DYOR = Do Your Own Research (Some Guys are Afraid of Written Debate)

It can be noted that I had thought from the description of a learning curve that Kruger and Dunning were cognitive psychologists, it seems their paper from 1999 (for which only the abstract is available to me, and which abstract is closer to the pop culture idea of "Dunning Kruger effect" than descriptions of the content in the below video) is classed in "social psychology" a very different kettle of fish and one that is closer to the Soviets and to the psychiatric arts of bullying that cognitive psychology. I mean, the latter is the discipline I'd have predicted from the mention of "learning curve" ...

But the "learning curve" has other implications than someone knowing better than the experts suffering the Dunning Kruger effect. Not all experts are of twenty years experience. Not all amateurs in the DYOR tribe are at the beginning of a learning curve.

'Do your own research' and the Dunning-Kruger Effect
potholer54 | 9 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t54I6NKtr4k

"what we know as the Dunning Kruger 2:05 effect is not to be confused with Kruger 2:08 and Dunning's paper as I explained in 2:10 the video description there was no 2:12 mention of the Dunning Kruger effect in 2:14 the Kruger and Dunning study that term 2:17 was coined and popularized long 2:19 afterwards to describe the 2:21 overconfidence of people who gain a 2:23 small amount of knowledge and think they 2:24 now know better than the experts"

O K ... is there any paper by any expert (outside psychiatry) that deals with this overconfidence?

Or is it just a meme among the Left?

Atypical Chad

@Atypical_Chad

In the time it took you to comment, you could've googled "dunning Krueger effect study" and have gotten an answer.

Note

This is not an empty channel, but on the other hand, his videos are short clips from video games.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Atypical_Chad I suppose you did.

1) What study did you find?
2) Was it by someone who wasn't a psychiatrist?

Note

Above comment was censored.

At least it disappeared.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

How are you struggling with a term used in pop culture and why do you feel the need to attribute it to a side?

Ed T.

@edt.5118

Hglundahl. Woops, there it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Thanks for noting it's a pop culture term.

Sounds very different from serious expertise about how people work (for instance by cognitive psychologists).

8:46 When was the last time you were sceptical about Heliocentrism and Evolution?

And, as simple a question as how we know the Earth is round.

Magellan wasn't a scientist. He was a traveller. Far more reliable people. The observations of Magellan add up to Earth having a curvature that goes full circle in the East-West direction.

And Irving is probably less of a science sceptic than a history sceptic.

9:37 It may be less than 1 % of what the experienced researcher knows in terms of facts.

It will be way more than 1 % or than 10 % and may approach 100 % of the general outline of the subject.

Do you know why?

Because that's the exact part that's presented first. The experienced researcher of 20 years usually has a very similar view of the general outline (unless his field has been revolutionised) as he did when he started. Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology" No idea what you're saying here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Reread.

Your lack of reading skills is not my problem.

10:58 I do have a system for checking with others, correcting mistakes and so on.

The debate.

That's the exact same system Socrates had.

Ben Podborski

@benpodborski5972

Sure… but suppose you’re debating someone whom is a terrible debater, and correct? They “lose” the debate, and later evidence exonerates them.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You can't be serious. If someone makes a bogus claim in a debate it might take hours of research to determine the errors or even lies. Debate favors the scammer.

Note

Both are empty channels. Ben Podgorski seems to be a young Canadian teacher and mountaineer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime In written debate, the hours are available.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@benpodborski5972 In written debates on blogs, the later evidence can be added in comments, unless they are turned off. Mine aren't.

If you want to resume a debate with me, I usually accept the challenge and add the later evidence, and my comment on it, either in an extension of the extant post, or in a new post.

Zift Ylrhavic Resfear

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear

If you're talking about two people debating in comments or private message over days, then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources. If you're talking about a live debate in front of an audience, then there are techniques so effective at winning a debate despite being wrong that we've named them, like the gish gallop.

Marco

@Marco-it2mr

Debates are often popularity contests.

Of note, there is a reason why one calls it the SOCRATIC debate, and not just the debate. Debate is a wide term, whereas the Socratic debate has clear delineations of a teacher discussing with their students. There's also the dialectic debate, which you frequently will find in scientific meetings.

Unfortunately, the majority of debates are just people telling others what they believe.

