Continuing with CallMeConvay

Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation! · Continuing with CallMeConvay · Some More Threads Under Emma Thorne's Video about "Helen"

My full initial comments on Emma Thorne's video are on the post

Creationism Isn't a Conspiracy Theory and Enabling a Precocious Child is Not Exploitation!
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/01/creationism-isnt-conspiracy-theory-and.html

The post was updated with lots of debate already, so some that a certain CallMeConvay added comes here.

A

under my comment:

6:39 "On a divisive adult topic that this kid doesn't have any interest in ..."

Apart from "kid" which is a rather capricious way of adressing children, why wouldn't she?etc.

which already shows some of the debate with him in the first post, from which I link to here after this is published.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes it does. Chemistry experiments are done with gravity in mind - you can't get away from that variable. If gravity was any different, all chemistry experiments would have to be redone, and there would be different results. The same goes for electromagnetism. Both forces must be acting on the subject, and if you change an input so must the output, unless you change the other input(s) to compensate. Hence, all experiments would have to be redone. (I)

YEC doesn't claim scientists are incompetent, it claims they are liars. That they are brainwashing the unenlightened masses. That we have been brainwashed (as you yourself have proven). YEC is a conspiracy theory. (II)

Niche != Cultured, buddy. You need to check your definitions, your English isn't even close here. (IV)

Science is data, and there is most certainly Data Science. Psychology isn't a scam, you were taught this because it's a standard brainwashing technique. Anyone who explains to you that you've been brainwashed is a lying, cheating psychologist! They can't be trusted! Thinking otherwise is most certainly a conspiracy theory. Conservatives and the religious are morally, ethically, and logically in the wrong, and they use deflection like that to whine and complain. (III)

You were exposed to bullying the moment your mother drilled an idea into your head with such fervor that you would foolishly defend that idea in public schools, where any and all groups will mercilessly bully each other for 12-20 years. That's on her, not us. (V)

"This elected representative, elected by popular vote of the people, and beholden to them, is a tyrant!" - a whiny 'lil bitch. (VI)

Buddy why the fuck are you still talking about goats. Goat. The farm animal. That has nothing to do with 'kid' or 'capricious'. Sure, it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats (it was actually hedgehogs, by the way), but it isn't used like that anymore. The origins of words means pretty much nothing when they have a more modern definition. Again, your English is 30 years past its due date. Move on, buddy, you're making no sense. (IV)

[...] It finally happened. I found someone so off the pseudo-intellectual deep end that they actually think they're pulling off better English than a native speaker. Listen buddy, håll käften. You don't know what you're talking about, and your rabid defense of your mismatched sentences makes it show. Your English is passable for conversations, but don't try to pass it off as equal, or superior, to any native speaker's. I'd compare it to a scam email, at best. (IV)

Hysteric refers to someone with hysteria as both noun and adjective, buddy. Hysterical works, "in hysterics" works, but plain old Hysteric doesn't. Again, your English isn't perfect. You're welcome, I corrected you free of charge. English tutors usually cost a decent amount. (IV)

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to the girl in the video. You know, the subject of the video you're complaining on. She is absolutely being exploited by her parents, as you sorta were when they convinced you to preach your YEC to a "captive" public school audience, but I wouldn't call that so significant as exploitation, more like plain old negligence with a healthy dash of incompetence. Then again, it is brainwashing. . . (VII)

Attacking YEC is a pastime of mine to be sure, and making sure Creationists know damn well they're morons is an important aspect of that. I mean, I can't just let YEC position itself as a near-equal debate to Evolution when they're not on the same plane of existence. I'm worried about all Creationists, that's why I care to comment. But no, I'm not particularly worrying about YECs getting bullied when actually innocent groups get treated worse for. . . acknowledging climate change and systematic inequality and other such obvious topics. (VIII)

Yeah pal, you should definitely listen when a native speaker corrects your English. At worst, it's an opportunity to improve your English and make your overconfidence less overconfident. (IV)

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "If gravity was any different, all chemistry experiments would have to be redone, and there would be different results."

Oh, you mean if one said gravity had a different value, those particular experiments which involve seeing how fast things react in particular circumstances would have to be redone!

Presumably, 2H2 + O2 would still => 2 H2O if Brown's gas were lit.

Don't overdo your case ... when we look for explosion plus water, we don't try to measure how fast it goes bc of gravity being this or how slow it goes bc of gravity being that value.

"Both forces must be acting on the subject, and if you change an input so must the output, unless you change the other input(s) to compensate."

Again, you are just speaking of when gravity is supposed to be another value (a practical result not all values have).

Again, you are only speaking of very few experiments in this case, like seeing how fast a magnet drawn by an electromagnet over a table moves .... for electromagnets moving magnets, you don't need even that.

So, no, if I denied gravity were what Newton thought it was (which Einstein seems to do anyway), that would not affect any experiments in chemistry or electromagnetism at all. Only if I changed the value of it would I land up with different values or reaction speed or strength of electromagnetism in the few experiments which were about testing that - so obscure I haven't even heard of them, I can just imagine it ...

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "YEC doesn't claim scientists are incompetent, it claims they are liars. That they are brainwashing the unenlightened masses. That we have been brainwashed (as you yourself have proven)."

Science teachers, science journalists, people like yourself, that's not scientists.

I claim these people are brainwashing each other, scientists themselves, and the masses into an exaggerated and disproportional respect for scientists who are on some levels incompetent.

So no, I was not myself demonstrating that scientists were out to brainwash people into a theory they don't believe themselves, I have not myself proven YEC a "conspiracy theory" unlike what you claim.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you're arguing that. . . science teachers and journalists are convincing scientists that Earth is old and they. . . don't do science and take it at face value? Yeah fucking right, a scientist doesn't take content in their own field at face value, and certainly not from a non-scientist at that.

Not only have you not understood that YEC is a conspiracy theory, you're incapable of accepting it. You'd have to accept that you've been an idiot for 50 years, and most certainly sacrificed a lot to keep that reality intact. I'm not foolish enough to think that my YouTube comments could get you out of your little world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Yes, I am arguing that.

By now no scientist alive arrived before schools and Nature and Smithsonian Magazine started pushing Evolutionism.

" you're incapable of accepting it."

Fortunately, I'm not very likely to accept your fit of hysteria as actual fact, no.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You need to learn how science works my man. Evolution isn't just floating out there in arbitrary science land, it's a core tenant of all of biology and any study relating to life at all. You can't just take out Evolution and still be able to discuss why Elephants exist.

And there's a big fucking difference between reading a magazine, or even a textbook, which says "Evolution exists" and blindly believing it does. Fuck I've proved evolution exists by doing simple data analysis on DNA, and I'm not exactly a scientist. Anyone working in the field of biology proves Evolution every time they do an experiment.

As for your last paragraph, you're just proving my point. You dismiss my arguments as "hysteria" because you're in too deep to backtrack now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "it's a core tenant of all of biology and any study relating to life at all."

Core tenants of a field are the most prone to being ideological.

"Fuck I've proved evolution exists by doing simple data analysis on DNA"

Such as?

"and I'm not exactly a scientist."

I believe you.

"You dismiss my arguments as "hysteria" because you're in too deep to backtrack now."

And you aren't?

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "Science is data, and there is most certainly Data Science."

Not everything that's accepted as science is as certain as raw data.

"Psychology isn't a scam, you were taught this because it's a standard brainwashing technique. Anyone who explains to you that you've been brainwashed is a lying, cheating psychologist!"

You show why psychology is a scam - it involves so much guesswork about what happened to someone else in the unrepeatable past.

"They can't be trusted! Thinking otherwise is most certainly a conspiracy theory. Conservatives and the religious are morally, ethically, and logically in the wrong, and they use deflection like that to whine and complain."

The latter pretty much shows upfront what kind of morality, ethics and "logic" one can expect from psychologists.

Meaning it is a partial art of bullying, not an impartial science on how personalities work.

A very clear example. A Christian who is concerned with some item or person having the gematria 666, or that number being stamped to sth, has a phobia according to them. Hexakosio etc. phobia.

But a Jew who overreacts to everything Nazi and everything remotely reminiscent of it (Germanic mythology, Christian versions of Fascism, Christians not Germanic Pagans and also not into Fascist régimes with outlooks reminidng them of Fascism or with a geeky love for Germanic mythology, you name it ... even Inklings!) for some obscure reason (or if it's just partiality) hasn't got any swastikophobia, na ...

Since he didn't answer

I answer remaining points (under A) on the post, but not on the thread.

IV

Absent

answer to the point:

Niche != Cultured, buddy. You need to check your definitions, your English isn't even close here.

There is a difference between verbal understanding, admitting they are not the same word, and contextual understanding - I was making the point that cultured people have a huge tendency to be niche. One goes off and plays flute, another does riding, a third is an Evolution Geek, a fourth is a Creationist Geek. If one is into "that's not a normal interest" (or "regular stuff") "for that age" one is placing oneself in the less cultured masses where everyone does about the same thing.

Buddy why the fuck are you still talking about goats. Goat. The farm animal. That has nothing to do with 'kid' or 'capricious'. Sure, it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats (it was actually hedgehogs, by the way), but it isn't used like that anymore. The origins of words means pretty much nothing when they have a more modern definition. Again, your English is 30 years past its due date. Move on, buddy, you're making no sense.

I appreciate the irony of "it's a common belief that the word originally referred to goats" ... I share that common belief.

[...] It finally happened. I found someone so off the pseudo-intellectual deep end that they actually think they're pulling off better English than a native speaker. Listen buddy, håll käften. You don't know what you're talking about, and your rabid defense of your mismatched sentences makes it show. Your English is passable for conversations, but don't try to pass it off as equal, or superior, to any native speaker's. I'd compare it to a scam email, at best.

