A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

Garry Smith

status*

The bible says Jesus rose bodily into heaven and sits at the right hand of the father and will return. Christians also say God exists out of space and time. Wonder how does a physical body get outside of space and time and then return?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God as God exists outside space and time, not meaning "on the outside of" but independently of.

To meet angels He always had a throne room, above the stars, which doesn't exist independently of space and time.

There is where Jesus went.

Thomas Kieft

Hans-Georg Lundahl above the stars, you say? Like billions of light years away?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One to ten light DAYS up.

The "cosmic distance scale" once it involves fix stars, involves Heliocentric interpretation of the phenomenon labelled "parallax" ... mislabelled according to this Geocentric.

If Heliocentrism (on the local scale) holds, that means that we have a triangle between Earth position A, Earth position B and star AND a known distance between Earth positions A and B, namely 2 AU.

In Geocentrism, the 2 AU are still a known distance but outside the triangle Star position A, Star position B and Earth. Without a known distance IN the triangle, you can't triangulate a distance. If the angle of 0.35 arc seconds doesn't belong to Earth but to Sirius, we cannot know that Sirius is "8.6 Light years away" ...

So, forget about light years, there is no such distance.

In the diagram**, I used alpha Centauri, bad choice, since not main series, so less relevant for cosmic distance scale. I learned the "distance" and parallax for Sirius much more recently.

II

Bruce Molinari

His body took on the qualities of His divinity

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually false, if you mean things like inspatiality.

Bruce Molinari

Hans-Georg Lundahlnot how it works; His body is now the same as His divinity: this means that He is everywhere undiminished and is perfect in every way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is actually a Monophysitic heresy, and I'm not even sure the Copts or Armenians would accept it.

This was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon.

* Timely the day before Ascension in 2026. ** Original on a disconnected old blog of mine :

Geo vs Helio | hglwrites
May 29, 2012 | hglundahl
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/

Rédemptoristes Transalpins

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Un nouveau groupe ex-moderniste devient sédévacantiste.

Gloria TV : Les rédemptoristes transalpins deviennent sédévacantistes : "Pas de reconnaissance de Léon XIV
https://gloria.tv/post/CQzxnN33smpb4pPzdhYXGVq2V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ce qui me rappelle, je devrais leur dire de reconnaître Pape Michel II.

Merci pour le rappel !

Adrien Abauzit

Hans-Georg Lundahl Par définition, lorsqu'on est sédévacantiste, on ne reconnaît pas les faux papes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pape Michel II ne reconnaît pas Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio ou Prevost, non plus.

Je suis d'ailleurs Conclaviste.

Apparenté :

Adrien Abauzit

statut

Les sédévacantistes font le constat de la vacance du Siège.

La Fraternité saint Pie X fait le constat de l'état de nécessité.

Sauf que s'il y a un pape, il ne peut pas exister d'état de nécessité.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

S'il n'y a pas pape, c'est en soi un état de nécessité, à moins d'avoir illico une conclave valide et en bonne et due forme.

1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre fit constat de l'état de nécessité en sacrant des évêques.

1990 David Allen Bawden fit constat de l'état de nécessité consistant en absence prolongée d'un pape et entra une élection "par état de nécessité" (emergency "conclave").

C'est d'ailleurs
lui qui sortait l'élu. Si des Évêques étaient venus, peut-être un d'entre eux aurait été élu. Prit le nom Michel (I).

Freewill

Atheists vs Christians Debate Central 101

David Knowles

status

If God took away our free will to sin, we would be more like God because God can't sin. So evil isn't necessary for good to exist.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God can't sin and a stone can't sin.

God taking away our free will would make us more like a stone.

If we freely collaborate with God, the moment He perfects our freedom to no longer be able to sin is at death. If we don't, that's when we lose the freedom to repent.

I a

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God has free will and he is not like a stone so why would humans be that way? You logic is faulty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

God has free will and cannot sin.

I b

David Knowles

Hans-Georg Lundahl God never gave anybody free will. God gave obey or die. That's coercion. Free will is not even a biblical concept. It's a Roman Orthodox Church invention so they could prove inheritable sin. If you had actual free will you could just choose not to sin but you can't because god cursed humanity with inherited sin, not free will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Knowles "obey or die" isn't a lack of free will, it's an incentive to use it.

God also gave us opportunities enough to ignore the incentive, so it doesn't constitute coercion.

I c

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl That's like saying God takes away freewill because we can't breath underwater.

If your God is so helpless he can't keep freewill and make us incapable of sinning, that bodes poorly for Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler It's not a question for God being helpless, it's a question for God being consistent.