Note

Both are empty channels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Marco-it2mr "a teacher discussing with their students"

Not in Socrates ... he took students to see his debates with people NOT his students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear "then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources."

Thanks, I've been doing that for 20 years. More.

16:23 I have a feeling someone directed this to my feed to gaslight me about DYOR ...

Because I just did prove there are four corners on the globe. No, not between the globe and surrounding space. Between continents and the Pacific Ocean, basically. The Maldives, for instance are NORTH of a line from Cape Horn to Hobart, those being the very obvious SW and SE corners. And the line being very clean. Definitely concave, absolutely NO land anywhere along the twelfths of the distance in coordinates. The West and East lines are less clean and the North line convex, but still. It's not a fifth corner.

Try to fact check me on details, well, no. Giving me a video in the feed with a calculated effect of either lowering my self esteem or showing the esteem others hold me in, that yes.

"If Potholer was saying vloggers 18:29 that do your own research aren't to be 18:30 trusted that includes 18:33 himself yes it does that's why I don't 18:37 do my own 18:38 research"

Except, apparently, on the subject of DYOR.

Because, as you started out admitting, Kruger and Dunning didn't do it for you.

[tried to add]

Let me give you a clue.

A scientist upholding an Evolutionist viewpoint may or may not be more expert than his vlogger (or in my case blogger) DYOR critic on the matter at hand.

But he is definitely NOT more expert on the topic of DYOR.

19:47 First of all, you misrepresent the school I had back in the seventies.

I was told, Science can be trusted, because Science can be challenged. No, not just by any other Scientist with the proper training. By people of the DYOR clan.

Second, you misrepresent the connection between Science and Technology.

The most connected you pretend might be between radiometric dating and finding oil. The thing is, there was some time since finding coal was done by checking for Carboniferous. There is coal not classified as Carboniferous.

Petrol ...

"Also, petroleum geologists are mainly interested in rocks from the Mesozoic and Paleozoic Eras. This is because almost all of the oil and gas found so far is contained within these rocks."

Oil on my shoes: The Absolute Geologic Time Scale
https://www.geomore.com/geologic-time-scale/

Sounds like the majority of this is from the Flood.

And 60 to 600 million years would be easy to get in radio[metric] dates (not carbon) from Flood deposits in simple good luck with dating methods.

In other words, the radiometric dates are NOT very relevant for finding the oil.

For other items, you are dealing with things that are pretty easily refuted if wrong, simply because technology will backfire. Astrophysics, Palaeosciences, Predictions in Futurology, usually won't. I'm just now trying to find out how many islands have been abandoned in the Maldives and especially why ...

Potholer defends Carbon dates

On the first minutes of this video, I must say he has a point about reservoir effect being a known exception to good working of carbon dating. Kent Hovind has vaccillated between "carbon dating doesn't work" and - at least once in a video and on his Dr Dino site - "if there was less carbon back when x is from ...". Potholer took on the former take, which isn't mine, I present my elaboration of that latter take which is mine.

Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked
potholer54 | 20.V.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY

After the first minutes, potholer will however go onto more controversial ground:

I

5:36 The problem with your reasoning here is, you are presuming everything dino or sth like that is completely permineralised.

Not true if you saw up dino bones like Armitage did.

6:54 And Armitage has done this to freshly found dino bones, with no shellac on them.

7:24 And since back then, Armitage has found dino collagen in bones.

II

Now, I am a YEC, I believe radiocarbon does work, outside reservoir effect, and I also believe radiocarbon is routinely calibrated to account for diverse amounts of carbon 14 in atmosphere in comparison to carbon 12.

HOWEVER, I also do believe that a young earth creationist calibration can be done and I have actually made several attempts at such.

For Biblical timeline, I use the one of Roman Martyrology (Creation 5199 BC, Flood 2957 BC, Abraham born 2015 BC, Exodus 1510 BC). Next question is, how did carbon levels rise during this period?

With Mark Armitage's work (which you haven't looked at, you prefer an old story where shellac can be blamed), dinos from what I now think is early post-Flood times (his would be from Morrisson and Hell Creek formations, mainly), date to sth like 26 000 - 20 000 BC or 28 000 to 22 000 BP.

