lundi 12 mai 2014

Attacked on "Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel" Subject Again

1) Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel), 2) Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins, 3) Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog, 4) Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup, 5) Atta and Fadar, 6) Thrown Out of Group, 7) Answering LAM, 8) Attacked on Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel Subject Again

CG, alias Cushla Geary* (status or thread head in group)
via Ancient History Encyclopedia

One of the more ridiculous biblical stories that form part of the "creation bloc" of myths is that of the Tower of Babel. It claims all languages on earth derive from the curse placed by god on the people of Babel that prevented them from understanding each other.

It is, of course, humbug of the highest order.

Languages, like humans, have evolved. This map traces the evolution of the Indo-European tongues from which many modern languages derive. Not from a god-blasted hubristic tower in the Mesopotamian basin, but from some ancient group of peoples living far, far to the North of that region. Who, in their turn, had evolved their speech from yet earlier ancestors.

Languages evolve - they are not created.

Evolution of a different kind, yes - but never "creation".

Indo-European Languages
by Cristian Violatti
published on 05 May 2014

Quotation from the article: "The Indo-European languages are a family of related languages that today are widely spoken in the Americas, Europe, and also Western and Southern Asia. Just as Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian are all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages are believed to derive from a hypothetical language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken.

It is highly probable that the earliest speakers of this language originally lived around Ukraine and neighbouring regions in the Caucasus and Southern Russia, then spread to most of the rest of Europe and later down into India. The earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity is believed to be around 3400 BCE.

Since the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language did not develop a writing system, we have no physical evidence of it. The science of linguistics has been trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language using several methods and, although an accurate reconstruction of it seems impossible, we have today a general picture of what Proto-Indo-European speakers had in common, both linguistically and culturally. In addition to the use of comparative methods, there are studies based on the comparison of myths, laws, and social institutions."
Explain the Klingon language, then.

[Was created by men.]
Interesting point CG about the origin of the Proto-Indo-European language. his ties in nicely with the Black Sea Flood, the probable source of the Biblical Flood myth.
Yes - it may well do so, although I think the language had already begun to spread well before that period.
This proves the spread of languages from the region of Babylon, just as it is recorded in scripture. AC The Indo-European languages are a sub-set of all languages. All of the others had a last common ancestor prior to IE. So, no not as recorded in scripture.
MSP: for goodness sake read the article before making silly claims! That is not where this language is thought to spread from - it arose far to the north of that region, in the Caucasus/Ukraine area. In any case, it is by no means the original tongue, but is itself evolved from an early language/s. There was no tower of babel - the bible story is a fable. Humans had been communicating in spoken languages long, long before any of those legends arose.
Except for Esperanto.
Esperanto is now only spoken in Esperance, Western Australia.
That's possible CG but the Black Sea flood was around 5,600 BCE so 2,000 years before the earliest possible end of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity. As the Semites had their origins around the Black Sea it seems a good possibility that the Tower of Babel myth was connected with the divergence of the language from that region.
MK, what makes you think the Semites originated around the Black Sea? And have you read Ryan and Pitman or Wilson on the Black Sea flood?
The BLACK SEA FLOOD did happen, but geologist disagree exactly when it happened. Some say 5600 bc, others say 7500 bc. Some say it was dramatic, others say no. It could have been the source of the great flood story, to a degree.. My take is the biblical flood is a metaphor for baptism of the earth, first the water, then, baptism by fire, hence the lyric to the old gospel song, "the fire next time" ..
"evolution of a different kind" - there are some similarities, similar mechanisms, isolation of a population, drift,... even sideways evolution as words are borrowed. And extinctions. We can trace the journeys of the Polynesians across the Pacific by the evolution of their language. In the abstract it is not so different.
Why is it oldest language isnot even more than 10,000 yrs old?
SV, what's your evidence for thinking that?
Wikipedia : List of languages by first written accounts

Can you show me list way older ?
True, writing is rather recent (but so are televisions) but can infer from the rate of linguistic evolution that spoken languages are far older.

[Problem I am adressing is how much such inferences are really worth. Especially as proof for evolutionism, since linguists making them are often anyway evolutionists and believe the evolutionist time scale, like Cro Magnon find dated to 20,000 B. C. - And some inferences they do make are based on that.]
What is oldest I just asked 2x?