I did not say I was "pulling off" an overall "better" English, I said my English is more complete as to familiarity with different expressions and longer sentence structures. His complaint about "mismatched sentences" shows the incompleteness.

Hysteric refers to someone with hysteria as both noun and adjective, buddy. Hysterical works, "in hysterics" works, but plain old Hysteric doesn't. Again, your English isn't perfect. You're welcome, I corrected you free of charge. English tutors usually cost a decent amount.

Basically, I consider him equivalent to someone suffering from hysteria. I also consider Bill Nye an even worse case.

Yeah pal, you should definitely listen when a native speaker corrects your English. At worst, it's an opportunity to improve your English and make your overconfidence less overconfident.

I feel a certain familiarity with the situation ... I learned the expression Dunning Kruger pretty quickly while on internet as early as in early 2001 - by someone thinking me an illustration of the concept.

That my feeling of being "better" (I prefer "more complete") at languages not my own should be considered part of it just might come from an episode while I was in prison in 1998. I was learning Spanish. Another inmate had South American origins and a Spanish father. When that Spanish father illustrated "vosotros" (informal plural you) with "vosotros en la familia" he (the South American) imagined "vosotros" was European Spanish for "nosotros" ... some people would have preferred me to throw away the Spanish books and go entirely by what the South American told me.

Generally, it is a fact that foreigners learning a language from books tend to learn a more formal and literary and in that sense more complete form of it than the colloquial mastered by the native speakers. I am not saying I have equal fluency or anything like that, just that the correction is superfluous.

V

Absent

answer to the point:

You were exposed to bullying the moment your mother drilled an idea into your head with such fervor that you would foolishly defend that idea in public schools, where any and all groups will mercilessly bully each other for 12-20 years. That's on her, not us.

It's a great case against sending teens to public schools. And it's not on her, since she twice over allowed me homeschooling.

What is on people like "Convay" is sympathising with sending teens to public schools.

Also, he has no case for anyone drilling anything into my head with fervour - the bullies tried to, but didn't succeed.

VI

Absent

answer to the point:

"This elected representative, elected by popular vote of the people, and beholden to them, is a tyrant!" - a whiny 'lil bitch.

A nice thing to tell a Jew in Germany in 1938 ...

Elected governments are sometimes tyrannical.

All four states of the Northern Countries have for decades tyrannised Gipsies, Lapps and Esquimeaux by eugenics, meaning those most examplifying the particular lifestyles were often prevented from getting children or for getting more children than they had. I call that tyranny - and I suppose "Convay" would as well. Either way, it was not on some dictator taking power away from elections, it was on elected governments, in Sweden a PM called Per Albin Hansson. It only ended in the 1970's.

For 19th C. England, it's arguable that some laws against labour unions were tyrannical, same observation there.

VII

Absent

answer to the point:

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to the girl in the video. You know, the subject of the video you're complaining on. She is absolutely being exploited by her parents, as you sorta were when they convinced you to preach your YEC to a "captive" public school audience, but I wouldn't call that so significant as exploitation, more like plain old negligence with a healthy dash of incompetence. Then again, it is brainwashing. . .

I wasn't preaching, I was arguing ... oh, wait, to some uncultured proles of Atheist convictions, expressing Atheism is arguing whatever style you use, however preachy it may be, and expressing Christianity is preaching, even if it takes the form of argument ...

It is absolutely not in any way shape or form a certainty that the girl is exposed to any kind of unleasantness for it, since she's in the US - in some states and in some ways a freer place than Sweden.

VIII

Absent

answer to the point:

Attacking YEC is a pastime of mine to be sure, and making sure Creationists know damn well they're morons is an important aspect of that. I mean, I can't just let YEC position itself as a near-equal debate to Evolution when they're not on the same plane of existence. I'm worried about all Creationists, that's why I care to comment. But no, I'm not particularly worrying about YECs getting bullied when actually innocent groups get treated worse for. . . acknowledging climate change and systematic inequality and other such obvious topics.

How come I am reminded of a Danish prole who assured me it was his obligation to the Danish constitution to tease Swedes ...

This type of personality, in this type of expression, not just defty working to humiliating someone over a bad argument, but openly uttering humiliating sentiments galore to deflect from all and any issues, is one I do not belong with.

As to it being his pastime, I thik he got enough when it came to me ...

B

under the comment:

16:45 She might have been the person who dragged her parents to Dinosaur adventure land in the first place.

Just because she loved the swings doesn't mean she only cares about the rest bc told to!

after some debate with "Hm Grraarrpffrzz" (his or her own chosen handle, I didn't make it up).

CallMeConvay

No, she wasn't. It doesn't show up on an 11-year-olds advertisements, and any half-baked parents can tell what it is before you get to the gates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay You obviously misread what I actually wrote. Your refutation doesn't deal with it.

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, as has been the standard, the English is lacking as hell. But either way, no. An 11-year-old girl isn't going to learn about Dinosaur Adventure Land unless her parents (or church I guess) talks about it. And they're obviously not doing that for the swings.

And again, an 11-year-old isn't going to give a shit about the YEC and anti-science bullshit that she's being exposed to unless it's, ahem, "emphasized" by her parents (again, and church I guess).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "An 11-year-old girl isn't going to learn about Dinosaur Adventure Land unless her parents (or church I guess) talks about it."

I think I already stated, I never said the parents didn't talk about it first.

I just mentioned she might have been the one nagging about it.

After all, it was an expense for the parents.

"And again, an 11-year-old isn't going to give a shit about the YEC"

According to your "base group" which would equally prove 11 year olds don't want to learn ballet, don't want to learn guitar, don't want to learn astronomy (which I very much wanted at age 8), etc ...

Most 11 year olds do care about the things the parents care about. So, if parents care about YEC, so do their 11 year olds.

C

under my comment:

15:40 Could it be that far bigger channels resent family vloggers simply because they are often Christian and making Christianity attractive?

after some debate with "Hm" (etc)

CallMeConvay

I mean, yeah that's part of it. Trying to spread your religion with child laborers is disgusting, no matter which religion it happens to be. But in general, it's the "child laborers" part that matters, far more so than the "spreading religion" part of it. You know, 'cuz it isn't just the Christian ones getting hate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Has it occurred to you that the parents are perfectly capable of shielding the children from both too much work load and too nasty comments?

Have you any kind of reason to assume the girl actually already had to deal with bad comments?

"Trying to spread your religion with child laborers is disgusting, no matter which religion it happens to be."

Including Evolutionism? EVERY boy interested in Evolution and Dinosaurs and wanting to bash Creationists must also go?

There is one in France. He's probably at university now, but I recall and linked to a video from his middle school days, seven years old.

D

under my comment:

14:54 No, "we" have not legally recognised it's harmful for children to be seen when in factories or chimneys, "we" (well, Sweden too) have legally recognised:

• coal particles (both chimneys and mines)
• hot furnaces in factories
• heavy machinery falling down in factories

are all harmful for children's bodies.

CallMeConvay

Brush up on your English, that's exactly what she said. The "to be seen" doesn't [...] exist. And countries (including Sweden and the US/UK) have recognized that it's bad for children as a whole to be child laborers, not just that it's bad on their bodies. It's also horrible for your brain and individuality, and certainly your mental health in general.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay // The "to be seen" doesn't |..] exist. //

It is harmful + to + verb (active or passive, present infinitive).

It does. Your "regular English" is an incomplete English.

One could also turn it around and drop the it:

"verb + -ing + is harmful" ("being seen on social media is harmful")

"that's exactly what she said."

Well, those things she enumerated along with social media are harmful to bodies - while being seen on social media isn't harmful.

"have recognized that it's bad for children as a whole to be child laborers,"

Are children banned from doing cinema now?

"It's also horrible for your brain and individuality, and certainly your mental health in general."

David did some shepherding that wasn't bad for his ... and you are hysteric, insofar as you seem to suffer from severe hysteria.

E

under my comment:

12:40 No, my dear patronising wimp, we don't have to do sth!

People of your level of hysteria ruined my teens.

with its follow up.

CallMeConvay

You're, what did you say, in your 50s? There weren't exactly people going crazy for evolution in the 70s and 80s, but there were certainly people who would try to, you know, break your indoctrination into a dangerous and anti-science belief system?. . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "There weren't exactly people going crazy for evolution in the 70s and 80s,"

You haven't seen the Swedish Social Democrats. 1983.

"there were certainly people who would try to, you know, break your indoctrination into a dangerous and anti-science belief system?"

Dangerous and "anti-science" connect how?

They certainly did try to "break my indoctrination" in ways that came far closer to breaking me.

F

under my comment:

12:03 The 11 year old girl is not a "mini version of Kent Hovind" because she shares his Creationism or even the bad parts of his theology (Baptism, Anti-Catholicism, Teetotalism read into the Bible ....).

I was not a mini version of my mother because I shared her theology, more or less. Including Creationism. etc

CallMeConvay

"Indoctrinating someone in the image of another doesn't make them a mini-[enter person here]". Uh, yes it [...] does. I'm no mirror image of either of my parents, but when you teach a kid to believe what you (or someone you idolize) believes, that's exactly what you're doing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay No, one has a separate character from one's parents no matter how much one shares of their belief system.

I wish one could say one has a separate character from one's teachers no matter how much they remold one's belief system compared to from home, but they often try to reshape characters as well.

In senior high school, I was a stunted version of myself, because some hysteric persons with too much power wanted to protect me from being a "mini version of my mother"' which I was very much not at all anyway.

Thanks for showing our readers you are into propagating same kind of hysteria and same kind of harm that CPS do to children and to teens. I hope that to some of them it discredits you.

@CallMeConvay By the way, quotation marks are for quotations, not for own distortions.

"Indoctrinating someone in the image of another"

as you put it was not my actual words.