Why do I think carbon date for 2957 BC is earlier? Bc last Neanderthal skeleta seem to be carbon dated to 40 000 BP. Now, Australia has been reached, they say, 60 000 BP - except, that is not a carbon date, that is a thermoluminiscence date. The carbon dates for Mungo man or Mungo woman are compatible for my calibration of post-Flood still times of Noah.

Other discrepancy, a French author* claimed a cave in Greece, Asprochaliko, had been dated to 45 000 to 8 000 BP.

• 1) Same cave could have been used both pre- and post-Flood;
• 2) It could be thermoluminiscence, not carbon
• 3) Or, since it is a marine cave, earliest remnant could have been dated older due to reservoir effect.

I am not yet clear which.

Either way, the general idea is like this:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Scan for Carbon Curves
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-scan-for-carbon-curves.html

Which as you can see, is a very far cry from "carbon dating doesn't work".

* Jean-Claude Poursat, La Grèce préclassique, p. 14 (Seuil, April 1995 edition).

Potholer on Egyptian Chronology

Since potholer54 did not provide links to the Answers in Genesis articles he pretends to show as mutually refuting, I don't feel I need to link to the video this is from comments under.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"5,000 years of Egyptian history"

Which version of it?

Manetho?

Abydos Kinglist?

Turin Kinglist?

Archaeology and carbon dating?

Max Mac

The Bible...Which version?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Max Mac Whichever version, it is more fleshed out for most of the time concerned than Egyptian history prior to Manetho.

The three main versions of Pentateuch are better in accordance than Abydos and Turin Kinglists between them or with Manetho.

II

3:21 You missed that the page by CMI actually does give non-Biblical evidence against traditional Egyptian history:

The Egyptian evidence consists of numerous inscriptions, texts, papyrus documents, and artifacts. Although it is very helpful, this evidence provides an incomplete picture of Egyptian history.

The ancient writings of Herodotus, Manetho, Josephus, Africanus and Eusebius provide added historical insight. Herodotus, the famous Greek historian, traveled to Egypt in the 5th century BC and interviewed priests and other knowledgeable individuals. Manetho, as stated above, composed a history of Egypt for the library at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC. Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, quoted from Manetho when writing his historical anthologies in the first-century AD. Africanus and Bishop Eusebius, renowned historians writing in the third and fourth centuries AD respectively, also quoted Manetho and wrote about Egyptian history. However, all of these highly esteemed historians often disagree with one another in the calculation of Egyptian chronology.

Because of the discordant nature of Egyptian chronology, it is impossible to present a comprehensive list of dates, pharaohs, and dynasties. Sir Alan Gardiner wrote, ‘Our materials for the reconstruction of a coherent picture are hopelessly inadequate.’ As a result, we must cross reference the Egyptian accounts with other accurate historical sources. Biblical and Assyrian chronology offer highly consistent dates that can be utilized to rectify many of the ambiguities of Egyptian history. In other words, if Old Testament and Assyrian historical records significantly overlap, then a revision of Egyptian chronology would be perfectly logical in order to harmonize with two independent reliable sources.

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
Published: 23 January 2007 (GMT+10) | By Daniel Anderson
https://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

III

Conservapedia on Egypt:

"Egypt has endured as a unified state for more than 5,000 years, and archaeological evidence indicates that a developed Egyptian society has existed for much longer. Egyptians take pride in their "pharaonic heritage" and in their descent from what they consider mankind's earliest civilization. The Arabic word for Egypt is Misr, which originally connoted "civilization" or "metropolis.""

https://www.conservapedia.com/Egypt

Would "for more than 5000 years" refer to archaeology which is carbon dated?

Bec. early dynastic Egypt is carbon dated to 3150 BC. Predynastic Egypt goes further back in carbon dates.

However, this is a thing which is fairly easy to fix with assuming a rise in carbon levels and a carbon level lower than present behind an early dynastic Egypt which historically in context fits very well with Abraham c. 2000 BC.

I did an article specifically on this one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

Also, you need not assume all editors on Conservapedia are YEC.

IV

4:20 "That's what you get when you try to squeeze things into time scales that don't fit."

Or what you get when you use a wiki type encyclopedia as if it were an editorially unified one. Conservapedia is not a man who has contradicted himself, Conservapedians are men who have contradicted each other (as on more than one wiki).

V

5:42 Sorry, in your comparison you forget, the post-Flood society was not one in which people had to actually scramble for resources.