If God takes away the freedom to sin in advance, that takes away the free will.

If God takes away the freedom to sin as a reward for chosing not to sin, that takes away a distraction and weakness.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Would you focus on the issue?

One can have freewill and not sin.

This is true.

So why not give people freewill without sin?

The answer is not because you don't understand the paradigm.

If you indicate you can not understand this, it is clear your opinion and your reason for religion, is erroneous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "One can have freewill and not sin."

Under condition of having a perfect will.

Now, the perfect will comes in "two flavours" ... God's will is the definition of perfect and always was. A created will has to progress by choices to *become* perfect.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it does not, and you have no authority to say so.

A God of your description could have given us freewill without the capacity to sin, in the same way he could give us the freewill and be unable to breath water.

The reason this is otherwise, is because God is a fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The reason this is otherwise is, because a creature cannot have freewill without some at least initial independence of the creator.

Not sinning = perfected dependence on God.

Now, Mary did have that from the beginning, but that was a privilege.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Since there is no creator, this is wrong.

[meme referring to First Law of Thermodynamics]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler The denial of creation from a law that would describe a common experience, but cannot deny its universality either in time or space is not a reason against good points about creation.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You can talk sideways all you want, but all your ideas have been shown false.

Your God is false, proven decisively.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler I'm so sorry that you take a mis-stated observation about nature as a "proof" against her Author.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have demonstrated an inability to follow a conversation, much less the complexities of this subject.

Your opinions, unsubstantiated opinions, are dismissed for these reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler "inability to follow a conversation,"

More like you have.

"Your opinions ... are dismissed"

My Latin teacher told class one day, the passive has a first hand use in avoiding to talking about the doer ... who's doing the dismissing? You, Greg Tyler?

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl You have not been able to follow the conversation, made things up, and submitted opinion as fact.

What can I do but consider you unworthy of conversation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler Oh, *you* are doing so, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not answering the rest of your comment.

Greg Tyler

Hans-Georg Lundahl Correct, you have shown you do not have the capacity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Greg Tyler To your taste, not the best.

Excursus

The Byzantine Forum: The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/400295/the-roman-catholic-doctrine-of-marys-impeccability

II

Jay Reb

How did you verify that free will even exists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I lie, I know I could have been silent or I could have spoken otherwise and said the truth.

II a

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how do you know that? How do you know you could have done anything differently?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb How do you know anything about yourself?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I can only trust what my brain tells me. So I ask again, how did you verify that free will exists? I personally don’t think it does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I need to repeat the question: how do you know *anything* about yourself?

Is introspection valid evidence that I think?

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am forced to trust what my brain says about me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Freewill doesn't mean freedom on all levels.

I'm also forced to believe the grass is green, as per my eye-sight.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s not what I mean. I mean everything is based on cause and effect and the laws of physics. If you restarted the big bang, I maintain everything would happen exactly the same way. Every single time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb The laws of physics make no statements about exclusivity in causation.

They only make statements of exclusively one outcome other things being equal (which often enough, they aren't). They make no statements whatsoever about the other thing needing to be also phsyical and also subject to the laws of physics.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that’s why cause and effect is the other thing I mentioned. Please explain how you could do anything different if given the exact same situation with the exact same knowledge and emotional state. You would make the same choice over and over and over for eternity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are presuming all causes are, like the physical ones, such as can have only one particular effect.

Wrongly so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl how can the exact same action have a different effect?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb You are forgetting that the will is not just a passive resultant of inner and outer circumstances, but actively engaged in forming what we receive, certainly from the outside to some degree even from the inside.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl that makes no sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Oh, your will just floats along with whatever stimulates it, without any attempt of curbing it?

Too bad for you, if that's the case.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb I've already answered: like I verify that I think, like I verify that I see green when looking at grass.

Immediate experience.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl you’re missing the point. How do you verify that you have a choice over what decision you make?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Again, what *verification* do you ask of *immediate experience*?

Leaving out

a foulworded reply from Jay Reb, but he claimed he was asking me to prove my claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb No, you weren't.

You were asking me how I verified, presumably to myself in the first place.

That's different from proving to you.

Now, if you have no immediate experience of actually chosing, I can't help you. That's just too bad for you, if so.

Jay Reb

Hans-Georg Lundahl no, if you can verify it to yourself, you can verify it to anyone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jay Reb Not the least.

I can verify to myself I ate cherry yoghurt this morning, not to you.

