, some other laws in the chapter are actually no longer binding, since we are in a new covenant, but their symbolism is still valid.

Chew the cud requirement applies not to the eaten, but the eater, in his religious life, required to meditate on the religious truths.
Hooves that are totally cleft requirement excludes polytheism (many fingers or claws), using only one of the two testaments (Jews, Albigensians), using a mixture of both (Islam).

And yes, there is both clear Church tradition and clear indication in Galatians 2, we Christians are not meant to keep the old law.

Dan Kay
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nope. The bible is a collection of fictive stories. Scientific documents present facts based on evidence and can be reproduced or refuted. They are not based on faith.

Gravity exists, whether I believe in it or not. You can't say the same about your "god" who does not exist for me, and you have zero proof to support your beliefs.

The bible is just the claim of the existence of a creator, not the proof. Come back when you have hard evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Dan Kay "The bible is a collection of fictive stories."

Prove that they are fictive as Spiderman or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and not historic, like General Patton's or Homer's war stories?

Dan Kay
I don't have to prove shit, because you are the one making the claim that it's real.

That's not how any of this works. If I walk around claiming that there is a Green Spaghetti monster living in the walls of town hall, I have to prove it, it's not for anyone else to prove me wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Dan Kay "I don't have to prove shit, because you are the one making the claim that it's real."

In fact you do.

You are making a claim that this is real : a story made up as fiction, and received as such by a public we haven't a shred of a trace of somehow got mixed up with accounts of historic facts, and was received by a later audience as such without anyone recalling the fictitional origin.

Will Spiderman get into history books 100 years from now?

Catching up
on previous comments directed to me whom I missed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@SusA "Do you think only homosexual people can have a problematic sexlife?"

No, other people avoid children in other ways, like condoms.

"And for marriage: why should people live the rest of their lifes together if it doesn't work?"

In a normal marriage, what about their children?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Dan Al "But evolution is grounded in fact."

Except it isn't. Unless pepper moths changing coloration have the power to show how human speech developed from non-human non-speech.

"The proposed benefits of homeschooling aren't."

First, homeschooling is not a centralised system.

When Atheists in US (joined by Obama, technically not one) pretend they shouldn't be exposed to the pov of a religious group, how about Atheists homeschooling?

It is physically possible, it is legal, in the US, it is only not often done.

"Dude, your ideas of Christianity are not the end-all, be-all of that religion."

Not all of them, but what I have from the Catholic Church - including both rejection of divorce and remarriage and young earth creationism.

But suppose me wrong, is that a reason to say I should shut up? Well, perhaps, if you try to tell me what is right instead.

"My parents are a Syrian Christian"

Uniate, EO, or Syrian as honouring Nestorius as a saint?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@TW "Bro, do you really need to comment your extremist religious beliefs under every video. Nobody wants to hear that."

The Blackforest Family may not be a public facility that is obliged to keep speech free on their grounds (like unlike post office and universities). But they seem to respect the ideal, and I appreciate that.

"Saying that Genesis is facts will get you laughed at in Germany even by believing Christians."

Believing Christians, like Cardinal Marx is a devout Catholic?

Apart from you laughing (if you do) or being afraid of laughter (if you are) or trying to tell me I should be afraid of laughter (if that was what you are saying) ... what are your actual arguments against it?

"There is nothing like "believing" in biological evolution. Evolution is a fact and therefore is universally true and not a matter of believe."

While facts are universally true, many facts are underappreciated and therefore still a matter of belief.

By the way, evolution is not a fact. You do not see animal pairs procreating and offspring having one new type of cells compared to them. According to evolution believers themselves, that happens perhaps once in every 3 million years, meaning, not a thing you observe.

"Most sane Christians"

So, are you insinuating those that do "have a problem" are not just a minority but potentially insane? So much for public school teaching you tolerance, you are (basically, but not superficially) like a Muslim crowd yelling "are you insane?" at someone for denying Mohammed was a prophet of the true God.

"we know that beliefs and science are two coexisting things."

As in "non-overlapping magisteria"? Well, Galileo believed that. Do you prefer Galileo over Pope Urban VIII too, as a religious authority for Catholics?

Blue Flash
@Hans-Georg Lundahl do you feel the heat? Everybody is roasting you. You dont bring any rebuttal to the table.

Question:

there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?

Additional question:

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

Further question:

Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Blue Flash "do you feel the heat?"

Nah, not really. The weather is cold in Paris.

"Everybody is roasting you."

Or pretending to.

"You dont bring any rebuttal to the table."

You wish. Readers of the blog I repost this on will see the rebuttals (OK, some won't because they don't see what is there to see).

"there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?"

Humans have language. This is only possible on two conditions. A) Men have always existed. Or, B) God gave the first man language.