G

under my comment:

11:34 "their favourite criminal conspiracy theorist"

I lobbied to get him out of prison. But apart from whether he's innocent or criminal, his charges were not about his "conspiracy theory" etc.

CallMeConvay

Um, yeah, Hovind's fraud was directly related to his peddling of Conspiracy Theories. . .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay No, indirectly, namely in how he filed taxes or paid workers.

@CallMeConvay But thanks for showing you are a Commie who imagines US is Soviet Russia where YEC was criminalised ....

H

under my comment:

11:05 Apart from "high school education" (is that as far as you got in Evolution?) and "bullshitter" - what about an Atheist saying "God knows ..."?

CallMeConvay

Improve on the English my man, this comment means jack shit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Improve yours.

I think Emma knows what I am saying even if you don't.

I a

under my comment:

10:39 "most Evolutionists aren't very nice"

OK, you haven't seen abuse, but you assume she has. etc.

CallMeConvay

This is another "I'm sure everything is fine because it would suck for my argument if it wasn't". Moving on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Actually, it was first of all Emma's "I'm sure everything is horrible, because it would suck for my argument if it wasn't"

It sucks for families if the societal presumption isn't "everything is fine" until otherwise proven.

I b

under my comment:

9:37 Have you seen any abuse under this girl's channel?

I see you speaking of the abuse she could get. etc.

CallMeConvay

Yes. There are Conspiracy Theories on the Internet, abuse and anger are fucking guaranteed. And child YouTubers are commonly abused by their parents in some way. The only reason to think this particular little girl is being protected is because if she wasn't you'd be in a shit position. And obviously not, YT commenters have no etiquette. Source: I read YouTube comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "abuse and anger are fucking guaranteed."

There is no guarantee the child is exposed to them.

Mother or father could go deleting comments that aren't OK for children to see.

"And child YouTubers are commonly abused by their parents in some way."

That's the agenda you want to push, but you have done nothing zilch and nada to prove.

@CallMeConvay Plus, if "abuse and anger are guaranteed - against an 11 year old girl - that says something about the civilisation level of Evolutionists!

J

under my comment:

8:00 As I recall, the conspiracy theories you grew up with genuinely were conspiracy theories.etc.

CallMeConvay

They're more or less the same fucking theories. Your English is falling behind here, so let me explain: A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something harmful. A Conspiracy Theory is a Theory that a group exists to do something harmful. YEC is a Conspiracy Theory peddling that science, governments, and mainstream religion pretends that the Earth is billions of years old in order to oppress and disenfranchise "true believers". Chemtrails are also a conspiracy theory yes, but it's a Theory, which means that it is incorrect by default. The Watergate Conspiracy is NOT a Conspiracy Theory because it's been proven true. YEC hasn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something harmful."

Yes. Note "secret" ...

"A Conspiracy Theory is a Theory that a group exists to do something harmful."

... in secret and hiding their real intentions.

That's not like "a group exists that is actually doing harm, openly, even if they don't realise it" - if it were, you'd be a prime example of a conspiracy theorist against Creationists.

"YEC hasn't."

Evolutionism hasn't.

@CallMeConvay Convenient for you to pretend I misunderstand the English, so you don't have to deal with me saying you misunderstand YEC ...

K

under my comment:

7:52 It's pretty common for parents to tell their children what to believe.

Obviously, at a certain point in time, KKK was very much against Catholic parents doing so,etc.

The latter documented by Candace Owens:

WHAT IS THE KKK UP TO TODAY? | Ep. 81
Candace Owens Podcast, 26 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vZWRgOUsUo

and after debate with "Hm Grraarrpffrzz"

CallMeConvay

It is absolutely preferrable for children to be taught by. . . teachers. Parents can only pass down what elementary, almost always flawed, understandings they have. It is the career of a teacher to have as fewer misunderstandings, and the most complete base of knowledge needed to teach their subject.

Just because lots of parents teach their children to believe doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially when that belief is harmful to that child's future, like say, YEC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay The general outlook and the facts are two different things.

YEC isn't harmful to anyone's future unless people like you make it so.

Meaning certainly people with your outlook, I don't know your position, could be involved too.

Most facts teachers can provide (and I could be a language teacher and you could profit from me) are less important than the general outlook.

It's preferrable to have it from home rather than from strangers breaking down one's parents' influence, until one is oneself ready to step away from some things the parents taught. That's a different thing from having parents "corrected" (overruled) by dictatorial school teachers in a system of compulsory public education like the KKK wanted from 1868 ....

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YEC is absolutely harmful to your future. Good luck becoming a respectable scientist or respectable person outside of the YEC "community" in general. You have to accept such delusions that you're at a serious disadvantage at the minimum.

I don't know why you think that a teacher, you know, someone who's job it is to teach, is going to be worse at teaching literally anything than a parent unless that parent is themself extremely qualified at a specific subject.

I certainly don't know why you think you could ever be an English teacher so I'll assume you're referring to teaching Swedish, to which I say no thanks. Believe me, it's a weird "flex".

Learning from parents only leads to outdated knowledge and copy-cat ideas and ideals. It isn't fucking preferrable to being taught in a public school system. Advocating for the education methods of the 1800s is impressively stupid.

Your KKK example is [...] stupid, people try to manipulate any system, it doesn't matter if they don't succeed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay I'm saving some for the last.

" is going to be worse at teaching literally anything than a parent unless that parent is themself extremely qualified at a specific subject."

General outlook and specific subject don't coincide.

"I certainly don't know why you think you could ever be an English teacher"

Unlike you, I am aware that you can say both
Smoking is bad
and
It is bad to smoke.

Unlike you, I am aware that "smoking" can be replaced by any present participle, and "to smoke" by any infinitive - including a passive one.

But I wouldn't want a classroom full of prole unteachables like you.

"only leads to outdated knowledge and copy-cat ideas and ideals."

Outdated knowledge is granted for some special subjects, which is less important. On a subject the pupil needs to know for his carreere, he can update ...

Copy-cat ideas and ideals - well, I'd be better off copying my family's than my teachers'!

That's the exact point.

"Advocating for the education methods of the 1800s is impressively stupid."

Why are you doing it then? Did you miss the point that your ideas and ideals on the subject are copied from 1868 KKK ones?

"it doesn't matter if they don't succeed."

But they did succeed in giving the US a Department of Education.

They did succeed in making homeschooling and private schools less readily available in the US.

So, now for what I actually saved for last:

"Good luck becoming a respectable scientist"

Thank you for showing how scientists, both in reality, as you show, and by our standards, are victims and not conspirers ... they are obliged by the group pressure to be Evolutionist before they even start their carreere.

"or respectable person outside of the YEC "community" in general."

Oh, "respectable ... in general" - that's admitting you are involved in bullying! You disrespect YEC.

That means, yes, being YEC is in some places a disadvantage, because of the bullying by people like you.

L

under my comment:

7:35 Being 11 doesn't stop one from having thoughts on evolution.

CallMeConvay

Yeah it kinda does. No 11-year-old is pondering the origin of species unless they're told to. The girl isn't a supergenius, they're a normal kid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay So, if I wondered what "mutations" could bring around a fish to become an amphibian (in fact mutations don't do that kind of things), at age 6 when reading a children's book on evolution, that makes me a "super genius"?

You really show you are Plebeian, no culture at all, no comprehension people who are more cultured than you are usually more niche than you.

Thanks for discrediting yourself once again!

M

under my comment:

7:13 So, when you were 11, you were making no arguments about any theoretical matters?etc.

CallMeConvay

When you're 11 you don't publish conspiracy theories about the existence of dinosaurs and age of the earth. The "theoretical matters" you worry about are why the sky is blue, or how far you can see from the top of a mountain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay At 11?

I had been told those things way earlier.

Thanks for showing once again your background is a culturally undernourished one!

@CallMeConvay Plus obviously she was not voicing a conspiracy theory.

Even if you think YEC is ultimately that, it has lots of other arguments to offer, and you bet those would be what are shown forefront at Dinosaur Adventure Land.

N

under my comment:

6:11 Neither the child, nor the parents are considering that the Creationist content is "embarrassing"etc.

CallMeConvay

Are you seriously under the impression that. . . Conspiracy Theory videos aren't controversial? It's a predetermined outcome of making one of them, you don't need to be a fucking genius to figure it out. Even IF the parent's were so fucking dull that they didn't realize it until the first Conspiracy Theory video, it would be negligence not to realize as much after the fact and act accordingly by taking that video down and releasing no new ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay If your English hadn't been in the fog of a prole who never learned to read, you might have noticed:

1) controversial does not mean embarrassing
2) and YEC, especially as voiced by an 11 year old, is not a conspiracy theory

" they didn't realize it until the first Conspiracy Theory video, it would be negligence not to realize as much after the fact"

Neither Emma, nor you, have so far shown that "Helen" was in any way, shape or form exposed to trauma.

You argue it should have happened, must have happened, therefore it did happen - you haven't shown it did.

O

under my comment:

6:03 Your enumeration of possibilities ...etc.

CallMeConvay

The parents had to allow her to do it. She can't do it herself, and it's against ToS for her parents to allow it. An no, there is a 0% chance she wanted to make the videos worthy of mention on her own, she's a little kid, not a conspiracy theorist. The parents had to allow monetization themselves, they didn't stumble into it. Option 3 isn't a fucking option.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "An no, there is a 0% chance she wanted to make the videos worthy of mention on her own, she's a little kid,"

Your "zero % chance" is worth zero as an argument.

"The parents had to allow monetization themselves,"

Do you know for a fact the videos are monetised?

Do you know for a fact that the money isn't put on a locked bank account? Which she accesses at 18 or 21.

Do you know for a fact it isn't simply giving her pocket money?

P

under my comment:

4:33 Do you know for a fact the channel is even monetised?etc.