Klingon? Minion?
Kemit Amenophis
This book describes a more global perspective about the origin of all languages :

Amazon : The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue Paperback
by Merritt Ruhlen (Author)

[It is a highly speculative work by Merrit Ruhlen. I have previously commented briefly on it and tried to contact him. I do however accept more or less his list of 32 language families, my reservation being on whether they all originated in parent languages or some - like Indo-European notably - as failed esperantos influencing diverse languages, like Medieval Latin did to Western European Languages.]
SV: Nor does it support either the Tower of Babel legend or a 6,000-year old humanity.

Looks good, Kemit. I love this topic.
THM, alias Tony Hackenslash Murphy**
Have a look out for a book by malacologist Steve Jones called 'The Language of the Genes', which is precisely about how the evolution of organisms is mirrored by the evolution of language. A cracking read, if you like that sort of thing.
What does linguistics have to do with...evolution? Is this SV for real?
Well yes of course pls don't tell me humans did not leave any language for the past million yrs?

[I later saw both Kain Karrion and CG describe SV as a troll and require me not to go "full SV".]
CG !

Let me highlight a distinction for you:

"Just as Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian ARE all descended from Latin, Indo-European languages ARE BELIEVED TO derive from a HYPOTHETICAL language known as Proto-Indo-European, which is no longer spoken."

They could also have added that it was never written down while spoken.

Apart from my highlight, it is from the site.

Tower of Babel does NOT deny that French and Spanish both descend from Latin. One can however ask whether "evolved" is a good description of that descent. Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations.

Also, in language change creation does play a role, just as in costume. Trousers have been intelligently designed, and so has the new tense/mood known as conditional in Romance languages.

Kemit Amenophis The definition for "biological evolution" may be similar to the general word "evolution". However, Biological evolution is a new concept. Maybe it needs it's own word so that lay people do not get confused?

Kemit Amenophis, even so called "Cultural Evolution" like the supposed one between palaeolithic and neolithic and metal age technologies is very incomparable to linguistics. Latin was not a rudimentary language because it lacked the conditional. No rudimentary languages have ever been found, even with people having rudimentary technologies.

CG, again: "we have today a general picture of what Proto-Indo-European speakers had in common, both linguistically and culturally. In addition to the use of comparative methods, there are studies based on the comparison ..."

Etc. Are you aware that Proto-Indo-European language as well as other items (including original homeland) have been reconstructed several times over? Are you aware that Proto-Indo-European of Schleicher with his successors is a set of languages they created quite as much as Tolkien created Quenya and Sindarin, basically? Several times over for each too. Earliest reconstructions close to Sanskrit, latest close to Klingon.

Can you refute my theory that Indo-European common vocabularies and grammar originated as a failed Esperanto?
SV, the evidence from comparative linguistics is more than sufficient to confirm the existence of Proto-indo-European even without a single written record in that language.
JL, even if it was directed to SV, I am answering too. Comparative linguistics is not hard evidence like a building of a builder. It is an art of guess work. The main stream fashion has been for a proto-language, but Trubetskoy argued the Sprachbund hypothesis - languages getting MORE similar due to speakers living as neighbours and many being bilinguals.

There are THREE natural explanations for similarities between non-identic languages, and guessing about unrecorded past is picking and chosing. Latin to Romance = common origin. Balkan to Greek and Roumanian = neighbourhood. Church Latin to West European of Classic Chinese to East Asiatic languages = common admired model.
Kemit Amenophis
Hans-Georg Lundahl, Your thesis omits languages from the rest of Asia and the Pacific, the New World, and Africa. The study of a "mother tongue" is a very recent advancement in linguistic studies
Hans-Georg Lundahl's thesis is, I think, edging towards announcing that all languages derive from the confusion following the destruction of the mythical tower of babel. All his comments on any subject are very Euro-centric, and geared towards trying to demonstrate a) his erudition and b) the veracity of a rather primitive variety of Catholicism.

Gets boring, Hans-Georg, all that chewed up language and those truncated ideas. Best to formulate a coherent comment, post it, and wait for a response from someone.
True,Hans-Georg Lundahl, it's not hard evidence like a building, but neither is most of what passes as "knowledge" with us, since most of it is derived by inference and leaps of faith-such as your knowledge of my existence, for which you have no hard evidence. I think there is strong evidence that long before writing there was an ethnic group of speakers of Proto-Indo-European, that this common language by diversification in different localities evolved into different families, from time to time hybridized by borrowed terms. The main point is that the story of the Tower of Babel is a much weaker hypothesis.