"(An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)"

I think there are evidences that the material universe had a beginning. Hydrogen is in stars all the time being fused into Deuterium, and Deuterium into Helium. This is a one way process with no return. There is no known process for Hydrogen to be generated (I mean atoms, getting H2 and O2 by electrolysis from H2O is not what will solve the problem). This rules out option A, men have always existed. Remains option B, God gave the first man language.

"Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?"

I calculated the rise of Himalayas after the Flood. I predicted that inhabiting that area was strictly impossible for normal human society (and a stray person would need to get out of there as quick as possible before a landslide or earthquake killed him) between the Flood (when the process started) and Babel (or even some time after). This was confirmed. Two prehistoric cultures of lower ranges of Himalaya include a Homo erectus culture from before the Flood and a culture carbon dated to 6000 BC, that is after Babel, after the 2556 that's carbon dated 8600 BC at the uppermost charcoals of Göbekli Tepe.

So, yes.

Additional question:

"Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods"

General answer specifically on the coherence - some of it is due to same ideology doing the conducting of datings. This also involves discarding aberrant datings.

"-- for example: radioactivity,"

That's not one dating method. I do radiocarbon, RATE project did a good job about the non-carbon methods as far as I can tell.

"tree rings,"

We have better conditions for dating 1400 AD by tree rings than for dating 1400 BC by tree rings. Precisely as we have better conditions for dating French kings in the 1300 - 1500 AD range than for dating Egyptian pharaos in the 1500 - 1300 BC range by the other lignine based method, documents on paper and papyrus. In each case, less and less of documentation, with more and more holes, is what is left, the further back you go.

"ice cores, corals,"

For both, uniformitarians use speeds that are aberrantly slow.

"supernovas"

What do you date by a supernova? W a i t ... distant starlight? Have you considered that ...

"-- from astronomy,"

There is no proof for heliocentrism, therefore no proof that "parallax" is really parallax, therefore no proof of distances from main series or from cepheids either, since these are based on the "close stars" and their parallax "measured" distance.

"biology, physics,"

Biology and physics refer to what in the context of dating?

"geology,"

Prove that all layers of Triassic are older than all layers of Miocene? Or that the Jurassic pterodactyl at Anckerschlag is older than the Miocene or something whales at Linz and Nußdorf?

Prove that the Triassic layer at Karoo is significantly older than the Jurassic but younger than the Permian layer at Karoo?

Prove that Permian, Triassic and Jurassic at Karoo are not simply same layer of mud covering diverse fauna?

That said, one unifier for the other methods, often used to reject either even starting a carbon dating or to reject one or more measures from "older than carbon datable" radioactive methods is precisely the idea we have "the geologic column" as a good and reliable measure of at least relative time.

"chemistry"

Like soft tissue found in Mary Schweizer's T Rex?

"and archeology?"

Already mentioned both radiocarbon and tree rings.

"(This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)"

That exact single question is, because the dating is conducted by same ideology.

The answer you rejected is actually not one I was proposing.

"Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants."

Certain swamps prior to the Flood could have had ferns rather than flowering plants. Plus pollen has been detected in layers where it shouldn't be.

Further question:

"Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis?"

I think more than one could be defended.

"How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark?"

7 or 14. Depending on whether "seven" refers to "couples" or "individuals."

"Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted."

The calendar for length of Flood accepted by CMI and myself is "over a year."

After the Flood, birth of Arphaxad has been presented both as being 2 and as being 12 after the Flood, depending on text.

"If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs."

I think everything I stated is contained in or compatible with diverse text version. If you present one of the passages as proof for the answer "1 couple" to above, the passage in question was about Noah's starting the Ark, and God was guiding Noah on the building project, not yet giving full detail on what to bring in on the Ark. Since most animals are not clean, this means the "seven of each kind of clean" could be overlooked in the general context of Ark dimensions.

"Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old"

God has given no evidence at all that is incontrovertibly for that.

"and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that?"

We have plenty of evidence against evolution. I gave granny k. some incisive answers on linguistics disproving any version (Darwinian, Lamarckian or Punctuated Equilibrium) - will you take on cell types which according to Evolutionists we are supposed to have gained one new every 3 million years, excluding neurone types? Because no one pretended to have seen man gain one new cell type within recorded history and no one pretends scientists were around to record the last new cell type 3 million years ago, and no one has to the best of my knowledge (and I do keep up with Evolution research by debating) even proposed a model for new cell types evolving.

God has given us the intelligence needed to refute evolution.

"Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?"