CallMeConvay

It's [...] easy to check if a channel is monetized. Google it. And it doesn't matter what the parents are doing with that money, they're profiting off the labor of an 11-year-old girl. It couldn't matter less how that money was made and for what it's being used.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay "Google it."

Since Emma chose to not disclose either girl's name or channel name, I can't.

Are you too Alzheimer affected to know you have to have a search term to google sth?

"And it doesn't matter what the parents are doing with that money,"

You seriously should be calming down from your Hysteria!

But thanks for showing our readers it is not about principles normal people identify with, for you it's about hysteria and getting it satisfied.

Q

under my comment:

2:00 The child is arguably having a youtube account by parental permission - or acting in the parents' account.

CallMeConvay

Oh my god you made so many of these nutjob comments, what a treat!. Her account is treated as her account, and children under 13 aren't supposed to be on YT at all. No technicalities will get you out of this one. Her channel simply shouldn't exist in this form.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Again, Motorsport Gigantoraptor - a boy who seven years ago, in middle school made pro-Evolution videos, obviously with his dad's approval.

Footnote on previous post: Évolutionnisme et Endoctrinement - l'ADLC#3 M - Gigantoraptor, 10 mai 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWaWGwQ2xDk While comments have been disabled (even now, seven years later, when even the younger boy should at least be a teen and the older should be adult!) they weren't when I made this response post: Deux arguments à propos l'évolutionnisme, entre moi et Motorsport Gigantoraptor https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2015/05/deux-arguments-propos-levolutionnisme.html And for some reason, the boy being poster child for his parents' (or one parent's?) pet peeve about the way other parents "indoctrinate" their children hasn't involved getting the youtube taken down ....

R

under my comment:

4:15 You are basically presuming:

• the parents are driving this, rather than the girl simply nagging till she got it
• and therefore the girl could be driven too far by such exploitative parents
• and therefore the girl could have a genuine and undetected burnout etc.

CallMeConvay

No, Emma isn't "presuming" that this girl didn't want to make videos, she's "presuming" that the hate speech, conspiracy theories, and adult debate sphere that ended up putting her in situations that no 11-year-old should be in.

And no, it is NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories in which the real concepts would be going over her head, forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them. I'm sure the hamster videos and such are something the girl is quite interested in, no complaints there other than she needs to wait a couple years.

I find it [...] hilarious that you thing it is MOST LIKELY that an 11-year-old is "peddling" or at all discussing complicated questions of science and history at all, forget on a YouTube channel while they're at it not just because they have to but because they fucking want to. That's a warped world view, at fucking best.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay She is very definitely presuming this when discussing burning out.

Why would Creationism be an "adult debate sphere" and a "situation no 11-year-old should be in"?

A French Evolution believer allowed two boys to lambaste Creationists as "conspiracy theorists" and other things, while the younger of them was obviously barely more than a toddler - doing facepalms when his older brother did.

"NOT likely that the girl chose to make videos discussing conspiracy theories"

Why are you speaking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place?

"in which the real concepts would be going over her head,"

Not more than Evolution for eleven or thirteen year old Evolutionists.

"forget the convuluted bullshit conspiracy versions of them."

Again, what is "convoluted" and "conspiracy" even doing in your criticism?

Is that your standard way of maligning Creationists?

"not just because they have to but because they fucking want to."

So, discussing science and history at all is reserved for males of what minimum age, on your view?

CallMeConvay

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Presuming burnout isn't a presumption when it's the commonplace result.

YEC is a conspiracy theory discussing in-depth aspects of religion and science. 0% of 11-year-olds are interested in it by coincidence.

You still haven't figured it out bud. YEC is a conspiracy theory. Plain and fucking simple.

Creationists are Conspiracy Theorists, by definition. They disavow science (at least the applicable fields) as an attack on their beliefs. That's a Conspiracy Theory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay I think part of our debate here got deleted ... it's still on the blog.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CallMeConvay Sorry, my bad, that was under 6:39, the long one.

But your previous comment is definitely regurgitating things you already said there.

The Principle Attacked by Dan Olson, Alberta, Canada

That Time Geocentrists Tricked A Bunch of Physicists
Folding Ideas, 20 Nov. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icwDF8wRgF4

3:00 I search Calamus International University after looking up Robert Sungenis.

Now, Calamus International University is listed on uk-universities.net which would be odd if it were a fake university.

tried to add:

Dealing with 17:51

Defunct is possible.

Unaccredited - well, so is University College London.

Distance learning and registered in Vanuatu - so what?

3:27 "we have in fact demonstrated that the earth orbits the sun"

How?

facundo torres

Go back to school

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@facundo torres If you can't answer the per se rhetorical question, you are the one who needs to.

facundo torres

@Hans-Georg Lundahl if you're so dumb as to need to ask the questions in YouTube instead of googling or picking up a book then it's apparent that you need the information fed to you by someone who has done the research, so school it's the safest option so your mushy brain may absorb the information

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@facundo torres I was not asking for information in general, I know several lines of reasoning that pretend to lead to earth orbitting the sun, Frédéric Chaberlot of Switzerland gave six of them, and I refuted them.

I was asking how the youtuber, Dan Olson, was presuming he could prove it.

When he answered some seconds later than 3:27, I made another comment to refute that line of "demonstration for heliocentrism" - why aren't you commenting on my comment at 3:30, for instance, or the one at 3:39, where Narokkurai pretended "gravity is all that can work on astronomical scale" by a principled denial of Theistic metaphysics?

3:30 "stellar parallax"

The one measured in 1830's is diversified. This means:

• either the stars are unequally distant from us
• or the phenomenon called in the 1830's "parallax" is something else than parallax.

You see, the name parallax doesn't refer to the phenomenon as a phenomenon, it refers to the explanation of the phenomenon as the parallactic optic illusion (same one that makes the road look like it's running past you if you sit in a running car), and the phenomenon as proof, with this type of optic illusion explaining it, of movement on our part.

3:39 gravity can be as fully real as to explain Lagrange points without being as fully the sole main factor (with inertia) affecting placing and movements of objects in space.

If I drop a pen and catch it mid air with the other hand, the actual trajectory of the pen is not just affacted by the gravity, but by my hand when catching it (and, if you think of it, by my other hand dropping it). That other factor in no way, shape or form means that gravity doesn't exist or doesn't affect the pen.

Lagrange points don't deny God keeping earth in the centre, Lagrange points don't deny angelic movers of the bodies that move, because neither God nor angelic movers deny the gravity that the Lagrange points are involved in.

Narokkurai

In order for the hand to catch the pen, it must exert force on it. It is not an entropy-neutral action. The laws of gravity continue to function, but it does require physical, measurable force to keep the pen fixed in place. If what you're saying is true, and gravity functions exactly the way we think it does, but some divine force is moving the planets in a geocentric orbit anyways, then this force should be possible to observe and measure. It would take a LOT of energy to hold the Earth in place and move the Sun around it, and we should be able to measure that energy as excess heat or radiation. And if you want to argue that we can't observe such energy because gods and angels are immaterial, then you're basically admitting that your model only works if magic is real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "In order for the hand to catch the pen, it must exert force on it"

In order for the hand to catch the pen, the will must exercise its domination over the matter in the hand.

And God and angels act over all respectively any given material object, a bit like the human mind over the own body.

"The laws of gravity continue to function,"

Yes, and this without denying a result other than they would predict being ultimately exercise by will.

"but some divine force is moving the planets in a geocentric orbit anyways, then this force should be possible to observe and measure."

I think I mentioned mind over matter.

"It would take a LOT of energy to hold the Earth in place and move the Sun around it"

Perhaps if the Sun were on that speed moving through the fabric of space rather than with it.

And with it full circle every 24 hours (meaning a few minutes lag behind the overall circular movement).

"And if you want to argue that we can't observe such energy because gods and angels are immaterial,"

I'm arguing that as with the hand under the will, it's on another level than the influence of a material body over a material body.

"then you're basically admitting that your model only works if magic is real."

Depending on what you mean by that - yes, that is my world view. Where does yours it "isn't real" come from?

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had. You can invent any justification you need when materiality itself is thrown out. The validity of science comes from its ability to make testable predictions grounded in material observations. Even highly abstract and mathematical concepts, like the wave function of particles, are supported by material observations. And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven.

I don't think religion and science need to interfere with one another. Science asks how the world works, religion asks why the world exists. If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had."

Up to you.

"You can invent any justification you need when materiality itself is thrown out."

Materiality and materialism are not the same. Are you saying when you understand sth, when you speak, when you move your hand, not only is what comes out of your body visibly to others material, but it is purely caused by matter? That's not "materiality" but materialism. And it is totally counterintuitive and unevidenced.

"The validity of science comes from its ability to make testable predictions grounded in material observations."

Those believing angelic movers and Tychonian orbits are likely to make exactly the same predictions in astronomy as you.

"Even highly abstract and mathematical concepts, like the wave function of particles, are supported by material observations."

But you being an observer isn't.

"And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven."

Or proven or disproven by its consequences on the observable material plane.

"I don't think religion and science need to interfere with one another."

Then why do you?

"Science asks how the world works, religion asks why the world exists."

Relegating religion to that very clearly is interfering with religion, at least with Biblical Christianity.

"If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it."

Physical factors are among the tools. And the "laws" are how these factors behave on their own.

Meaning, the laws as such are abstractions, not actual causalities or agencies.

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Science and religion only conflict along the narrow range of religious interpretations which insist on a literalist reading of their holy texts. In the demon-haunted world of mass superstition before the scientific method became widespread, literalism made sense as a sort of psychological balm against the chafing uncertainty of the world, but now that we know better, it doesn't have a practical purpose. A biblical interpretation of physics makes about as much sense as a shamanistic totem to ward off disease. Like, believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable with the world, but boil your water before you drink it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "Science and religion only conflict along the narrow range of religious interpretations which insist on a literalist reading of their holy texts."

