Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Eden

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eden
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 05:12:20 -0700

On 16/06/2004 00:30, Karl Randolph wrote:

...

Do you mean to say that Dr. Simpson, who in his day was a famous professor of
biology and evolution at Harvard University, didn‘t know what he was talking
about? That takes more chutzpah than I have.


No, Karl, your chutzpah is the greater. You say not just that individual scholars but that entire communities of them, both evolutionary biologists and comparative linguists, don't know what they are talking about.

Logically, evolution cannot be scientific, because by definition it violates
the definition of science given in science textbooks. It’s not even
historical because it is not based on past observation (though contradicted
by some, e.g. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm ). It is
no more than a religious belief developed over thousands of years, which is
why it is such a hot button subject.


There is some interesting evidence here which needs to be examined. It is of course possible that some dinosaurs or similar creatures survived into relatively modern times but have since become extinct, or even that they still survive in remote places. But such discoveries would not "deal a crushing blow to the widely favored hypothesis of a unique evolutionary sequence", any more than did the discovery of the coelacanth.

But the truthfulness of the evidence on this web page needs to be examined in the light of clear errors like "In the 1940s and 1950s, the Iguanodon was completely unknown." According to http://dinosauricon.com/genera/iguanodon.html, at least six species were known at that time. The type species I. bernissartensis is known from "dozens of skeletons (some complete), teeth" dating as far back as 1881.

This is all that I plan to say on this subject, which should be off list
anyway.

Concerning proto-Semitic, I don‘t deny that there was such a language. Some
claim that Hebrew itself may have been that proto-Semitic, but I don‘t see
clear evidence beyond philosophic wishful thinking to back it up. Are the
oldest extant clay tablets closer to that original Semitic language, or
copies of copies originally written on leather? Is there any way to tell from
presently available data, or not? I think not.

But there are those who claim to be able to ”reconstruct“ proto-Semitic, but
they do so based on presuppositions that may or may not be correct. They then
make confident statements as to Biblical Hebrew based on their theories which
may be incorrect. What I want is observation, realizing that it may never
come. I prefer to remain without answers to some of these questions based on
observation, than have answers that unknowingly may be wrong because they are
based not on observation. In other words, I‘d rather have fewer answers but
trust the answers I have because they are based on observation, than to have
more answers but not know which ones to trust.


Karl, I think that you as a non-scientist misunderstand science as being based on direct observations when it is not. Atoms, electrons etc cannot be observed; their existence has to be reconstructed from indirect evidence, just as do the evolutionary tree and proto-Semitic. But you would not be able to read this e-mail apart from devices which have been designed on the basis that electrons exist, and whose operation is further evidence that they do. Similarly, comparative linguists (and evolutionists for that matter) can work from the theory of their subject to more practical applications e.g. descriptions of more and more features of modern and recorded ancient languages (or of modern creatures and fossils). If these reconstructions don't work, the theory has to be modified. But in practice to a large degree the theory as currently modified is supported all the more by each practical application. I'm not convinced of how true this is of evolution, but I am convinced about comparative Semitics, that in principle (if not necessarily in every detail) it is as soundly based as the existence of electrons.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page