Modern Western norms of Historiography are BS. For instance, they require automatic disbelief or disbelief of sources when a miracle is recorded. History is history even if written to very different norms than the modern "you need primary sources that are contemporary, independent of each other and tehrefore more than one" and "you can't use a secondary source until it's confirmed in parts at least by primary sources" - these criteria break down not just when we get to Genesis history, but even to history as recent as Alexander and Julius Caesar. As a Classicist and Medievalist, I am somewhat in a position to know what I am saying here.

Scientific writing is irrelevant:
a) because no creationist, myself included, pretends Genesis was meant as a scientific textbook, so taking up that is a strawman;
b) because dating is done by history in preference over science. A specific residue of C14 in an organic sample can be used to date insofar as its value can be confirmed by history. For instance, a residue of 25 pmC is equally possible with a start at 100 pmC and a time of two halflives, and with a start at 50 pmC and a time of one halflife, and with a start slightly below 50 pmC and a time slightly less than one halflife. Genesis 11 would give the correct answer as history, it's the last option.

R vdB
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I was taught about evolution theory at my strict Calvinist Protestant Highschool. I think you shouldn't shield your children from scientific knowledge that you find contrary to your own beliefs. Because your children will find out about it and they will wonder why you kept it from them. Why you were afraid to tell them openly about it. And when they investigate on their own, you cant guide them and the impact will be bigger. I know people that were taught in a demonising and dismissive way about the theory. They investigated on their own and said the faith goodbye.

As a teenager I had already come across the term Evolution Theory in our Christian newspaper and wondered about what it was. I had found The Origin of Species in our library and read some passages. But because I had also seen that the Evolution Theory was in that years curriculum, I didn't investigate further on my own. My biology teacher taught the subject openly and honestly. He didn't try to demonise it or 'christianise' it to make it easier to deal with. He taught us what the theory actually says and then we had an open conversation about it. I respect him for how he handled the subject.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@R vdB
"I was taught about evolution theory at my strict Calvinist Protestant Highschool."

Fine, what's the point?

(OK, Calvinism isn't fine per se, but that's another topic).

"I think you shouldn't shield your children from scientific knowledge that you find contrary to your own beliefs."

As a creationist, I agree.

"Because your children will find out about it and they will wonder why you kept it from them. Why you were afraid to tell them openly about it."

Agreed on that too.

"And when they investigate on their own, you cant guide them and the impact will be bigger."

Not my case.

"I know people that were taught in a demonising and dismissive way about the theory. They investigated on their own and said the faith goodbye."

A good reason to give good resources of Creation Science. Something one has more time for as a homeschooler than as a single harrassed Creationist child in a classroom full of people saying "do you feel the heat?" and ignoring all answers you actually give.

"As a teenager I had already come across the term Evolution Theory in our Christian newspaper and wondered about what it was."

I find that kind of cute.

"I had found The Origin of Species in our library and read some passages."

I borrowed that book from a freemason, and gave it back at the exact point where Darwin passed from fairly good science (all dove species now alive have a common ancestor, good point for the Ark, actually) to where he started spouting BS (cats and dogs are related to each other basically as turtledoves and wood pigeons, except the distance is much further and the inbetween stages of a ring species or band species are gone - not warranted.

"I respect him for how he handled the subject."

I respect my mother for how she handled the subject. Her parents and the guy I grew up with as "father" between very early and a divorce at my age 5 or so, were all non-believers, and they had a go at teaching me evolution first, which they did.

Then, at my age 9 or some before, ma became not just in juridic theory but in actual practise. She gave me Christianity first, and criticisms of Evolution then, and absolutely did not stop me from reading the evolutionist book on man's origin already given me by the unbelieving granny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Blue Flash Revisiting:
"Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?"

I came to think of it, I only gave you one example, but if I gave you two or three overall, one or two more, that would be even better, right?

For one thing "if one forces you to walk a mile with him walk [another] two." And for another "by two or three witnesses" ...

So, here are two more.

I got Göbekli Tepe = Babel of Genesis 11, and this has linguistic implications. Before GT, everyone spoke some kind of Hebrew (which could be as different from Biblical Hebrew, as Dante or even Caesar from modern Italian?), after GT, everyone spoke different languages and only Hebrews spoke Hebrew.

From GT itself, like Jericho (starting at same period) - no writing or palaeowriting whatsoever.

Undeciphered writing before this: the 32 signs studied by Genevieve von Petzinger, found all over the world in the palaeolithic. Same 32 signs (including the #). Same alphabet, if that was what it was. If the actual signs in any given cave are too few to be alphabetic writing spelled out, it could be acronyms for instance for names or lists of names. Noah, Japheth, Ascenez could for instance be abbreviated as NJA (or corresponding) in a cave belonging to the tribe of Ascenez.

Underciphered writing after this: the paleowriting from Vincha is clearly different from the palaeowriting from Mohenjo Daro etc.