In other words - the range which involves actual Catholic Christianity.

"In the demon-haunted world of mass superstition"

What comic book did you take that from? Rahan?

"before the scientific method became widespread,"

And afterwards. By the way, there is no such thing as THE scientific method.

"literalism made sense as a sort of psychological balm against the chafing uncertainty of the world,"

You are part of a mass superstition of your own : psychology.

"but now that we know better, it doesn't have a practical purpose."

We absolutely do NOT know better.

"A biblical interpretation of physics makes about as much sense as a shamanistic totem to ward off disease. Like, believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable with the world, but boil your water before you drink it."

I live in Paris, both bottled water and tap water are clean here.

In other words, to you there are not scienceS, independently of worldview, there is one worldview called SCIENCE and you bow down to its oracles, and detest the rest. Oh, except for compromisers who equally bow down to its oracles.

There is more than one thing I answered you, which you never replied to yourself. Is it because you have no answers yourself, you want to attack mine with question after question, and profit from me replying, but you never bother to reply yourself?

Or is it because you are trying to sway me with impressive speeches? Even at 13 years of my age, your eloquence would have felt stuffed and meaningless, hiding your ignorance of some real debate issues, so what do you hope to achieve when I'm 54?

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not responding to them because there's simply nothing worth responding to. Any discussion of immaterial things is a waste of time. I don't care what proof you think you have of "angels" or "souls", unless it's based in material observation and scientific experimentation, it's not proof to me. Unless you can pluck a feather off an angel and put it under a microscope, there's simply no possibility you could ever change my mind.

And I don't care how old you are either. That just means you've been wrong for a long time. You've hitched your wagon to literalism so tightly that at this point I don't think you can even be properly called a Christian. You are a failed Christian. You took a book full of metaphor and philosophical instruction and mistook it for a textbook. The reason you can have clean drinking water at all is because people largely rejected your interpretation of Christianity, and recognized the practical superiority of science over superstition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "Any discussion of immaterial things is a waste of time."

How does matter discuss?

"unless it's based in material observation"

We have material observation of presumably minds discussing - by manipulating matter in their bodies.

We also have material observation of matter being incapable of understanding and therefore of discussion.

"You've hitched your wagon to literalism so tightly that at this point I don't think you can even be properly called a Christian. You are a failed Christian."

Oh, you are calling traditional Christianity heresy? Or is "being a Christian" just a question of membership in a group to you?

"The reason you can have clean drinking water at all is because people largely rejected your interpretation of Christianity,"

No. The reason there is good drinking water here is, this is a place with good ground water. It was exploited in wells in the Middle Ages when what you call "superstition" was "rampant."

"and recognized the practical superiority of science over superstition."

Name ten very useful things, not nailing it down to just very latest model of it, and at least 8 or 9 of them will have come from before the Classic Antiquity or from the Middle Ages - either of which is before your "Science" which is not when sciences actually start, nor did you correctly speak of the impulse leading to them.

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, I think that if you believe in a god which has granted you rationality and curiosity, it is heretical to cling to a literal interpretation of a holy book when reason and curiosity have shown such an interpretation to be wrong. There is no part of Jesus' teachings that is necessarily dependent on the Sun revolving around the Earth. You're only clinging to it out of stubbornness and, apparently, a bitter resentment of modernity. You have more in common with an Islamic extremist than any decent Christian, as you are both heretics for your obsession with literalism and fundamentalism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai You have strayed away from what science you claim to believe in to the pseudo-position of inquisitor ...

"Yes, I think that if you believe in a god which has granted you rationality and curiosity,"

Indeed.

"it is heretical to cling to a literal interpretation of a holy book"

Even if it is rational?

"when reason and curiosity have shown such an interpretation to be wrong."

Even when they haven't?

"There is no part of Jesus' teachings that is necessarily dependent on the Sun revolving around the Earth."

Here are two connected aspects:
1) Joshua knew what he was telling to stop in chapter 10 of his book, and Jesus knew whom he was adressing when expelling demons from men;
2) with Geocentrism, the universe is not infinite, and the Heaven He spoke of is above the fix stars.

"You're only clinging to it out of stubbornness and, apparently, a bitter resentment of modernity."

I've had to do with people of your attitude enough to have reasons to resent modernity.

Unlike reason, and unlike the Bible, I cannot give modernity as such a truth value. On some items, the modern will know truth better than people of the past, on some others, often more important, worse.

"You have more in common with an Islamic extremist than any decent Christian, as you are both heretics for your obsession with literalism and fundamentalism."

You omit to define what "heresy" is ...

And you have just expelled most of Christianity over the centuries from your "any decent Christian" category ...

@Narokkurai You have also failed to back up how useful inventions depend on modernity.

Name ten very useful things, not nailing it down to just very latest model of it, and at least 8 or 9 of them will have come from before the Classic Antiquity or from the Middle Ages - either of which is before your "Science" which is not when sciences actually start, nor did you correctly speak of the impulse leading to them.

4:51 In Sungenis, the Earth is or was some decade ago, caught in a kind of gyroscope effect within the rotating cosmos.

One can equally appropriately consider the Earth as remaining unmoved by direct act of God.

Either way, you have a factor overriding the relative gravitational pulls of Earth and Sun.

4:59 absurd speeds

Posit that the fix stars are, as Galileo and St. Robert were discussing when discussing parallax as yet not observed, the inner side of a spheric surface. Not the volume of a space, but the shell around a space.

Posit this sphere of fix stars is one light day up.

This posits the speed of them as 6.28 times (or two pi) the speed of light.

Absurd? Yes, if you posit that this is through the fabric of space. Since that imposes speed of light as the limit.

But if instead you posit that the fabric of space is moved each day by God around Earth, down to the surface of earth, and up to the level of the fix stars, and the fix stars only move with it, this is no longer the case. Therefore, no "absurd speed" argument holds either.

14:02 Let me observe, no Kate Mulgrew, no Lawrence Krauss, and no film team or movie theatres are involving in Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right.

So, no, they don't get to complain about that one being clearly "one-sidedly" Geocentric (but dealing with and refuting in its way arguments against absolute Geocentrism).

Neither do you.

Perhaps there was a tinge of hypocrisy about the film The Principle. But without it - could Robert Sungenis have shown the world that he was in fact not sitting in a closet shut off in isolation from the people considered "great minds" of our time, he has on the contrary spent lots of time interacting with them and their arguments.

So have I, in my way, on the blog "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere" which is part debate, part my answers on quora questions, part my comments on videos, including those of views against mine, like yours here.

I didn't ask permission, usually, to get co-debaters onto the blog, but none has sued me so far - and I wouldn't counsel them to do so. If they complained of my making them look bad after I allowed them usually all the time they wanted, and censored nothing but here and there an F-word from the less well educated ones, that would mean their own arguments make them look bad. They usually have handles, so I'm not exposing their privacy either. And I am not monetising the blog, so I am not cheating them for money either. I'm simply making sure their arguments are available side by side with mine. In order of debate, or cut up in substrings, each presented in order of debate.

In either medium, film by Rick DeLano (RIP) or blog by myself, the intended takeaway would seem to be served by a more neutral input - which initial neutrality is provided by the Christian side, like in Oxford The Socratic Club (c/o CSL).

20:05 None of Sungenis' credentials involve past life regressions.

If you are not ashamed of getting your credentials (supposing you have some) from a university run by atheists and compliant semi-Christians, why should Sungenis be ashamed of getting credentials from a university involving a past life therapist in the board?

20:46 oooooooops ... you just discredited yourself with your chronology of V-II!

Ending in 1965 is correct, but it opened in 1962.

21:07 "it was, in short, an attempt at modernising the Church"

Yes, that is pretty much what we object to.

Whatever else you got wrong, you got that 20/20.

22:00 Speaking of that one, can Shoah be charged against, I will not say the people who today identify as National Socialist, but the subgroup of them who consider Jews deserved it?

Because, in that case, it can be charged against such Jews who still sympathise with executing Jesus that they incur a complicity with those Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead.

As for those who didn't back then, some very directly became part of the first Christians and ancestors of Christian Palestinians - and some more neutral eventually had to chose sides. "Jews" referring retrospectively (as early as when Gospel of St. John was written) to those who took a distance from Christians and from Jesus, therefore solidarity with the executioners.

If it's obvious that many Jews today would hesitate to curse Jesus - like Pinchas Lapide - it is also obvious, they are not representative of what Talmudic Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism if you prefer has historically been most of this time. Also, not just a question of Modernists, as some might perhaps consider Lapide, but some of the most traditional Jews are actually by now anti-Talmudic, meaning for instance Lubavitchers.

But what the usual typical RC statement refers to are people like the young Kahane in One Day the Rabbi Bought a Cross - or like the Countermissionaries, like Tovia Singer today.

22:12 People like Tovia Singer (or the fictitious young Kahane) would be so far rejected by God.

Those who aren't, do not form one people - they are struggling out of the historic Antichristianity that once formed that people.

22:42 It is clearly a bad thing that Vatican II is even perceived as reverting the judgement that Protestantism (in the versions spoken of by Trent which doesn't at least as much cover Asuza Street) is heresy.

It's a heresy having led to Heliocentric and Darwinian remakes of Exegesis, and to Malthusian and Galtonian remakes of morality, and now more to LGTBQ accepting remakes of morality.

24:47 Thomas Hobbes was very much not a Liberal. He very much was a Totalitarian.

Not very far from Kant's idea that, in order to prevent chaos, one needs absolute and unconditional acceptance of state directives.

24:50 "He's saying democracy will never work"

Not what he said. Democracy not working on Locke's premises is one thing, but some Swiss Cantons and at least one more Irish president than Eamonn DéValera have shown a talent for democratic constitution with Catholic actual policies.