Also, Mizraim ... in a Masoretic timeline view, he would have been around at Babel and still around when his tribe moved to Egypt.

However, it would not have been necessarily a very small tribe by that time.

This means, there would have been human resources to do the building.

Also, many pathogens would not yet have developed into those species of bacteria. There would have been more resources and less disease just after the Flood (not "no disease" since I consider any skeleton from Upper Palaeolithic as a prematurely dead early post-Flood centuries man).

VI

5:55 You are reading a lot of factuality into "statistics" that are, since previous to 1800 strictly just estimates.

Archaeological evidence is part of what they are based on, but a fairly small part.

If not in proportion to other inputs, at least in proportion to conclusions arrived at.

VII

6:10 [in] 2188 [BC] "Mizraim and his family of eight people"?

Is that what they say?

[I cannot check, I cannot find the article and potholer doesn't link]

Are you sure you are not reading too much into a picture, for one?

Did you note they have different opinions on AiG between different writers on whether Egypt started in 2188 BC?

6:34 "There would have been about 12 of them"

... assuming the doublings were evenly distributed.

We would rather assume population rose much faster just after the Flood.

Here I get to an article saying Step Pyramid starts pre-Abraham:

"Netjerykhet (later dynasties called him Zoser or Djoser) was the second king of the 3rd Dynasty, and his pyramid, the Step Pyramid of Saqqara, was built of stone blocks rather than mud bricks. ... Zoser would have lived around the time of Terah, the father of Abraham of the Bible."

AiG : The Step Pyramid
by David Down and Dr. John Ashton on July 23, 2009
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/the-step-pyramid/

I differ, I consider carbon dates of Djoser as carbon dates of his vizier Imhotep = Joseph in Egypt (identification built on Hungere Stele).

This further allows population growth in and outside Egypt before Step Pyramid.

I consider Narmer as a candidate for Abraham's Pharao in Genesis 13.

8:57 As said, population growth factors is not a constant like pi - it can vary over time.

Population doubling every 15 years (their actual words stating : each couple having 8 children in 30 years) is probably good guess for early post-Flood times.

9:46 "just hope no one asks both questions at the same time in the same room"

Why?

The growth rates do not contradict each other, unless you assume both apply to same set of people at same time, which clearly was not the assumption.

About as brilliant, potholer, as when you trusted Quentin Atkinson as a linguist, which he is not ...

Michael Dodds

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Abraham never existed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Dodds Except he did .... without going into Biblical inerrancy between us:

• 1) the Bible book Genesis, which reads as history says he did
• 2) it has been received by the Hebrew nation as the early history of mankind and of its own nation
• 3) it has not been received at a traceable earlier stage as non-history.

Even on naturalistic grounds, this should suffice as a prima facie case Genesis historically attests his existence.

charles madison

Seems like there was a bit of incest & inter-breeding, no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@charles madison Inbreeding in modern terms, certainly.

Incest is a crime and where the limits are ultimately depends on God's decision, but, after the Flood, cousins would have been available. Generation after three sons of Noah and their wives, that is.

Thomas Binney

Hans-Georg Lundahl Except he still didn’t, and using the Bible to prove the Bible isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thomas Binney I wasn't using the text of the Bible to prove its truthful historicity.

I was using its reception as a historic work (in the case of Genesis) to prove it is a historic source and not some other kind of text.

FROM THERE it is at least probable Abraham existed.

VIII

13:59 Sorry, but the song is a bit tasteless in this context ...

[One reason not to link.]

IX

[added later]

On the sandstone problem:

Creation vs. Evolution : Quick Take on Sandstone in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/12/quick-take-on-sandstone-in-egypt.html

... on Language as "Example of Evolution"

Evolution and language
potholer54 | 25.XI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VqcSDpPWS4

I

2:38 "Who designed Italian?"

Italian speakers and Italian writers in each dispute of usage those who came upper hand.

For instance, we know from Latin grammarians that in the time of Cicero, the ending -um was pronounced like a nasalised -u. We can spell it u~ to distinuish it from both -u and -u+m.

One fairly early such dispute of usage was whether bonu~ was going to remain bonu~ - or become bonu/bono. Guess which side won? In the spoken language this side won all over Romania - not the modern state of that name, but simply Roman Empire the parts with Roman Ethnicity. At the same time presumably, Greek went from agathon (or agatho~) to agatho - which is still the neo-Greek pronunciation.