Now, the typical procedure is one language has one alphabet, two languages have two different alphabets, unless they learned writing from someone else, in which case they could take over and modify the first writers' alphabet. This would indicate that mankind went from monolingual to polyglott (but not individually so) around the time of GT.

I got Göbekli Tepe = Babel of Genesis 11, and this has implications for nomenclature of localities. Babylon at 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E is called Babylon in remembrance of the older site at Göbekli Tepe (which is about 4 and a half degrees further North and West).

Only the other day, I found ...

An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
Viewpoint by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White

Originally published in Journal of Creation, Volume 35, Issue 2, Published August 2021.

Sure, they didn't pick Göbekli Tepe, but Çınar, Diyarbakır. That's about halfway between my pick for landing place and GT. Their article includes this interesting passage:

Sargon’s conquest of a northern ‘Babylon’
Sargon of Akkad recorded his relocation of a city named ‘Babylon’ in the region of Diyarbakir, Turkey as part of his defeat of Subartu. He was one of the early empire builders, though we disagree with those who identify him as Nimrod. In the ashes of Sargon’s destruction of Ebla were found pottery with the cartouche of Pepi I of Egyptian Dynasty Six.16,17 Given Pepi’s place in the Memphite dynasties of Manetho, this places Sargon more than five centuries after the dispersion.


In other words, we have records from Sargon that Babylon at 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E is a relocation. OK, they go for Çınar, Diyarbakır. That is not Göbekli Tepe. However, we might want an earlier relocation too, if Sargon was (as I agree) not Nimrod. Why?

Genesis 11:8 And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

This means, the very original Babel was abandoned already in Nimrod's time. Now, if Nimrod's empire included Babel as the first capital, see ...

Genesis 10:10-11 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar. Out of that land came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale.

... then he would himself relocate after abandoning, and the area of Çınar, Diyarbakır is not far, and it is in the direction East, where Ninive also is.

So, I have two more predictions fulfilled. By the way, was 32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E already inhabited? Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White hypothesise that the former name, prior to Sargon's rule, was Akkad (in Akkadian) or Agade (in Sumerian).

Harald Reimann-Trusheim
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution is science. it is based on facts and proofs. Science is not a religion!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Harald Reimann-Trusheim I am well aware that your religion, being "Science" (hypostatised) tells you that.

TW
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your comment was the longest Youtube comment I've ever read. Man, you need a hobby. And by that I mean a hobby other than telling people on the internet that "heliocentrism isn't real".

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@TW I was telling you heliocentrism isn't what we observe - what's your rationale for believing it anyway?

Could a lack of answers (on your part) be a reason why you prefer me to have hobbies outside internet debates?

oxybenzol
@Hans-Georg Lundahl What do you think about Lev 25:39-44?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@oxybenzol That the time for freeing captives and slaves was not yet there.

That God gave Israelites the most humane rules possible in the meantime. I suppose you do not object to having an employer?

@oxybenzol Come to think of it. Let me ask you a question, now I have answered.

Obviously, I believe the Bible is inerrant and that God was not giving the Israelites back then unjust laws (or that a man falsely pretended God was doing so). In theory, I could deduce the historical exactitude of the Bible from there. Now to my question - do you think I would all of a sudden consider the Bible historically totally unreliable to irrelevant for any history, if I came to doubt or even reject Biblical inerrancy?

That's kind of what your question suggests to me.

Blue Flash
@Hans-Georg Lundahl those are not predictions. It was written in hindsight.

You clearly did not proof a single point and you missed the other arguments I gave you because you simple can't dispute them.

Reciting what was written in a book and saying that you think it might be the meaning is not a valid proof either.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I see what you are doing. By being vague and writing walls of text you deter from logical fallacies.

You give only 2 options for the evolution of human language, yet at this point you don't quote the Bible. In all other instances, trying to educate us, you quote the Bible. This is called appeal to probability. I'm sure you know that you stepped into the turf of the big logical fallacies.

Why do you go with these 2 options only?

Furthermore, the heliocentric model can be observed by everyone with cheap equipment.

You next logical fallacy: You say "A therefore B".
Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true.

In your very bad example, you could also argue its affirming the disjunct. You followed it up with a modal fallacy projecting it onto the next argument that is in no way connected.

With the definist fallacy you just claimed that option B is true and therefore building your argument on that foundation. You are scoring logical fallacies (formal and informal) all together.

Following up with etymological fallacies in which you read the word that was written long ago and interpreting it in today's wording.

With only quoting the Bible you follow up with false attribution. You don't seem to make a point.

I can write a book and claim every word is true. You are therefore falling for a historian fallacy in which you claim that the information given is absolute and was absolute at the time of writing but you can't claim it. Brewing up the kettle logic?