25:45 Chalcedon Foundation sounds pretty attrative to me as you describe it.

26:04 I am noting you are showing a very repugnant hatred of homeschooling.

26:13 Permissive homeschooling standards very clearly means there is no centralised curriculum. Mr. Selbrede is very clearly for Geocentrics getting to homeschool, he has said nothing about Atheists or Evolution believers not getting to homeschool, as far as you present it.

26:21 Acting out transsexualism is hardly a human right.

27:06 I think homosexual acts objectively deserve the death penalty - and that it is a matter of opportunity if it can ever be applied again, I would be hesitant about right now.

Prison sentences for them have also been accepted by Christian countries.

"En el imperio español la pena de muerte se sustituiría por penas de prisión y galeras a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo xvii, hasta que dejó de ser delito en 1822 en España. Las antiguas colonias españolas tras su independencia tardaron algo más en despenalizarla, las primeras fueron: México (1871), Guatemala (1871) y Argentina (1886). En la mayoría de los demás países la condena iría derogándose a lo largo del siglo xx."

Looking up Cronología de la despenalización de la homosexualidad por país

I see that sodomy was a legal offense in Austria, Costa Rica and Finland up to 1971. In Spain up to 1979. Scotland and Colombia up to 1981. Ireland up to 1993 - we are not dealing with death penalty, normally, but with prison sentences.

28:06 Death penalty is not murder. Sodomy is not homosexuality any more than prison sentence for stealing would target everyone with cleptomania. I mean, if I were a cleptomaniac, I'd try to get my fix by acting as hired pick-pocket, then giving back wallets, to people trying to get savvy about how to avoid getting pockets picked.

So, not only is "murder" incorrect, but "of homosexuals" is so too.

28:89 I have no idea why enforcing Biblical law and keeping the underclass suppressed would go together. A minority is not necessarily underclass, and if it is mostly in some area due to recent immigration, it's not underclass due to suppression.

29:14 First, the persons as a whole and all and everything they stand for are not the philosophical core.

What they have to say on cosmology is.

Second, no, it's not a question of making the others look like a secret wholesale agreement with them, but of showing forth the actual partial agreements, on issues like epistemology. Or this or that observation.

Third, perhaps some of them would like to prefer hiding (explaining their reaction after the fact) that much of what Sungenis or Selbrede argue from is material they share with them - they might prefer to resort to the usual strawmen. And you might prefer it, which, considering your distaste for the Chalcedon foundation is even fairly likely.

31:18 No, he has created the appearance that they have such partial agreements with a certain idea as they actually have.

Allowing Sungenis (whose validity of doctorate is not the issue, I'm not disputing it by the way) to get a bit further than all, including normally educated audience would know that Krauss and the other guys from the astro world would go.

It would not just be "exhausting" to litigate, it would actually be impossible, unless you had a very partial court. It would be impossible, because scientist A is saying what he believes, scientist B what he believes, and scientist or otherwise Sungenis is saying how that ties together with what he believes.

No dishonesty involved. No misrepresentation involved.

Saying "Krauss supports geocentrism" would be misrepresenting Krauss. But saying "this argument by Krauss supports geocentrism" cannot be that - because it would mean our arguments are only what we want them to be, logic has no life of its own, we cannot investigate, because we cannot cease to will this or that to be true.

So far, you are succeeding in denying logic, and therefore also science.

31:54 I have by this point already in the thread met one who would be more than ready to actively suppress the information.

He was at least more than happy suppressing the one I was giving insofar as it depends on him.

I told Narokkurai he was wrong to consider all factors have to be material. I'll give you a selection of his reactions to that:

"If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had. ... And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven. ... If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it."

In other words : if I don't agree to keep explanations materialistic (just because the observations necessarily are material), or adapt Christianity to bowing down to that rigmarole, he is more than just fine to marginalise me, as much as he can.

Our thread can be found under my comment starting "3:39 gravity can be as fully real as to explain Lagrange points without being as fully the sole main factor (with inertia) affecting placing and movements of objects in space."

Narokkurai

All factors in science have to be material, because it is the study of the material world. If you want to get abstract for the sake of philosophy or meta-physics, that's fine, but it's just not science. It has no place in a discussion of physics. Take that to the theology or philosophy departments down the hall.

You can be a Christian and still be able to accept the scientific description of the world. There's no inherent contradiction. If a god exists, or if a god does not exist, the universe functions exactly the same. You are hanging onto a single fringe, extremist interpretation of your holy book which is simply no longer valid. You simply must learn to accept the fact that the bible is not a literal description of reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "If a god exists, or if a god does not exist, the universe functions exactly the same."

Er, no.

The view of the universe that is supposed to function without God is a false one and doesn't function. It breaks down in explaining human language. It has to resort to Heliocentrism in order to explain day and night and seasons, without any God, without any angels. Not a total breakdown, compared to with language, but at least an unwarranted departure from the material observations.

"All factors in science have to be material, because it is the study of the material world."

Then astronomy as I view it is not entirely "science" but part metaphysics, exactly as Riccioli saw it.

"If you want to get abstract for the sake of philosophy or meta-physics,"

Non-material and abstract are not the same. The concept dog is non-material because it is an abstraction from individual and material dogs, but each dog is still material.

A human soul or an angel is as concrete as an individual dog, but unlike it non-material. For the human soul, not quite the case, since it is giving its form to the living human body, but for a departed soul, it is comparable to angels in the respects I covered.

32:20 It implies these scientists have a gut feeling that certain data, not "the prevailing evidence" but precisely certain data, would go against what they believe.

It also implies they want to shield their belief system from confrontations which could come about from allowing focus on those data.

No, Sungenis and Selbrede would certainly say the men like Krauss find the prevailing evidence in their own favour. The only thing the observation by Selbrede and Sungenis implies is, they are likely to want to cover up certain "anomalous data" or at least implications of them, so as to further what they believe the "prevailing" tendency of the evidence goes to.

Because they are a bit more spoiled than we Christians about getting outside an own echo chamber.

To put it in another perspective - these people certainly honestly believe that discussing Geocentrism is a waste of time.

They are only devious towards of people not quite as likely as themselves not to see that. And obviously no more devious than they think is moral - given how you describe some of them, us, their latitude may obviously increase.

39:29 The penalties for Geocentrism or Creationism have obviously been what you describe for quite a long time.

A man that far up in Academia is unlikely to be afraid of the penalties, he's unlikely to imagine himself in that position. But he has seen other people in that position, and probably contributed more than once to a Christian not getting into their academic circles if "too Fundie" ... those types of penalty foster a kind of enthusiasm for what they are seen as protecting, and Krauss very obviously shares that enthusiasm, and probably did it at the outset of his carreere, decades ago. Before coming up with things like Quantum Vaccum prior to Big Bang.

What we very certainly would more than just suggest is, the scientists are not neutral observers only coming to their conclusions by rationality, they are to some degree products of a certain system. And the lack of other voices within it than theirs is very much a product of it.

33:20 By some nebulous group?

I heard that rhetoric when it came to Rockefeller Foundation financing the research for Kinsey. When a Catholic denouncing Kinsey as a pervert also mentions he is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, what kind of nebulous group is that?

It's on the wikipedia:

"The Rockefeller Foundation is an American private foundation and philanthropic medical research and arts funding organization based at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York City."

This links to another of them:

"The second-oldest major philanthropic institution in America, after the Carnegie Corporation, the foundation was ranked as the 39th largest U.S. foundation by total giving as of 2015."

So, Carnegie ...

"The Carnegie Corporation of New York is a philanthropic fund established by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 to support education programs across the United States, and later the world."

"On November 18, 2021, the corporation announced that Louise Richardson will become its next and 13th president.[17] She joined the foundation in January 2023 at the end of her seven-year term as head of the University of Oxford."

It doesn't say what rank it has - but I can bet, foundations ranking higher than Rockefeller and the twelve Carnegie presidents prior to Louise Richardson pretty certainly share a certain bias.

"This is a list of wealthiest charitable foundations worldwide. It consists of the 45 largest charitable foundations, private foundations engaged in philanthropy, and other charitable organizations such as charitable trusts that have disclosed their assets. In many countries, asset disclosure is not legally required or made public.

"Only nonprofit foundations are included in this list. Organizations that are part of a larger company are excluded, such as holding companies."

1) Novo Nordisk Foundation
2) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
3) Wellcome Trust

So, is there a probable common bias? Well, yes. Not all of them are into funding all kinds of research, some are into other things, but the part that does go to research is pretty obviously biassed a certain way.

37:08 "The core of it is framed, not as a question from the film makers, but as an opportunity to responding to sth Krauss said ... see, there is a big big difference between asking someone if earth is the centre of the universe and asking them to reply to a colleague"

1) Rationally speaking - why should it be?
2) If you analyse it, the probable candidates are:
a) systematic ostracism of geocentrism
b) systematic respect for colleagues in the scientific community.
3) Which kind of ties in very much with what I said about the sociology. The training.

"the second is a lot more likely to get a much more diplomatic measured response where they don't openly disagree, but instead suggest ..."

Well, does he suggest it? What I can see, by the way, is, we don't just have Rick stating "Lawrence Krauss argued for us being the centre" - he actually quoted the argument.

Not in Krauss view geo centric, but clearly "solar system-centric" or not very far off according to at least that piece of evidence.

40:01 Your "mainstream Biblical scholars" are, seen from your Alberta, largely Protestant.

Mainstream Protestantism has been supporting Heliocentrism because of Galileo. Not from the Reformation, but from when Milton and early Freemasons added Galileo to a kind of Protestant martyrology (like St. Bartholomew's Day's Massacres, like Protestant Colas defended by Voltaire against having killed his Catholic son).