[I am ashamed not to have answered this intelligent answer, but I missed it over the abuse of people like CG and KK]
Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently takes exception to my use of the word "evolved" when describing language, and demands whether costume has "evolved" ("... Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations....")

First: evolution has more than one sense - it is not only applicable to biological evolution, but to the gradual changes apparent in societies, languages - and costume.

Second: the evolution of costume is not something voluntary, but is governed by as many variables as the evolution of architecture or art, and is intimately bound up with every facet of an evolving culture or civilisation.

What I wrote in the OP was: "...Languages evolve - they are not created. Evolution of a different kind, yes - but never "creation"...."

I made no mention of mutations, or of any other technical factor involved in biological evolution. Nevertheless, my original thesis still stands: languages change, are transformed by many different external pressures, adapt to circumstances, change when a group of humans is isolated from the main body of its common language, and evolve new forms, new grammar, new words to suit circumstances and discoveries - mimicing the manner in which biological evolution functions.

Which is not at all surprising, since language, communication of some form, is an integral part of the development of a species.

[Does that look like biological bias to anyone?]
Kain Karrion
there are similarities in language because god was lazy when making all of them

[Omitting two of their words]
"Second: the evolution of costume is not something voluntary, but is governed by as many variables as the evolution of architecture or art, and is intimately bound up with every facet of an evolving culture or civilisation."

I do very much not agree costume has evolved. It has changed.

I also did not claim the over all sum of changes is voluntary. Each one change is.

It is also a voluntary act to reverse an over all sum of changes. IF one person does, it is voluntary on the part of others to:

  • imitate him
  • laugh at him


  • think it odd and quaint.

In a novel one Michael Herne after playing a role in a costume play make sthe choice of not changing back from the Medieval costume. In the book the first reaction is shaking heads and things like that, then he gets more and more people hearing his explanation that Medieval costume is nicer to wear than early 20:th C. costume. If you care to read it, it is by Chesterton and is called The Return of Don Quixote.

Now, in real life I have made the choice to ignore the last three changes in Swedish official grammar.

1870 some even wanted to change the word "svensk" to "svänsk", did not last, but the default spelling of the one mid front unlabialised short vowel changed from "e" to "ä", as also in a few words like "der" > "där" and also long mid more open front vowel after j as in "fjeder" > "fjäder". This was because respelling "gerna" to "gärna" marked solidarity with Danes against "Germans". Danish "gærne", German "gerne". Now, I agree Danes were attacked unjustly, in the end, but I do not agree Austrians were very much to blame. And I do not agree the equation "Prussians = Germans".

So, I retain the "e" in places where modern Swedish has non-etymological "ä". 1906 Swedish intellectuals made two bad choices - rewarding Carducci with the Nobel Price and changing the four spellings of the v sound (two for English w in comparable words, the other two for v were both involving an f) into just v. There are still eight ways to spell j-sound or jod ("yod" even, when we spell the word "yaught").

And I retain the plural conjugation of the verb, abolished in 1950 by Social Democrats.

I think this is a voluntary refusal to participate in changes that were voluntary on part of those suggesting them or even ordering them. And that thereby I have shown that following the suggestions (1870's) or even orders (1906, 1950) is also a voluntary and reversible thing.

In costume, slit arms and slit trouser legs were high fashion for about a century, say 1450 - 1550. That was reversed.

Now, the thing in my objection is, the so called "sound laws" were to begin with sound changes, also voluntary. Some of which were generalised, and are therefore registered by linguists as sound laws, some of which are reversed and are therefore not registered at all.

So, in a sense yes, change in language as well as in costume is voluntary. Modernity is voluntary and Amish rejection and other possible or actual rejections of it are voluntary too.

Nothing in this mimics the way evolution is supposed to have evolved new organs or from microbe to man.

There is a sense in which one can speak of "cultural evolution" (from Moustérien to La Tène Iron Age, for instance) in which the change is supposed to denote evolving progress from an initially rudimentary state. In that sense we do not see any linguistic evolution. One has tried to reconstruct it, for instance the "language of the great apes" in Tarzan and French without certain grammatical categories (grammar of "Pal Ul Don" imitated in a Modern language's words) in Rahan. But it has not been found as anyone's native language.