II b

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Even if you repeat a lie believing it to be true, you're still lying!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, that's not lying, that's repeating a lie.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Does repeating a lie somehow make it true? A lie, is a lie, is a lie!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson No, repeating a lie believing it to be true (and not just possible) is a different action from saying what you know to be a lie and from being callous about the possibility.

Jamison Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl A lie is a lie. It can't be excused by igorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jamison Peterson If I'm ignorant, the lie may still be someone's lie, but not mine. It's in that case just my mistake.

Mike Winger; What is a Child?

Mike Winger
This little girl... Islam did this
https://www.facebook.com/reel/968812972680235

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mr. Winger.

As the picture was shown, so also your statement indicated *she was pregnant.*

A person with a uterus is not a male. A person with another person in the uterus is not a child.

Book Review (Geocentric Book, Geocentric Review)

Book by Levi J. Pingleton, available through Kolbe Center:

Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye: A Theological Reflection on the Absolute Primacy of Christ
$25.00
https://kolbecenter.org/product/keep-me-as-the-apple-of-thine-eye-a-theological-reflection-on-the-absolute-primacy-of-christ/

Review by our friend Johnny Proctor:

Levi Pingleton penetrates the essential center of creation theology in Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye that challenges conventional orthodoxy and lifts the soul to God in unanticipated and spiritually edifying ways.

Coining a useful idiom to capture the main thesis, “Christocentric exemplarism” encompasses the mystery of the incarnation as both source and ultimate fructification of creation. Pingleton traces the mystical reflections of Saint Basil the Great, Saint Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Hildegard of Bingen with a deftly woven thread of their common affirmations regarding the divine purposes of creation, the incarnation, and the teleological summation of the ages. These he brings to a crescendo with an in-depth analysis of Christian anthropology as the hermeneutical key to unlock creation’s proclamation of the divine essences which ubiquitously appeal to men through the natural order.

These themes culminate in a compelling case for restoring the traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church to its rightful place in Christian pedagogy; Christocentric exemplarismappeals for a verdict from the sincere disciple.

The Church’s perennial and dogmatically asserted cosmology is geocentric, which is to say, as the Fathers all taught with one voice, the earth is at rest in the center of the cosmos. Pingleton argues gently and with understatedurgency for the traditional coherence between the metaphysical and the theological sciences as something most Christians know is missing implicitly but which evades them as a practical diagnosis. This wonderful coherence – which this book masterfully lays out for the reader –is in fact missing from modern understanding yet is constantly appealing to our consciences and intellects through the ‘speech and words’ of the created order (cf. Psalm 18).

The treatment of the Galileo affair of the 17th century is explained with meticulous footnoting and concise accounting of the major milestones leading to the modern misconception of the Church’s actual position. This section presents a defense of dogmatic development of the geocentric aspect of Patristic and medieval cosmology and its enduring value as the appropriate hermeneutical approach to both Scripture and metaphysics.

I personally appreciate how this book promotes cosmological coherence, encouraging a union of sacred and profane sciences within the Creator's intended order. Levi Pingleton elegantly presents this coherence as a spiritual necessity, as a mystical blueprint, and the proper exegesis of the intelligible universe. This brief study is desperately needed today in a theological milieu too often characterized by incoherence, ruptures between the natural and supernatural orders, and irreconcilable approaches to metaphysics, philosophy, and the science of divinity.Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye offers an authentically Catholic vision of creation gracefully traversing these disciplines in a brief and elegant structure that economizes argumentation without sacrificing substance.

What Does Faith Mean? Same as in St. Thomas' Day!

Tyrone

status

why do you apply logic and evidence to literally everything in life—health, money, decisions—but abandon it when it comes to the bible?

you don’t run your life on faith when it comes to doctors, mechanics, or finances. you demand evidence. so why lower the standard here?

what’s the justification for using a completely different set of rules for one belief?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

When I stopped drinking a pint of beer every evening on the day of St. Lucy, I was exercising FAITH on three items:

• that I did not have a fractured bone in the left toe
• that I did have very probably gout
• and that alcohol is one factor that makes gout occur.

Now, it's only one, and some have been pushing other risk factors, but these three things were NOT things I could have checked for myself, I had to have FAITH in what the doctors said, because of their expertise.

Faith isn't absence of logic, it's confidence in someone who knows better trumping what the own logic would have one believe (I had gone to the hospital believing I had a fracture).

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You dont know what the word 'faith' means. You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor, and it's a pathetic and dishonest comparison.

You didn't have 'faith' in your doctor. You had trust based on EVIDENCE. You trusted them because doctors have years of medical training, they use diagnostic tools like x-rays, they understand biochemistry, and there is a massive, publicly verifiable track record of them successfully diagnosing and treating things like gout. Their expertise is built on a mountain of EVIDENCE. If your doctor told you to treat your gout by sacrificing a goat, you'd get a new doctor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, I do know.