I'm a mechanical engineer from Germany, have been working in identifying objects that predate everything you said so far. I've got one of the best degrees and finished every one of my final papers and dissertation with 1.0.

Typing from a smartphone is hard and I typed way more since you just flood one with an amount of unusable, easily debunkable "data".

If someone doesn't answer you, it doesn't mean you are right. It's just that most people do have actual jobs and hobbies, families and friends. From here on, there is no point in talking to someone, radicalized, tunnel vision and an abundance of false information. You tried your best but please know that you are the laughing matter for everyone here. I feel sorry for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Blue Flash "those are not predictions. It was written in hindsight."

What is exactly your point? To me the things were new after I had made them. How else could you do a prediction involving past events? I did not know there was an ancient account of Sargon conquering and relocating Babylon elsewhere to somewhere in his domain (probably Agade) when I said Babylon of Nebechadnezzar was named for a Babel of Nimrod elsewhere. And the two men who gave me the news of the account didn't depend on me. I had already decided on other grounds Homo erectus was pre-Flood, when I saw one of the two oldest cultures in the Himalayas was the Soanian of Homo erectus. No hindsight involved. And I had already on other grounds (namely carbon dates of Göbekli Tepe) found that "6000 BC" was c. 2200 - 2300 BC, a few centuries after Babel, and dito for "7000 BC" whichever it was. That's the only kind of "predictions" you can make for past events - you predict a type of further findings about them.

"You clearly did not proof a single point ..."

(so "clearly" that you find it tactical to mention none of the specific points as not proven)

" ...and you missed the other arguments I gave you because you simple can't dispute them."

You do not enumerate one argument I missed, and in fact I took very good care to miss none. You are dishonest.

"Reciting what was written in a book and saying that you think it might be the meaning is not a valid proof either."

It is however a very valid answer to yourself reciting (or challenging to recite) a passage and pretend to know some other meaning, when that other meaning contradicts the text of another close passage. With two readings of a text, the one which harmonises has priority over the one "detecting" (if that's the right word) a contradiction.

"By being vague and writing walls of text you deter from logical fallacies."

The exact reason I "write walls of text" is that I am all the time citing you and being very careful to NOT be vague about what I answer, unlike what you are doing. If a wall of text scares you, copy it to a notepad, and start answering the points one by one. We aren't in an oral conversation anyway.

"You give only 2 options for the evolution of human language,"

I actually give no option at all for what is in this context meant by "the evolution of human language" - it's a non-option.

"yet at this point you don't quote the Bible."

Why should I, when you don't believe it, and I have proof that its story's implications are one of two sole options? And I have this from linguistic fact, which you as a science believer ought to accept. I believe "tota Scriptura" - everything in the Bible is true - but not "sola Scriptura" as in every true thing being in the Bible.

"In all other instances, trying to educate us, you quote the Bible."

I am not "trying to educate you" I am answering your arguments. When you ask a question specifically about the Bible, as in you pretend to detect contradictions in it, I obviously have to see what it says to state "no, the contradiction isn't there" - but this question was not about Biblical history, solely about basic metaphysics - the gap between beast and man is not bridgeable by "the evolution of human language" as you call it, and there are facts about human bodies ape bodies, language structure to support that. St. Thomas Aquinas didn't quote the Bible for the five ways.

"This is called appeal to probability."

No, it's not. I am doing a perfectly valid syllogism of the disjunctive type.

If X, either A, B, or C.
Not A, since Y ...
Therefore, either B or C.
Not B, since Zed
Therefore C.

This is not an appeal to probability and it is not a logical fallacy.

"Why do you go with these 2 options only?"

Because I had already excluded option A (human language evolved, emerged by evolution) in my answer to granny k. - didn't you look it up before you asked me if I felt the heat?

"Furthermore, the heliocentric model can be observed by everyone with cheap equipment."

Corresponding to the one Galileo had? Nope, refuting the Ptolemaic model is not proving the Heliocentric one. You forgot the Tychonian one.

"This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.”"

I know that is a formally invalid argument, you have not shown me I made it.

"It confuses the idea"

You are providing no analysis of an argument I actually made and showing it has that form.

"In your very bad example,"

Which you refuse to give, because my actual words would not support your misanalysis.

"With the definist fallacy you just claimed that option B is true"

There is no definist fallacy in saying "either A or B, not A, therefore B." I had already excluded evolution of human language, even if you missed that, so the options left were human eternity or God-given language when man was created. And I gave good reason to exclude human eternity by excluding a material universe ab aeterno, namely by the process H > D > He being one way. That leaves God-given language. If you find it hard to do a correct analysis from the thread, where you have to click and re-click, how about looking at the post I made from it, namely the now lates one on "assortedretorts" - there you only have to scroll, or you could even write it out.