In that sense we do not even agree that Moustérien stone age culture was an original rudimentary state of human technology.

What it does in some way mimic about biology is something Creationists are not contesting. Great Danes and Chihuahuas have a common ancestor. "I think it was a dog" as Kent Hovind said about it.

(Or, more properly, a pair of dogs)

Kain Karrion, at this "there are similarities in language because god was lazy when making all of them"

First of all. Yes, God made all of those there were just after Babel. I totally disagree with Jews who claim that God allowed each of seventy demons to make each a language for each his people. God made all seventy or seventytwo.

Second of all. God did NOT make all 6000 we have today. Languages have certainly diversified and also coalesced since the Tower of Babel.

Third. Similarities can have been intentional on God's part to allow people some comprehension when starting out in neighbourhoods. But there are, as said, three natural explanations for why any two langagues are similar. Not just one supposedly mimicking evolution from a common ancestor.

Kemit Amenophis, "Your thesis omits languages from the rest of Asia and the Pacific, the New World, and Africa. The study of a "mother tongue" is a very recent advancement in linguistic studies."

Not really. That Latin was the mother tongue for diverse Romance languages was obvious to the Middle Ages. Note well that Dante distinguished Medieval Latin (not identic to mother tongue) from original Roman tongue. But he did identify "French, Latins [Occitans] and Spaniards [with Italians southg of Lombardy]" a speaking more or less same tongue, but as saying yes like oil, oc and si.

I was giving examples and I was not filling out every detail of my thesis.

The concept of analysis of Sprachbund phenomena (as in Balkans) or of Hyperstrate phenomenon (as with Classic Chinese or Medieval Latin) is, if so, at least an even more recent advance in linguistics, and one I am not neglecting just because you are.

If there were 70-72 languages just after Babel, and if now there are 32 major families, some coalescence through either Sprachbund, or acceptance of common Model Languages must have occurred. I do not think wholesale disappearance of any of the 70 odd languages can be theologically justified. Merely naturally speaking that is also possible and is the solution of CMI site of creationists, where I disagree in this detail.
[makes a commentabout thermodynamics, obviously belonging to another thread.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: ferankly,[sic] i don't give a flying fuck what you think about costume - except that your ignorance of the meaning of the word evolve, and its application to the history of the garments we ware is an indication of the quality of the rest of your verbose offerings.

Be assured: costume, like art and architecture - and language - evolves in the very real meaning of that word. As does biological life, albeit via an organic, rather than sociological process.

BTW: I'm an atheist - arguing that there is anysuch thing as a god, that that god made anything, that the bible has any relevance to the evolution of life, that your particular religion has any more validity than any other religion, is a waste of time. Particularly when you offer no persuasive argument to support your position.

I think you suffer from that wonderfully evocative disorder [sic] known as Dunning-Kreuger [sic] Syndrome [sic]. I might actually have given you the benefit of the doubt, and thought of you as a fundamentalist catholic (ghastly concept) if not for that fatuous nonsense about costume - it's evident you haven't a bloody clue about cultural anthropology - or the history and significance of clothing.

[It is Dunning Kruger and it is a phenomenon, not a disorder or syndrome. It is also a two way deal, she is only referring to one aspect.]
She then changes words with RT and says :
I think it may have been wasted effort, though, Richard. This one (Hans-Georg Lundahl) seems to be another Mark Meier, but less well informed.)
You might find this of interest Richard:

[Link about theormodynamics also irrelevant for this thread.]
CG, what exactly is YOUR academic specialty, since you so confidently say I have no clue about history of costume and a few more things?

@RT were you trying to answer another thread? I mean, this one was so not about Thermodynamics. Either for or against evolution.

@CG since I actually do think of myself as a Fundamentalist Catholic (or rather as an Integrist one), I wonder why you feel that the concept is ghastly. Might it be that we have some kind of fundamental ideological disagreement which makes you fundamentally inept to make any kind of psychological statement about me with any kind of due objectivity?

Oh, I looked up Dunning Kruger. To me it seems you might have something like it. You are certainly NOT a linguist, for instance.