Why is this "intelligent design"?

Because, there is not very much point in distinguishing bonu~ from bono, when usage is nearly interchangeable. When you really need bono as a dative, just add an "ad" before and pretend it is "ad bonu~" rather than "ad bono" you are trying to pronounce, bec. "ad+accusative" is fairly interchangeable (if not in Classic, at least in post-Classic Latin).

An even clearer example.

io abbancherò.

First of all, abbancare in itself is an intelligently designed verb, which did not exist in Latin.

It means either "put x on a bench":
To lay out on a bench
or "put benches into x"
To provide a boat with seats for rowers.

And since, surprise, surprise, a "linen shirt" can only be object to first operation and a "ship" only to second, context will always explain which one means (nearly, you could construe sentences in which it were unclear, but they would be very rare).

But suppose "abbancare" already had existed in Latin (certainly other verbs of the type did), there was a time when a certain dispute of usage was getting slightly out of hand.

Adbancavit (he "benched")and adbancabit (he will "bench") were both getting same pronunciation. Intelligently designed? Yeah, with a risk. The designers found a way out.

Adbancavit was more common, so, "abbancò" means "he benched".

For "he will bench" (a shirt or a ship, remember) one could use a kind of circumlocution.

"camisa illi adbancanda est" - "the shirt must be benched by him"
"navis illi adbancanda est" - "the ship must be benched by him"

BUT, there already was "navis illi est" - "a ship is to him" = "habet navem" - "he has a ship".

Also, colloquially and originally from Greek, "camisa/navis illi adbancanda est" comes out as "camisa/navis illi adbancare est" or even "illi adbancare est camisam/navem" (pronounced camisa~ and nave~ or even camisa and nave).

So, the phrase was turned around for better commodity:

"habet adbancare camisam/navem"
or
"camisam/navem adbancare habet"

And that is "lui abbancherà".

Since "ego habeo" is "io ho", you can guess that "io abbancherò" is "I will bench" (the ship or the shirt, whichever).

This is about as intelligent a design as we do with other fashions ...

The same of course is true if you go back beyond Latin, except we can't do that.

Btw, Latin did not develop from Faliscan, but Latin and Faliscan are sister languages or sister dialects, same ancestor. They are Q-Italic, like Irish is Q-Celtic. Oscan and Umbrian are P-Italic, like Welsh is P-Celtic.

"Mr. Fifth" would in Latin be "Quintus" or "Quinqueius" (depending on whether you meant fifth son of someone or the family branch descending from a fifth son long ago). And in Oscan or Umbrian, this latter is Pompeius.

Similarily five in Irish and Welsh is cúig and bump.

II

3:11 "most words weren't intelligently designed"

At some point in the past, they were.

Take Welsh for valley, namely dyffryn.

Once, this was dwfr + hynt = water + way.

Someone noted, intelligently, valleys are waterways, where the water floats (it usually doesn't mount up on hilltops you know).

"mispronounced"

Acceptable and unacceptable mispronunciation does involve a process of intelligent design.

When you drop a distinction, either you make sure everything which coincides due to it will be distinguished in other ways (like the new future in Italian and most Romance languages from Latin infinitive + habeo, as outlined), or you pick it up again, same or new form.

III

3:17 "the great vowel shift in medieval English"

1) AFTER medieval English, it's in early modern times!
2) Note how each arrow binds together an old and a new position so that you don't have or you don't have too many coincidences.

You do have some.

For instance, "break" now has same vowel as "shake" in most dialects (this pronunciation of ea is Irish) and "the book I read" is same vowel as "papyrus is a reed". (This latter pronunciation of ea is non-Irish, the more common one, confer the name of a very popular drink and how it's pronounced by The Pogues in "Oh Whisky, you're the Devil" : that line which goes "you'r spunkier than tay").

IV

3:27 No, "pada" is not the original version of the word, and Danish "fod" is younger, not older, than English "foot" (confer Swedish "fot" and Icelandic "fót").

"subtle changes"

And intelligent design KEPT the changes, at each successive generation, subtle enough.

V

4:23 As to the over-articulated sound, this is not how everyone spoke back then, it is an intelligently designed pronunciation, called "theatre pronunciation" or sth like that, which was designed to be intelligible from front to back of a big hall without microphones.