"Following up with etymological fallacies in which you read the word that was written long ago and interpreting it in today's wording."

Which single word? The etymological fallacy is just about etymologies of words, you can't pretend a text has "an etymology" ...

Rephrasing a text in modern language is not the etymological fallacy.

"With only quoting the Bible you follow up with false attribution."

You seem to do vague analogies between what I actually did and what a list of fallacies can provide you with. And you contradict the other word about me not quoting the Bible.

"I can write a book and claim every word is true."

Your big difficulty would be making everyone around you believe it was what they had already known as history.

You'd have a better chance if you pretended you were rediscovering history (what evolution believers of diverse disciplines have consistently claimed, analogous to the golden plates), since a rediscovered history is by definition one your fellows hadn't known before you rediscovered it. Using this type of explanation for the Genesis text breaks down on the problem that no known audience of it has taken it for rediscovered history any more than they have taken it as fiction. To all audiences earliest known as such, Genesis was simply historic fact, not fiction and also not rediscovered.

"in which you claim that the information given is absolute and was absolute at the time of writing"

Historic and absolute are two things. There are non-facts that are easier to explain for fiction (a category Genesis never had until very recently, as far as we can trace audiences), or for rediscovered history (which maximally the six day account could have had, like some say God showed it to Moses rather than told it to Adam, but this is clearly not the case for Genesis 5 or 11). If a thing is first of all historic, and you don't believe it, your task isn't to claim I pretended it was absolute because it was received as historic, but to argue the kind of errors a historic text could have.

"I'm a mechanical engineer from Germany,"

In other words, not very versed in how history is argued. Thank you for the admission.

"have been working in identifying objects that predate everything you said so far."

For what dating methods do they predate them? Were you using the dating method yourself or were you handing the objects in to a lab? Can you argue why the dating method should be trusted over and above a historic text?

"Typing from a smartphone is hard"

My condoleances. I avoid that. Try to discuss from a cyber, or from a library if it allows access to the comments on youtubes!

"If someone doesn't answer you, it doesn't mean you are right."

Correct. But if ten people don't answer me, and an eleventh comes up and ignores what I already answered them so far, it comes off as suspicious to start the debate quasi from scratch without looking up what I already answered.

A smartphone is an excuse so far, but why not use a real computer?

"From here on, there is no point in talking to someone, radicalized, tunnel vision and an abundance of false information."

Demonisation and projection perhaps too?

"but please know that you are the laughing matter for everyone here."

Thank you for the information, why should I mind?

"I feel sorry for you."

Don't. It's just a tactic way of trying to make me look bad before our readers (yes, this is on a blog post too).

Claudia Karl
[further up, actually]
@TW I‘ve met him on several channels. It’s best to just ignore him. It’s a same only the channel owners can block him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Claudia Karl Only the channel owners can block me from answering, but you can block me from appearing in your feed or having access to answering you.

If you seriously feel bothered rather than on a mission to contradict me and tell others about me, that's what I would do.

Blue Flash
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You made the perfect argument for what I already said.

You said it would be hard for me to write a book and make everyone believe what I wrote is true.

Same goes for the Bible. The majority of humans, across all continents, age groups, genders, religious beliefs and scientific background do not believe what was said in the Bible. All the other religions combined, all the Christians that do not believe that the Bible is a scientific and historic accurate reference makes up the majority.

Therefore, you have millions upon millions, even billions against your firm belief.
With your text wall you created a tower of arguments that I easily tipped over.

I'm siding with the 78% of the population that is not Christian as well as all the Christians, like I am, that actually did more than reading a book and discovered during their work, on the side, that the Bible is indeed crap. It might be an entertaining book but it holds not up to any arguments and researches made all across the world.

Putin does think he is right as well as the Russians, that only watch Russian propaganda. The Russians, that are actually able to flee, search up a non-filtered internet, do see that Russia attacked the Ukraine and started a war, not a special operation.

You can be seen as the Russian that has only access to Putins propaganda. And everyone under the influence of Putin will tell them the same thing.

Just look at the up votes against you. If you really think that people would slightly believe in what you say, you would gather more than 2 likes per comment. And with all those comments it seems that nobody sides with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Blue Flash "You said it would be hard for me to write a book and make everyone believe what I wrote is true."

It's unfortunate you are so allergic to my "text walls" that you boycott the expedient of inserting exact quotes from me.

You do a sloppy performance in memory on two account, I will give only the two misses you made in italics.

// Your big difficulty would be making everyone around you believe it was what they had already known as history. //

Everyone around you doesn't equal everyone.
What they had already known as history doesn't equal what is true.

"Same goes for the Bible."