"You're trying to redefine it to make your religious beliefs sound as reasonable as trusting a doctor"

Well, that's the meaning.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 1, A 2, Corpus of the article.

Tyrone

Hans-Georg Lundahl You think quoting a 13th-century monk proves what 'faith' means today? You're just hiding behind Thomas Aquinas because you got caught dishonestly comparing religious faith to trusting a doctor.

You can call your 'sacred doctrine' a 'science' all you want, but it's not. Real science is based on testable evidence. Yours is based on 'principles revealed by God', which is just a fancy way of saying you have to believe it with no evidence.

Your analogy of a musician and a mathematician is stupid. A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves. You cannot test your 'revealed' principles. You just have to believe.

You didnt answer the point. You just tried to hide behind a quote from a guy who lived before the scientific method was even invented. You're trying to redefine faith to make it sound reasonable, and when you got called out, you ran away to a medieval philosopher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"what 'faith' means today?"

Faith is about the Catholic religion, which is the exact same one today and in his day.

"A musician can test the principles of harmony for themselves."

Yes, but a beginner can't.

"before the scientific method was even invented"

What the H...l do you mean by "the scientific method"? Denial of God as explanation?

Because, if it means anything else, St. Thomas as well as his more natural sciences oriented mentor St. Albert were great exponents of "scientific method" if it means doing science with a rational method.

And by the way, as there are different sciences and different questions in each science, there is no "one" scientific method.

Challenge not met

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Spinoff Debate with Justin Roe

Creation vs Evolution Debate Group

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status / question challenge

23.III.2026, 18:07

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

A

Joe Dennehy

Here you go, you could place them in chronological order

[Image of "human ancestors"]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, I wasn't speaking of skeleta.

I was speaking of two clearly different ways of communicating. Check my question once again.

Bill Vanyo

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your question isn't clear.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think it is very clear, since after ape, I gave a characterisation of what exactly in the ape I was talking of: what intermediate is there between:

a) ape:
1 sound = 1 message

And again, after human (note, adjective, not noun), I have a characterisation of what in human communication I was talking of:

b) human:
1 or usually more sounds = 1 meaning unit,
1 or usually more meaning units = 1 message.

I also gave a link dealing with the human side of the pretended equation.

If you replace "sound" with "phoneme" and "meaning unit" with, not word but "morpheme" and then "message" with "phrase, you get the exact terminology used by linguists. I was trying to be popular and roughly comprehensible even to non-linguists.

Joe Dennehy

Hans-Georg Lundahl you failed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not as far as I can see.

Joe Dennehy You DO admit as a fact that human language involves double patterning?

Take your words "you failed", they involve three morphemes. "You" = telling the one you're talking to you're talking about him.
"Fail ..." = stating what you state if a failure
"... ed" = stating what you state is sth that already happened.

"You" involves two phonemes "y" and "oo". Neither of which states anything by itself.
"Fail..." involves three phonemes, "f" and "ey" and "l" none of which states anything by itself.
"... ed" involves one or two morphemes, here only one, "d" which doesn't state anything by itself except when used in this ending.

B

Dudley Chapman

Here are all the intermediates you asked for:

Natural History Museum: The origin of our species
By Jenny Wong and Lisa Hendry
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman I think I already gave Joe Dennehy the response that I wasn't asking about anatomy, but stages of transition between two very different systems of communication.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl what do you know about languages used by the species that are ancestors to humans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you think Ramapithecus was ancestral, one can reasonably presume that "ancestor" communicated like apes do.

The point is a VERY basic distinction between ape communication and human communication.

So basic you should be able to do a kind of theoretic modelling of how the transition happened ... if it was even possible for it to happen.

My point is, it wasn't possible, and therefore didn't happen.

C

Corey Taylor

Wild Apes make tons of sounds and body language cues with hundreds of messages .. where do you get this 1 sound from ?

α

Dudley Chapman

Corey Taylor he is making stuff up as he goes along. It bothers me how little effort some people put into their Christian testimony. As if it is more faithful to remain totally ignorant of a subject so you can say ridiculous things.

St. Augustine warned us about this in his treatise on reading Genesis literally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Dudley Chapman Can you stop being a damned calumniator?

For your soul's sake, if you don't care about mine!

"in his treatise on reading Genesis literally."

In his treatise on the Literal Reading of Genesis. And you are quotemining a certain passage which is a very short passage of book I, in a total of XII books.