Apart from that, the differring pronunciation is actually very subtle.

Your pronunciation of "posh" - or if you prefer "peach" - is hardly phonemically different from that speaker's. You just emphasise each phoneme a little less, which is because he emphasised them more when speaking into the microphone, than he would usually have done.

VI

5:20 I would not call it micro-evolution.

I would call it linguistic reflection of social change.

Aristocrats back in 1950 were closer to - though not identic to - theatre pronunciation. Part of their job and ambitions turned on being able to hold speeches.

Aristocrats now are closer to working class or at least middle class pronunciation (which was back in 1950 probably a working class one), partly because speeches are (supposed to be) less important, partly because of microphones allowing you to explore "credibility" in your diction, and partly because anti-aristocratic tempers have made aristocrats wary of being too outspokenly so.

It's not evolution, micro or macro, it is very intelligent design of aristocratic communication.

VII

5:58 A growing lexicon is in a way compatible with a simpler grammar.

And, obviously, some points do get more complex, by intelligent design, even in grammar, as Italian future (which has as a spin off, conditional, from "adbancare habebam" : "abbancherei").

VIII

6:30 While losing grammatical gender is perhaps an improvement, it is loss of information.

On certain islands, beetles will no longer have wings ... because whenever there was a wingless version, those having wings were likelier to be blown off the island.

Advantage and devolution are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, English loss of gender has quite a lot to do with Anglo-Saxon and Norse coexisting on ... an island, with no hereditary borders between them, but bilingualism whereever there were Danes, and Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse expressed gender differently. Some words became ambiguous, and others came to use as simplified versions, which gained ground.

"they" used to be "sie", very easy to distinguish from "seo" (she), but at a certain point, the words became dangerously close. And "they" was borrowed from Norse. (German which had no Norsemen around now has "sie" for both she and they).

IX

7:00 Since languages are designed by users, more like "masochists".

No, sincerely, this is hard for English learners of German or French, it is not hard for German or French children learning German or French as the native language.

English has sixteen tenses. I am not kidding you. German or Swedish has 8. How come?

English doubles each tense for "simple" or "continuous" form.

Even in Shakespear's time, this was not so. "What doest thou?" "I read a book"

What's wrong with you developing this into "What are you doing?" "I'm reading a book" and incidentally abolishing the useful "thou" form, you can not always determine if someone is speaking to "you" in person (="thou") or to "you" as a group. I now try to add a noun or adjective in plural to get this through to English speakers.

X

7:17 No, designing a language like Esperanto is NOT the definition of intelligent language design. An English strong verb and an Esperanto verb, it's far easier to hear past tense in English.

XI

7:36 The greater theorem of Evolution also means, species with eyes evolved from species without them. This is not just "change" but - precisely - new information.

A certain group of fish in a certain cave being born blind by heredity certainly is "evolution" or "devolution" in the sense of "change (downward)" but it doesn't help explaining how eyes are supposed to have evolved in the first place.

There was a list of ten genes involved in rods and cones of these fish, and just two mutations in two of the genes made all the rest of the normal genes useless.

XII

8:47 In fact, two mutually unintelligible languages can become mutually intelligible, with either or both of two procedures:

• getting used to the sound changes or sound correspondences, as they are synchronically between the languages
• relexification of one or both.

The latter can work even without a common original language.

No procedure can make horses and cows interbreedable in nature (and I hope not even in labs), and you cannot point to any extinct phylum from which both are supposed to have evolved.

XIII

9:52 You cannot make a sound parallel between rich phonemes and rich genetic variety.

They don't work the same way.

On the contrary.

With 141 phonemes, that language arguably has no phonetic variation within each phoneme - language change has come to a stalemate.

XIV

10:56 I suppose you build this on Quentin Atkinson.

"Oxford University Home Institute of Cognitive & Evolutionary Anthropology"

https://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-quentin-atkinson

No trace of him being a linguist.

XV

11:45 Deriving American accents from a few of the British ones, actually is meaningful.

That is granted.

Richness of gene pool ... I have heard this is an oversimplification, Middle East and Africa being two alternative knots on the gene pool family tree.

XVI

12:24 I go to Conservapedia and find:

"Since the end of the Great Flood all humans spoke the same language. The survivors started to build a Tower, called Tower of Babel. God thought that the people would become high-spirited and stopped the construction, by creating several languages. The tower was not completed and the people travelled through the world, where they spread their languages."