Mainstream Protestantism as a result is by now largely Modernist. Once upon a time it was just Joshua being wrong about what it was he commanded to stand still, but since then, even in the 19th C. the Apostles have been presented as being wrong when believing demons that Jesus drove out were actual personal beings other than and older than the men, and also already damned before entering them.

[saving myself the last 5 minutes, at least for now]

Whether Yes or No, He Made Up for the Displeasure!

Was Jimmy Akind the One Blocking after 10:12? · Whether Yes or No, He Made Up for the Displeasure!

In this case, it's clear it was he. My comments continue from previous.

11:26 It can be mentioned that Numbers 13 has ὑπερμήκεις - exceedingly long.

11:53 Other mentions of the sons of Anak neither call them nephelim, nor call them tall.

19:17 Retracting that, Deut 2 says "tall as the Anakim" and this is outside the report of the spies.

13:24 "People immediately asked how it would be possible for an angel to mate with a human, given that angels don't have bodies."

I'd like the source for this "immediately" - St. Augustine is hardly the first commentator.

That angels are totally acorporeal is not a dogma of the Church, nor probably even Patristic consensus, one CF, I think Damascene, saying "angels are incorporeal to us, but corporeal to God" - or "compared to" for "to" ...

St. Athanasius is describing what demons do to help Egyptian pagan priests predict the coming of Nile floodings within days, "they run quickly" - sounds more like superheros than like incorporeal beings to me.

23:51 The story of Ymir obviously combines giants with the stories of Flood and of Enlil killing Tiamat.

There are other Near East references in Norse myths, like Baldr doubling Osiris ...

One of my clues the Odin who came to Uppsala region (Uppsala itself founded after he died and was said to have "returned to Valhalla") was an oriental.

My favourite candidate for Odin being the Yeshu who was disciple of Joshua ben Pekharia (siding with those few who deny this person of the Talmud refers to Our Lord, at least that part of his story).

34:07 Actually, rulers existed at least in Egypt.

Alte Maße und Gewichte (Altes Ägypten) gave me the units to calculate:

Goliath 2.919 m - 3.407 m (small cubit and small span or great cubit and great span)

For comparison : Robert Wadlow 2.72 m

43:18 We have "six cubits and a span" earlier on than in the extant Masoretic text - namely in the Vulgate.

44:52 How many weaver's beams have you dug up archaeologically?

Does the weight seem like what a normal person couldn't use as a spear, but only a giant could?

Besides, there is the TED talk by the journalist who considered Goliath as suffering from acromegaly, which affected the pituitary gland, which troubled his eyesight - note how David's single staff is referred to as "sticks" in the plural.

[this TED talk seems based on the article cited in the following]

47:16 If it's not a trace of a giant, that stone, it could be one of a giant Flood - like Genesis 7 to 9.

Boulders are sometimes very far from where the original mineral came from.

50:16 "more than 10 000 years old" - i e dated to that age.

Nothing actually is that old.

58:30 I think David was very wise not to get close to Goliath's wrestling abilities.

André the Giant being a great wrestler.

But wrestlers usually don't crush someone to death - Goliath probably could have. One reason to hold him taller than André.

1:01:00 This article is arguably what the journalist doing the TED talk was going by.

Hereditary Gigantism-the biblical giant Goliath and his brothers
Deirdre E Donnelly and Patrick J Morrison, Ulster Med J. 2014 May; 83(2): 86–88.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113151/

1:03:58 I would say post-Flood giants, as you say, would have mutations on chromosome 11.

For the pre-Flood ones, I hold to more robust races, like Neanderthal or even more likely Denisovan and Soloensis. There there were other conditions, with the thorax, with the mitochondriae, with the Y-chromosomes in the case of men.

Was Jimmy Akin the One Blocking after 10:12?

Was Jimmy Akind the One Blocking after 10:12? · Whether Yes or No, He Made Up for the Displeasure!

Update - no, it wasn't, it was probably a youtube software set on blocking certain terms.

Giants! (Biblical Giants, Goliath, Nephilim, Tallest Man Ever) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin, 27 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N29UiJy_KZs

3:43 This day, and the Lord will deliver thee into my hand, and I will slay thee, and take away thy head from thee: and I will give the carcasses of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air, and to the beasts of the earth: that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Prophetically, King David is foretelling his Descendant's victory over Antichrist, obviously, at which all men will know God is God.

But immediately in the historical context, he's talking about "not just people, but birds and beasts too" - that and the blessing of animals and of minerals should tell any Catholic that in Mark 10:6 "the beginning of creation" does not simply mean "the beginning of mankind" ... but needs to coincide with it.

6:02 I am noting, the actual word giant is not used in I Kings 17 in DRBO, so, I suppose it's useless to look up the Hebrew interlinear to see if the Hebrew has gebor or sth else.

6:43 If in early post-Flood times Fu Hsi of China and Kekrops of Athens had below the waist a structure that was considered as "a snake below the waist" there is actually a malformation, rare but extant, where legs grow together. I think I have heard it described as "Siren syndrome" ... this kind of malformation can very well have inspired snake legged giants, even without going outside real human creatures.

8:09 Which latter* David had also

9:03 A few things to unpack here.

1) No direct mention of great height.
2) Baruch 3 referring back to this condition also has no direct mention of great height (from memory, 4 is when I look it up).
3) Both Genesis 6 and Baruch 3 involve mentions of violence, both involve mentions of might, in Baruch 3 linked about giants ("expert in war").
4) I must say I have not previously noticed "of great stature" in Baruch 3, I wondered if it had been added on the internet (I am not accessing the Bible on paper), but looking at LXX, I find the word here is εὐμεγέθεις:

εὐμεγέθης • (eumegéthēs) m or f (neuter εὐμέγεθες); third declension
of good size, large
considerable, weighty, important

It doesn't seem to be limited to great height. It could be great bulk in the other dimensions.
5) It says in Genesis 6 they were of renown
6) It says in Baruch 3 they did not attain "the way of knowledge" (ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης), and this seems to mean knowledge of the good life, since technology seems implied in their status as expert warriors (ἐπιστάμενοι πόλεμον).
7) If we look at archaeology, Neanderthals and probably Denisovans (if morphology is similar to Atapuerca men, who had a similar genome) and certainly Homo erectus soloensis were of great muscle bulk, but not of great height. At least for Denisovans and Neanderthals we have a good evidence of smartness in technology.
8) If we look at non-Hebrew mythology, forget about Zeus or Hercules, they were post-Flood, we should look at Mahabharata - there is a one world state with a war about who shall rule it, and at least the Kauravas are very ignorant on how to live a good and decent life. Trying to force oneself on a woman bought in gamble is bad enough, but repeatedly trying to denude her when some supernatural agency (guardian angels comes to my Christian mind) protects her, it's as bad as Achilles dragging the corpse of Hector. (One could of course imagine that detail was borrowed from Greek epic, all manuscripts of Mahabharata are posterior to Alexander's invasion).

The idea they were tall may be a misuderstanding starting with men like Og and Goliath.

10:12 This could be one of the indicators for my theory that the text of the Torah started out linguistically in a different shape from what we have and was modified along the way of how Hebrew developed.

Nephelim for Nophelim could be the equivalent of ... shall we say Homeric lost digamma? Treating Anax or oinos as if they started with w-?

I am not a Hebraist, just a general idea.

I looked on Heiser 2013 (google search "naphila"), and while it is clear that "naphila" means "giant" it is not clear that "naphila" doesn't come from an Aramaic version of "naphal"** ....

[This*** was not able to be added:]

I note from the discussion that one of the pro-Heiser points is Hebrew translators being familiar with their own culture.

But by the time we are dealing with, the concept of nephilim could very well have been coloured for a pretty long time by the memory of Goliath.

Baruch 3 and much of Mahabharata descriptions of the Kauravas do describe them as morally fallen.

Neanderthals and "Atapuerca Denisovans" have been found in circumstances indicating cannibalism - dental calculus on Belgian, but not El Sidrón Neanderthals involve remains of human flesh, Atapuercans have been found with bones treated in ways that indicate they were regarded as the shell of shellfish - things to discard to get to in this case bone marrow. Cannibalism seems also indicated about Solo man (Homo erectus soloensis).

* The former, help of God, the latter, being small and nimble.
** Dr. Michael Heiser himself linked to what the post answers, namely this one:
Remnants of Giants : Michael Heiser’s (Mis)interpretation of “Nephilim” as “Giants” not “Fallen Ones”
https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/michael-heisers-misinterpretation-of-nephilim-as-giants-not-fallen-ones/
*** I have sent Jimmy Akin a mail asking if it was he ...

A Good Video by AiG

A good video by AiG, and if I didn't comment on the parts about abortion, it's because they were doing a great work needing no complement:

The “Equal Rights” Movement Is Getting Ridiculous
Answers in Genesis, 1.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkRjx5p0LX0

0:18 It's not just* February, it's in Paris after 18:30 on February 1:st so, after First Vespers of Candlemass.

Also known as Purification of the Blessed Virgin.
Luke 2:22.

It's already 40 days after Christmas Eve. Tomorrow after midnight, Christmas is over.

Luke 2:22 up to, I think, verse 39.

4:22 If a guinea pig came into an emergency room, here is a thing to do.

"Madam, there is a traumatised violence victim over there, do you mind lending them the guinea pig, while we phone a veterinary for it?"

7:25 Materialistic evolution borrowing from** Hegelian and Wallacean spiritualistic / pantheistic ideas ...

7:49 Resident Latin scholar ... gilmorei means "of Gilmore"
Funcus vermis - I knew "vermis" for "worm" already - but "funcus" for "funky" proves Latin is a living language and accepting loans from English. First time ever I saw this adjective in Latin.

13:15 Right now I watch the chatfeed.

Dean : "Humans have inbred with a Sub-human or Animal species called Neanderthal ... which was not human by an Manimal."