Dudley Chapman

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, thanks,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (1 Tim. 1:7)

-St. Augustine of Hippo (The Literal Meaning of Genesis Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

You found the quote mined quote!

If this is one of at least 39 paragraphs of one of at least 19 chapters of in fact one out of twelve books, do you think this is all St. Augustine had to say?

It. Quite. Frankly. Isn't.

And thanks for giving the title correct this time. On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, not On Reading Genesis Literally, meaning, he is, book after book, chapter after chapter, paragraph after paragraph discussing what Genesis actually says. This passage is in the contect of his defending fix stars being in a sphere rather than on a flat disc. Some people actually did read exactly one passage to that latter effect, and that's what he polemising against.

Not against Geocentrism (he was Geocentric, which you would know if you had read book 1), not against Young Earth Creationism (which you would know if you had read City of God), and especially not against Adam being created directly from soil, rather than through living intermediaries.

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Corey Taylor READ AGAIN.

I did not say apes makes just one sound. I DID say with apes making one specific sound equals making one whole message.

They lack what in human language is called "double articulation" or "dual patterning" which is a very basic concept in linguistics.

I don't know if apes have 50 or 500 different sounds, but it should be in that area. That's a total of 50 to 500 different messages they can convey. Because, with apes, each sound has a meaning. That meaning is a message.

Corey Taylor

Hans-Georg Lundahl again… you’re only looking at half the picture because primates utilize body language just as much if not more than actual vocalizations to convey messages. Same with the most mammals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Body langugage ALSO has one gesture = one complete message.

Body language also HASN'T double articulation or dual patterning.

D

Ire NE

Humans are humans and Animals are animals. That's it!

E

Justin Roe

This is basic sets and subsets. Literal 6-month-old babies get this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But 6 month old apes don't.

So, how do you explain the transition?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl uh, 6 month old humans ARE 6 month old apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I didn't ask whether men were apes, I'm aware of the terminology you are using.

That's the exact reason why I added a parenthesis:

If man evolved from apes ("from non-human apes" according to a certain modern terminology), ...

How about getting to the question which is why man communicates so differently from apes, or on your terminology "non-human apes" ... do you have a clue are are you trying to avoid the question by heckling my terminology?

Justin Roe

Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language. It's a frontier of study at the moment, are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"? We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity.

Additionally, molecular analysis conclusively demonstrates that if "apes" is a real clade, we nest within it, as panins (chimps and bonobos) are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas, all African great apes (including us) are more closely related to one another than any is to the orangutans, and all hominids (great apes) are more closely related to each other than any is to the hylobatids (gibbons and siamangs, or "lesser apes").

If placing the origin of language as a supernatural intervention by whatever deity or deities you believe in helps you sleep better at night, go ahead until further discoveries are made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there are a variety of hypotheses for the evolution of human language."

Yeah ... care to take up and defend one? Not least on how it deals with the proposed problem?

"It's a frontier of study at the moment"

Been so for decades, like Abiogenesis. Since early optimism got some sane input from people knowing what language is, I suppose.

"are you proposing that such a thing "can't evolve"?"

Yes.

"We know some of the genes responsible for our speech capacity."

Feral children have them too. Human language can only be learned by people with a certain FOXP2 Gene, with Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain (plus adequate apparatus for sound production and hearing), but it has to be actually learned, you aren't born with actual knowledge of human language.

I can in principle explain the transition from Latin to French, in a very big resolution of detail. But Latin, like French, already has the human three tier system. Ape communication hasn't.

"molecular analysis"

I'm not betting on apes being one real clade. But molecules are not responsible for the input in language learning, only for the receptivity.

F

Barry Peterson

You can see many of the homonid fossils with your own eyes at the Smithsonian…..

[image]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Barry Peterson You are the third person so far who just skims through my question and presumes I was asking for the intermediates between apes and men. I asked for the possible intermediates between ape communication and human communication.

Barry Peterson

Hans-Georg Lundahl I suggest you research the homonids ath the Smithsonian. Some of them utilized advanced communication….Beyond Homo sapiens, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are the strongest candidates for having spoken, as evidence suggests they possessed the hyoid bone, ear structure, and FOXP2 gene necessary for complex speech. *Homo erectus* and other archaic humans also likely had some form of vocal communication.

Australian Museum: How do we know if they could speak?
Author(s), Fran Dorey | Updated, 21/10/20
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-do-we-know-if-they-could-speak/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are still misconstruing my question.

It wasn't "which extinct presumed species were also human and could speak" but given some ancestry on your view actually COULDN'T speak, how do you explain the transition, in principle?