Nope. First of all, the Bible is not a book, so the proper comparison is single Bible books.

Second, Moses did make it believable to the Israelites that his Genesis was (apart from the six day account which he received in a vision, 1:1 to 2:4 plus some further verses up to when Adam is created) what they had already known as history.

The Israelites were everyone around him, and they don't recall him as having rediscovered history, they recall him as having written it down in one book (the book of Genesis can actually fit onto one single papyrus scroll).

"The majority of humans, across all continents, age groups, genders, religious beliefs and scientific background do not believe what was said in the Bible."

Irrelevant for the scenario we are discussing. These people are not included in everyone around Moses, and these people are often believers in what is roughly equivalent to rediscovered history, namely reconstructed history. Meaning, they are not good judges of historic proof in the first place.

"All the other religions combined, all the Christians that do not believe that the Bible is a scientific and historic accurate reference makes up the majority."

I wasn't making an appeal to the majority in the first place.

"Therefore, you have millions upon millions, even billions against your firm belief."

Right now we were not discussing "my firm belief" in the Bible as inerrant, but my conviction as a scholar that it is historic. Which is another point, and in case you missed it, I didn't.

"With your text wall you created a tower of arguments that I easily tipped over."

To yourself, yes, to all of our readers, no.

And to yourself by ignoring my actual words. Ingeneering is apparently not the best school for getting the arts of communication (grammar, logic and rhetoric, also known as trivium), but I would have thought somewhat better of the communication skills than that. Sure your discipline isn't even lower down in the ladder of bad communication skills, like shrink or sth? I am not sure an engineer would have so heavily abused terms of logic as you do.

"and discovered during their work, on the side, that the Bible is indeed crap."

If that is what you "discovered" then that "discovery" is an apostasy. The creed you might be reciting every Lord's day would include "qui locutus est per prophetas" and that includes all the hagiographers.

"it holds not up to any arguments and researches made all across the world."

You are not showing yourself capable of assessing argument in the first place.

"make everyone believe what I wrote is true."
is totally beside the point compared to
// Your big difficulty would be making everyone around you believe it was what they had already known as history. //

And when you criticise an argument by sth that is totally beside the point, you show yourself incapable of dealing with argument as argument.

"The Russians, that are actually able to flee, search up a non-filtered internet, do see that Russia attacked the Ukraine and started a war, not a special operation."

Is that how you assess the conditions under which Moses was believed?

A "special operation" involves the commander having access to special information, that the rest of his people can't see. The equivalent to this in historiography is rediscovered history - whether it's Joseph Smith's golden plates or Yves Coppens' reconstructions about 3 million years and "missing link" ...

For all we can see, the Israelites believed Moses wrote down what they had always known. How do you not just convince a man who never heard of Joseph in Egypt, that Joseph in Egypt not only existed, but actually was something they had already known all their lives? If Moses had claimed special access to special information for that, he would not have been able to delete the marks of that so that it was recalled as normal history.

"Just look at the up votes against you."

Truth is not voted about. The 78 % of mankind you refer to are not people refusing to believe my special information, they are people refusing to look up certain arguments about the Bible, or denied access to those arguments.

"you would gather more than 2 likes per comment."

I see no reason why the little community reading the thread should equal the totality of our readers, as I already mentioned it is mirrored on a blog post, nor that a reader not giving a like should be one who disagreed with me. Plus I am not requiring people to believe me on the spot, but hoping someone will actually read our arguments.

oxybenzol
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Most if not any historic novel is embedded in a true historic environment. That doesnt make the story itself true.

But this wasnt the reason why i asked about Lev 25. The old testament is more or less a copy of the Tora and therefore part of the Jewish Bible. This means Lev 25 is for Jews only. Well Jesus was jewish just like his desciples and Jesus never wanted to abolish slavery so it must be ok with the Christian God as well. But then how come we abolished slavery 200 years ago in the western world and not 2000 years ago? The old testament had no problem with it. Jesus had no problem with it but we decided to have a problem with it. We decided to act on our own instead of God will / Gods wish. Golden calf...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@oxybenzol "Most if not any historic novel is embedded in a true historic environment. That doesnt make the story itself true."

What was this answering? It's days since I answered your first one ...

The difference is, no one is likely to make the "Queens Jewels" by Alexandre Dumas a part of the history of Lewis XIII's France or Charles I's England (it is set on both sides of the channel).

Why? Because, from the start, it clearly had the status of fiction. Fiction is not likely to attain the status of history, so, if first audience known takes a text as history, it is very likely to have had that status from the first.

And unless it also from the first had the status of rediscovered history (like Joseph Smith pretendedly recovering a work buried in pre-Columbian America he was led to by an angel and made able to translate by God), this limits the freedoms the author can have taken in relation to what the actual first audience already knew before the (oral or written) redaction of the text.