Nor, as far as I can see, any expert of what happened to costume between Romans and Greeks wearing Himation and Toga and Moderns wearing Jackets.

Nor very self observing about your own choices of clothing - or very observing of anyone else's.

And, yes, I just said very clearly that you have shown yourself incompetent in this domain to someone who as it happens - and not just because it is me - is really competent.

You see, these are questions I have studied for years - and in Academia I have rarely been denied a good grade at my exams in Latin, Greek and a few more. Very involved in observed changes of culture during Middle Ages. A period for which we have written and pictorial records - unlike the prehistory of Australia (well, excepting some pictorial) and a few more like that.

As to Dunning Kruger, I found this interesting ideological connexion on the wiki:

Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was put forward in 1999, Dunning and Kruger have noted similar historical observations from philosophers and scientists, including Confucius ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."), Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision", see Wikiquote), and Charles Darwin, whom they quoted in their original paper ("ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").

Confucius was a near atheist. Charles Darwin may not have been downright atheist or he may have been so, but he was close and he promoted atheism. Bertrand Russell dedicated himself to promoting atheism. If they do not bow down to God, they bow down to something. That something is in their case Human Competence. And this makes it religiously important to them to have some Human Competence (sacred thing to them!) evaluating Human Competence (bowing down to a false one would be idolatry to them). Very well illustrates that men who cease to believe in God are not left believing Nothing, but will believe Anything. Including the oracle of the dog or the sacred bulls of Bashan.

Kain Karrion
Hans-Georg Lundahl one of my good friends was a linguist, lanuage evolved, you don't know what the word evolve means clearly, and it seems you also cannot discern sarcasm

"Nor, as far as I can see, any expert of what happened to costume between Romans and Greeks wearing Himation and Toga and Moderns wearing Jackets." costume or clothing?

also, lets assume you were correct about costumes being different and thee were drastic changes, that is not how language works, in fact, we have evidence of language observing, how many words were added to the english language by william shakespear

how do you explain new words for new things if not for evolution of language?
I am sorry, but that one of your good friends either was not here on the debate, as he would have supported me, on each of my principled objections. He might have preferred the scenario given, but he would have been honest about me having a point.

New words for new things are very much NOT what linguists mean by evolution of language when they use this misnomer. You are NOT a linguist like that good friend of yours.

Now, costume or clothing, I am neither US American nor English. I think it is used by English when referring to the phenomenon as changing. It is at least a defensible usage, considering the usage of "costume drama" rather than "clothing drama" when you dress up in Medieval or Renaissance or Toga for the play.

Now, back to CG :

"Hans-Georg Lundahl's thesis is, I think, edging towards announcing that all languages derive from the confusion following the destruction of the mythical tower of babel."

It is not edging towards it. It presupposes it. Your grasp of someone else's argument is ghastly. If your English teacher already was grading reading comprehension, and he gave you good grades, either you have deteriorated or your teacher was biassed or bribed.

"All his comments on any subject are very Euro-centric,"

Europe in the Middle Ages happens to be what I have most knowledge of.

[OK, some Old Testament history with contemporary events to that like War or Troy, as well.]

"and geared towards trying to demonstrate a) his erudition"

Anyone who argues and has erudition is demonstrating it in some way. but anyone who argues with a heart, as I do, is not arguing first and foremost for the sake of demonstrating it.

"and b) the veracity of a rather primitive variety of Catholicism."

That should NOT have been item b, it was and remains my prime priority. And I take primitive as a compliment.

I am a Catholic like Chesterton and Belloc were Catholics. I am a Catholic like JRRTolkien would have been unless he had been seduced by misrepresentation of Humani Generis in getting away from taking Genesis as literal fact.

I am a Catholic like St Robert Bellarmine or like St Pius X was a Catholic.

Please spare me the Robert Barron version or the Bergoglio version!
Hans-Georg Lundahl why would a linguist agree with your mistaken concept of a word, that seems irrational
'Tower of Babel does NOT deny that French and Spanish both descend from Latin. One can however ask whether "evolved" is a good description of that descent. Has costume "evolved"? Every time you choose clothes you make voluntary choices. Not comparable to mutations.'

Since this seems to be the root of your malfunction, perhaps it's worth addressing it, because it's as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice.