So far, no problem with that.

I would have a problem with it if one pretended this means Italian and French were available immediately after Babel. But that is not implied by Genesis 11 and also not the creationist view at least by Creationist linguists.

Guess what?

Latin becoming French or Italian very much is like micro-evolution (with speciation), but it is one which involves lots of intelligent design on the parts of the speakers themselves.

XVII

13:06 If you are not hooked on "tower" needing to be a skyscraper, but open to it being a (probably doomed to failure) rocket project, Göbekli Tepe is a very good match for Babel geographically (it's in Mesopotamia, i e Shinar, and it is not where everything is a plain, but up in mountains where plains are things you can look for and find ... GT is in the NW corner of the plain, if you look on a map), and carbon date wise (post-Flood, since after populations came to parts of earth, but pre-Abraham), in its connection to recovered (though you would say invented) agriculture AND linguistically, since prior to any traces of any clearly non-Hebrew language.

Genetic .... not sure what genetic tests have been made on skulls in GT, but culturally, GT has, as Hancock discovered, links to as far away as Australia and Polynesia.

XVIII

15:24 "one people at a gate"

Incidentally, Babel has a double meaning. Babble - or gate of god(s).

Also, "one people" is very compatible with the story in Genesis 11.

Should I or should CMI thank you for making their work for them?

XIX

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As you know Chinese, somewhat, what is "rocket" in Chinese?

Aj Meyers

火箭

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Aj Meyers Thank you!

How do you pronounce it? A transscription in pinyin or Wade-Giles would be appreciated.

And, since it seems to be two words, what does each word mean?

Aj Meyers

@Hans-Georg Lundahl pinyin: huo jian

@Hans-Georg Lundahl what does each word mean?

It isn't two words, it's one word

Edit: but if you're asking what each character means on its own, 火 means ‘fire' and 箭 means ‘arrow'

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Aj Meyers ah, fire arrow, thank you!

Very close to Greek pyravlos, fire flute!

[Nothing involving "tower" though, alas ... ]

XX

15:32 Here I must recur to CMI conjectures : pictophonetic characters can very well have started out differently and then become such through phonetic development ...

On cows, I think you have a point ... exit zao from their list, as far as I am concerned.

Geocentrism still not disproven ...

Video commented on:

potholer54 : The Immoveable Earth (more Golden Crocoduck nominees)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpeYDmDpma8

7:03

You compared gravity to magnets.

Now, anyone tried shooting a little magnet past a big one to see if it gets caught in an orbit?

7:33

I would think Geocentrism requires a continuous miracle.

Sure. That is why it proves there is a God. Unless Heliocentrism can be shown to be true and to not require such a miracle.

So, how about shooting a little magnet past a big one (say on ice) and see if you can start an orbit from intertia of little one plus attraction of big one.

God ahead, a few months hence hockey rinks will be aplenty in certain lands ... I've not seen it done. And gravity is more like a magnet than a string.

8:39

The hammer thrower is more like holding a stone on a string than magnets, right?

And gravity is more like magnets, right?

8:55

That won't happen.

[i e a larger object even starting off as orbitting a smaller one]

Well, no, not as long as:

a) neither object is moved or held in place by voluntary forces (God, angels)

b) and the smaller one is not being held in place (remember the old man's example of a wound up thing which will rotate around key if that is held).

I support Geocentrism according to a, God holds earth in lace and an angel keeps the sun moving.

Sungenis supports Geocentrism on version b. Earth is held in place by gravitational forces of rotating universe.

Summing up

Science has not shown Heliocentrism right and Bible wrong.

Science has not showed Heliocentrism equals a two body problem between sun and earth. Slightly complicated by another smaller one between earth and moon.

It has not shown the two body problem would continue for billions of rotations arond barycentre if not stopped like a perpetuum mobile.

It is not same thing as a thing moving with constant velocity staying in it, since curved movement = other velocity (Newtonian definition).

I am not sure whether a two body problem between two magnets on ice has been tested even.

And I am sure the model with voluntary movers/keep-in-placers has not been logicaly refuted either.

I have not seen any complete and reasoned proof of Heliocentrism being true apart from the example with the hammer thrower either.