"But this wasnt the reason why i asked about Lev 25."

OK ...

"The old testament is more or less a copy of the Tora and therefore part of the Jewish Bible."

The Biblia Hebraica is an incomplete Old Testament. It lacks seven books we find in the LXX. It also miscopied a few passages after the correct originals were translated to for instance Greek or Syriac.

"This means Lev 25 is for Jews only."

It is for the OT only.

"Well Jesus was jewish just like his desciples and Jesus never wanted to abolish slavery"

First century slavery in the Holy Land was hardly chattel slavery, if it so much as existed still on the exact conditions of back in Moses' times.

"so it must be ok with the Christian God as well."

While slavery of some sort as such is OK, if it is initiated by:
  • crime (slavery of some sort being the punishment)
  • need (if there is no better solution out of poverty)
  • born into it,
slavery is also totally NOT OK, even on OT standards, if initiated by slave hunt.

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death.
Exodus 21:16

When Canaaneans were bought as slaves, no Israelite was involved in the slave hunt.

When Canaaneans were made slaves by Israelites, under Joshua, it was for religious crimes, such as worshipping Molekh.

In NT we can treat no ethnicity as Canaaneans.

"But then how come we abolished slavery 200 years ago in the western world and not 2000 years ago?"

Actually, France, Germany, Austria, BeNeLux and so on were part of a Francia which in AD 680 mourned Queen St. Bathilde, who had totally abolished slavery in all of the Frankish Kingdom.

Meanwhile other parts of the former Western Empire outside Francia were abolishing slavery one by one, that is several masters were freeing slaves so that even in Naples region (outside Francia, inside a part of Italy reconquered from the Moors in 1033), which St. Thomas Aquinas knew in his youth, slaves were rare.

"The old testament had no problem with it."

Leviticus 25 is hardly what one normally describes as slavery. If anything, certain slavers were treating black people as OT Canaaneans, an abolished category - we cannot even treat ethnic Canaaneans as Canaaneans.

"Jesus had no problem with it"

Because it didn't exist then and there?

"but we decided to have a problem with it. We decided to act on our own instead of God will / Gods wish. Golden calf..."

No. Too much of the transatlantic slave trade was asking for the death penalty of Exodus 21:16. We abolished all of it, to make doubly sure.

murris miller
Today's ( 2020 -2022 ) abuses by Authority in the USA tells us in America that EVERYONE has every reason to avoid more abuse by myopic governor's and presidents who think that are always right ( ..and capable .)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@murris miller Good point.

Veronica Maine
@Hans-Georg Lundahl religious fundamentalism means you will be taught creationism for one thing.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we share 96% of our DNA with Chimps - you think that’s a coincidence?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl thanks for betraying your bias. It helps to know you have an agenda to push rather than engage in discussion. Your reasoning is so facetious it boggles the mind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Veronica Maine "you will be taught creationism for one thing."

And that's supposed to be a bad thing?

"you think that’s a coincidence?"

No. God created chimps too, He created them to have a phenotype in some ways close to ours, and He used a genotype in some ways close to ours.

The FOXP2 gene is very different, though, and it's vital for language.

"Your reasoning is so facetious it boggles the mind."

Because I don't answer what you expect? Is correct reason for you, someone else giving your ears what they are used to hear?

"It helps to know you have an agenda to push rather than engage in discussion."

It would seem somewhat clear that The Blackforest Family has somewhat of an agenda to push too, even if they stepped back a bit in the video. They did it less so in responses to me.

You don't find them not engaging in a discussion, so why do you find me not engaging in a discussion?

Is your version of an entry ticket to a "discussion" to not have positions a certain company considers obnoxious? Might be reasonable, if it's about discussion around a tea. We are on the internet. We are engaging with people we might not invite for tea.

Rebecca Ore
@Hans-Georg Lundahl , Southern US schools can be pretty dismal.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There are strategies that work to control bullying. Most bullies are protected by their parents and bully in their neighborhoods, not just in school, probably worse in their neighborhoods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Rebecca Ore The strategies "that work" sometimes don't work.

Sending a bully to a shrink, for instance, in the case of a ringleader in my 8th grade, only gave him the argument "we are only helping him to adapt" ...

"Most bullies are protected by their parents"

And when the parents are in the school business, this means getting a bully to stop in school may be impossible.

"and bully in their neighborhoods, not just in school, probably worse in their neighborhoods."

I did not find that. True, I did not live in the same neighbourhood (Höja had no 7th to 9th grade).

Shemaths
Yeah, that's not all homeschoolers. Many actually have positive experiences. Why should they suffer because nut jobs are homeschooling