When we talk about the evolution of costume, we are actually talking about evolution in the same sense as in biology. Fashions are not restricted to cultures, and you find very much a mix and match attitude to garment choice, and this has always been the case. The analogue of gene mutations in this instance would be things like the addition of accessories, zips, etc. Beyond that, you get a mixing of local variations spreading via an analogue of genetic drift, all the way to fixation, in the form of blue jeans being a universal, along with the 'little black dress', etc.

Language is exactly analogous to this, with many languages borrowing words for things that they have no word for. Even the words themselves mutate under regional accents, and the meanings mutate so that they can end up meaning exactly the opposite of what they originally meant. The characters are the letters, the words and phrases (memes) are the genes, and these are all subject to mutation in one form or another.

So yes, evolution is exactly the right word to use in both cases, and it occurs in all three cases.

Neither credentials nor any amount of study are remotely relevant when you're talking shit. Language, fashion, the biosphere; all evolve, and with evolution meaning pretty much the same thing in every case. In biological evolution, the only distinction is that the definition requires a degree of precision such that it defines precisely what it is that changes over time, namely frequencies of alleles. Other than that bit of precision, the term evolution applies equally well and with the same definition in all three cases.

[On his profile it says he is chief cook in a kitchen. Some Dunning Kruger effect, perhaps ?]
A bit after this
the linguistic and philosophical discussion became very diluted with abuse from partly CG, but foremost KK. He called me snake, liar, and a few other nice words. Since he cannot even dare use his own name, I am not smudging it to the public by stating this fact. He said I had gone « full SV » and in this subject I take that as a compliment.

I did however point out to THM that a mutation is involuntary and that no change in linguistics is (except for that at Babel, which he would consider mythical). I also asked what the Hell he meant by malfunction. It is a Hellish mistake to take Atheism and Evolutionary beliefs as a proper function of Man.
A bit later still
I have been verbally abused by Kain Karrion and I see CG is on the intellectual level of non-linguistics that she can take "evolution from Anglo-Saxon to Middle English, from Middle English to Modern English" as support of languages really evolving in a sense really parallel to her point of biological evolution. In that sense even Creationists claim evolution happens. Like common ancestor "dog" evolving into Chihuahuas and Great Danes. (Hat tip to Hovind, hope he is out soon!)

* Cushla Geary, a k from here, commenting under Maryam Namazie:

I dream of a secular democracy, with a constitution that mandates absolute separation of state from church, mosque, temple, or synagogue; that allows complete freedom to worship as you please – with the proviso that such worship harms no-one, and refrains from exhorting others to do harm in the name of their gods. Where all religious organisations pay taxes like any other corporate body, and cartoonists can lampoon them as they please, and we can all laugh at each other.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where Islamist idiots rioted in Sydney last week, and their white supremacist counterparts threaten to hold a retaliatory riot this weekend, it is the recipe as before: screaming and rampaging by people (usually male) who feel insulted because someone, somewhere, doesn’t think as highly of something or other, as they do.

Faugh! Contemptible degenerates!

Freethoughtblogs, Maryam Namazie, Nothing is Sacred:
Bravo Charlie Hebdo
Sept 20, 2012

** Tony Hackenslash Murphy, a k from here:

I would finally like to extend my gratitude to the following:

Richard Dawkins, for bringing us together.
PZ Myers, for his input and clear head.
Josh and Andrew, for their work.
The moderating staff, for theirs.
The members of RDF, for their allegiance and loyalty.
The members and staff of rationalia, for their hospitality and understanding.
The members and staff of the league of reason, for their hospitality.
And all of the above, for educating me.

[My emphases]