Answer : Neanderthals were a pre-Flood human race, and some of the people on the Ark had mixed race ancestry. They were not sub-human.

I wonder if "Dean" as profile refers to a surname or to a Church dean?

John 1:1

Interesting. I know they supposedly showed a man in russia, normal stature, was a boxer i believe, larger brow, was highly educated. He was part neanderthal so they said. Interesting though bc he was very much human just heavily north eastern looking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@John 1:1 Neanderthal genes have been tested, perhaps especially the ones from El Sidrón in Spain.

This means, one can find out how people alive today line up with alleles of that or those Neanderthals. Most outside Africa have a few percent Neanderthal genome, perhaps that boxer had more than usual.

Perhaps Hercules had more than usual.

They were very strong people. Normal Neanderthal people would have had c. twice as much arm muscles as Schwarzenegger (Arnie).

That said, while the medium of Neanderthal alleles are c. 3 % of a genome (outside Black Africa), two thirds of the Neanderthal alleles are lost in today's world, and that specifically is the case with the ones that made Neanderthals look a bit weird.

Blades Hand Maids

What? 🤨 Neanderthals were just people. And post-flood people at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Blades Hand Maids I agree with people.

I don't agree with post-Flood.

Genetics and carbon dates (absolutely wrong but relatively right this far back) support they were pre-Flood.

Foods too. Neanderthals in Belgium were eating human flesh.

And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity.

Neanderthals in Spain by contrast lived off pine nuts. See, righteous people before Genesis 9:2 were not yet eating meat.

24:50 Exactly what God feels about same sex relations.
Plus one passage about what desires for them are (contrary to nature).

The word "homosexuality" comes from psychology and is used more losely.

I know of homosexual men who opted to live chastely in respect of God's law. I know one who actually spent years in a marriage which might still be there, if he hadn't been a psychologist thinking of exactly what type of emotional response his wife had a right to and didn't get from him, even though they are very fond and have four daughters ...

26:52 God abhors homosexual acts. The crime known as sodomy.

Voluntarily dreaming of such is obviously also horrible to God in the light of Mt 5:28. However, it is not the kind of thing the human law should punish, if it remains unspoken.

Again, the psychologists use the term more losely than even just these two things, so it would not be correct that all that is covered by the word is an offense against God.

And if you mean other things than what psychologists mean, don't borrow your vocabulary from them.

The difference between sodomy and homosexuality is like between stealing and cleptomania.

25:20 You know, considering Church of England came around through Catholic clergy accomodating to Henry VIII wanting a divorce and Church of Sweden came around through Catholic clergy accomodating to Gustav Wasa wanting to tax Church property (before Henry VIII did!), I am not very surprised that they continue to accomodate to worldly powers that be.

26:15 I object as Catholic to your calling that man "Pope" ...

Our last Pope died August 2:nd last year. I think he's buried in Topeka, where he lived most of his last years.

30:20 As said, the non-Catholic Bergoglio shouldn't be referred to as Pope.

If one ain't a member of Christ's body, one ain't a head of Christ's body on earth either. To paraphrase a real Catholic authority, St. Robert Bellarmine.

Some people who respected a somewhat less obviously un-Catholic man, who wasn't the Pope either, tried to make Bergoglio Pope for real by electing him on Jan. 30 this year. I have not seen any signal that Fr. Francis Dominic (who was a friend of the late Pope Michael) accepts this, and I would be surprised to see Bergoglio starting to behave like a Catholic ... (the news was from before this event) ... their plan being "if he really becomes Pope now, he'll really become a Catholic" ...

30:48 I am pretty sure men and apes can say "hello" to each other. Men and dogs can. Man and feline can.

An ape can't say "I ate bananas yesterday breakfast and apples this morning" - but a man can.

Irrational animals have no notions, they don't express even the most concrete concepts in absence of the situation or stimulus (except as a prank, since it's taken as if the situation were present), they have no pasts, no futures, no conditionals, no negated sentences, no global sentence breaking down into different morphemes, each having a usually notional meaning, and even less any morphemes breaking down into phonemes that are meaningless on their own.

They also can't do recursivity, like "the peel of the apple of the tree of the garden" or "this is the mouse that ate the malt that was in the house that Jack built" ...

In fact, it would be somewhat hard for apes to organise their language that way, considering that the ape hyoid involves hooks for airbags that make volume greater, but also add distortion and make vowels highly unclear, and also considering that their thick ears means their spectrum of audible noise is on lower frequencies than consonants like dentals and labials, probably even than velars ... plus learning and processing actual language requires the areas of Broca and Wernicke, as well as the human version of the FOXP2 gene.

Once you consider how language is more than just saying hello, it's a huge great good argument against molecules to man or even just ape to man evolution.

32:59 You see how "origin of human language" is as unsolvable to those guys as abiogenesis?

You know Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's and some others' answers to that one? You've noticed the absence of solutions to how membranes came to be, when Millery Urey conditions don't produce phosopholipids? Well, there's a similar thing about "origin of human language" ...

Jean Aitchison wrote a wonderful book about changes in human language (like the changes that added up can lead from Anglo-Saxon to English, from Latin to Spanish ... but studied mainly on a smaller and more observable and understandable scale). It's called Language change: Progress or decay? and I read it on the one course at college I failed at.

She has also written The seeds of speech: Language origin and evolution.

I recommend you to read it if you want a laugh. She even pretended birds showed an example of "double articulation" just because the smallest unit is more often an interval than a single note.

foy22chris22

"Animals have no notions, they don't express even the most concrete concepts in absence of the situation..."

You cant mean all animals. Unless you are under the impression humans are not mammals

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@foy22chris22 I was sloppy.

Irrational animals etc have no notions.

Thank you for correction.

foy22chris22

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No worries. I kind of figured. Thanks for the clarification.

33:08 "they are assuming evolution"

As with abiogenesis, that's their smallest problem. They have far bigger ones.

33:40 now Bryan Osborne is starting to say sth ...

"their communication and ours is like a rock to a universe"

You could equally say "like a pebble to a living cell" ...

* Bryan Osborne was a bit surprised it was February - seems those guys aren't used to celebrating Candlemass!
** The discussion on the video is about ascribing intentionality to evolutionary processes.

Abraham Ended Evil Cannibals

In the following video, Dan Davis will look at cannibalism in Herxheim (shortest period, but most gruesome number of victims), El Toro and Fontbrégoua, the latter two being caves. I'll comment on how things are shortened (and in Herxheim intensified) with New Tables.

The Cannibal Cults of Neolithic Europe
Dan Davis History, 14 Sept. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NFri78q4b8

6:58 With my New Tables, the extention in time of Herxheim is reduced to about 1/5 ...

5300 BC carbon dated. Between 5420 and 5248:

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2198 B. Chr.

69.2256 pmC, so dated as 5248 B. Chr.

So, between 2220 and 2198 for real dates, we have 2209 BC.

4950 BC carbon dated. Between 5003 and 4881:

2153 B. Chr.

70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

2131 B. Chr.

71.8838 pmC, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.

So, between 2153 and 2131 BC for real dates, we have 2142.

5300 - 4950 = 350 years
2209 - 2142 = 67 years

8:30, you mentioned Linear Pottery Culture.*

1350 or 194 years?

Linear pottery. 5600 - 4250

Carbon dated 5600 is closer to 5693 than to 5420

2243 B. Chr.

65.7496 pmC, so dated as 5693 B. Chr.

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2235 is also closer to real date 2243 than to 2220.

4250 is pretty spot on 4241:

2041 B. Chr.

76.6964 pmC, so dated as 4241 B. Chr.

So, we stick with 2041 as real date.

5600 - 4250 = 1350
2235 - 2041 = 194

8:51 1000 people.**
1000 in 350 years is above 2.8 per year.
1000 in 67 years is above 14.9 per year.

14:03 El Toro started about the same time as Herxheim and lasted a bit longer:

El Toro Cave 5280 - 4780 BC carbon dated.

5420 - 5280 = 140
5280 - 5248 = 32

5280 is far closer to 5248 than to 5420.

2220 B. Chr.

68.0023 pmC, so dated as 5420 B. Chr.

2198 B. Chr.

69.2256 pmC, so dated as 5248 B. Chr.

I'd go with 2202 BC.

4881 - 4780 = 101
4780 - 4708 = 72

4780 is roughly midway between the other ones.

2131 B. Chr.

71.8838 pmC/100, so dated as 4881 B. Chr.

2108 B. Chr.

73.0966 pmC/100, so dated as 4708 B. Chr.

2120 BC.

5280 - 4780 = 500 years
2202 - 2120 = 82 years

14:14, Aegean Farmers.***

6500 BC carbon dated ...

2355 B. Chr.

59.6678 pmC, so dated as 6605 B. Chr.

2332 B. Chr.

60.9109 pmC, so dated as 6432 B. Chr.

2344 BC

Not 1500 years earlier, but just around 140 years earlier.

18:26 Fontbrégoua cave

5000 BC to 4000 BC, carbon dated.

5000 very neatly fits 5003:

2153 B. Chr. 70.6677 pmC, so dated as 5003 B. Chr.

2153 BC, search no further.

4000 BC is between 4069 and 3946:

2019 B. Chr.

77.8962 pmC, so dated as 4069 B. Chr.

1996 B. Chr.

79.0927 pmC, so dated as 3946 B. Chr.

2007 or 2008 BC - when Abraham is 7 years old.°

5000 - 4000 = 1000 years, obviously, but ...
2153 - 2007.5 = 145.5 years.

14.55 % of the carbon time involved.

* Herxheim's material culture is part of the Linear Potter Culture.
** 1000 people is an estimate of the total number of victims at Herxheim
*** The video here says that the populations in El Toro Cave and Herxheim both descend from Aegean farmers dated to 6500 BC.
° And was able to consciously pray, as at least Sarug would have taught him.