Reciprocity: When You Fight Yourself
25 February 2010

After I left group
Hans-Georg Lundahl posted link and said
And for your info "Open Debate" is really and truly NOT a realistic even, let alone truthful description of this group. Cushla Geary and Kain Karrion have gone onto a kind of pseudo crusade to prevent any real discussion.
Cushla Geary
Ego-tripping, Hans-Georg Lundahl? Making a barely comprehensible, and all but entirely unsupported assertion in a facebook group discussion does not mean anything to the world at large - particularly when it is self-evidently the ravings of an eccentric obsessive. Blog away - no doubt you've got some followers, but I shouldn't think they're likely to offer much in the way of intellectual criticism of your rantings. The Tower of Babel? Stuff and nonsense, you foolish man - we're adults in here: we gave up fairy tales and fables long ago.
Richard Tetlow
That blog is butthurt to the brink of buttsuicide. It's just whinging. Retreating to a safe place to lick your wounds. It serves no educational purpose whatsoever. What is it with this Christian persecution complex?
Kain Karrion
hqns, you keep whining about no one debating, i refuted all your points, you haven't acknowledged it
he had said
Kain Karrion
"so called sound laws" what in the fuck does that mean
It means that
I call "sound laws" a misnomer. I regard them as fashions. And if he in comment numbers close to above last of 356 still has not got it, it is not debating that I call his interference when I try to have a debate with more intelligent people than himself.
Other issue
Cushla Geary
BTW: did that barely literate gorf Hans-Georg Lundahl go off to play with himself, or did the men in whit coats come to take him away?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thanks for the slur, Cushla Geary, illustrates your level of culture.

Anyone having legitimate concerns and being tempted to listen to her, I needed a coffee break.
Other issue
Kain Karrion
since your coming late, its pretty simple, we are watching him devolved into a sherwin, all were missing as far as i can tell is the annoying laugh
Cushla Geary
And seriously, people - the man's a nutjob! Also: if he has any formal academic qualifications I'll eat mine stewed with gravy! Although I suppose he miiiiight have some kind of night class diploma in ancient languages that has become addled along with his brain!

And yes, whoever saif that - he went full sherwin. One should *never* go full sherwin!!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have no degree. I do have five years worth of exams. Not available on paper to prove it though.

Have not much against Sherwin Valerio.
Kain Karrion
and this is how we know you are a problem, a troll, and have no place being in serious discussion
Cushla Geary
Guess that^^^ says it all!
Kain Karrion
why do you think i said i was treating you like him, gregory
Hans-Georg Lundahl
People who complain about "trolls" are pretty often orkish.
Cushla Geary
That would be hansel-gregory, Kain Karrion

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kain Karrion is one example.

(Plus some people even hate real names as they are ...)
Kain Karrion
Hans-Georg Lundahl you are aware that no one is taking you the least bit seriously, i am trolling you, have admitted it multiple times, yet i have still refuted every fucking argument you've made? because you, handsoap, are a deciever

oh yea, i absolutely hate my real name, i changed it back to the surname after because shelby proved the point that not everyone knew karrion was the surname

its not even my real name, its a stage name, so i get to choose which goes where

but yea, i clearly hate the way i made it, how observant of you to notice happy meal

[Meant my real name.]
Two questions ...
How did he know I hate it when I lack - intelligent - discussion? Why is he presuming anyone will call such behaviour that?

Two Updates

Why I was dubious of Cushla Geary’s specialty in Academics :

When I saw that Cushla Geary was very critical of any Creationist comment, and very eager for scientific accuarcy, I offered her an opportunity to debunk my creationist blog if she could :

Creation vs. Evolution

Specifically messages and message groups (always giving a link that links to others in same group) on :

Cushla Geary would not be bothered with all these technical details, she said she was « bored » and called it « religious rantings ». Obviously for the one and only reason that I accept explanations involving God – He is not very often directly mentioned in the links given above.

So, she was not interested in discussing any technical points on the subject itself. Can she have been a scientist in these sciences ? If so shed id not show it. She was then interested, as per me, ONLY to make a parallel argument, and she made it from linguistics in such a way as to show she was not a linguist herself, though she had read about the subject.

She was also interested in whether I « knew anything at all », i e in writing me off as a « barely literate gorf ». Reminds me of people overdoing belief in expertise, like the « new Mark Studdock » (Tom Nichols), whom I adressed here :

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.

She may – and specifically her friend « Kain Karrion » may – have thought of a request for debate given in my FAQ page for another blog :

FAQ Fr/Eng

I had however said there:

I believe in serious debate … serious debate is debating seriously, and debating seriously is debating where there is serious (not necessarily violent - as said!) opposition.

What I got there does NOT replace what was taken from me when the MSN Group Antimodernism was taken down :

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : What was MSN Group Antimodernism?

These guys were more like on a « Crusade » to stop Creationism from being rationally defended.

Are the Cushla’s the same ?

I wrote one with same names plus hyphen and other name. I think she is niece or sth. Shed id not answer. Not sure.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire