> Hanslune Wrote:
> > Answer the questions put to you Cladking
> No one expects the Spanish Inquisition...
He should if he is trying to over come an existing theory that has solid evidence and has made claims to have done so but both refuses to provide evidence to support his contention or answer questions.
This is a clear indication of BS.
Yes he's been running from hundreds of question since 2009 when he realized to his horror that people weren't just going to accept what he said. He spends an enormous amount of time avoiding all manner of subjects.
> > > Not counting nouns there are barely 1000
> > in
> > > Ancient Language. There are a large number
> > > nouns and only a small percentage appear in
> > PT
> > > and CT.
> > You just made up those numbers, there is
> > called the 'Ancient Language".
> > Answer the questions above as they will be
> > repeated until you do.
> > Example: the numbers are made up
> > Modern English: 500,000 words
> > Ancient Egyptian: 10,000 words
> > Separate words in the PT: 1,000
> > So what sort of mad logic tells you that part of
> > language that has maybe 1,000 words in it will
> > contain all the words in modern language 500
> > as large?
> > What does this word mean?
> > Explain please
> Well, it's not as if I think cladking is using the
> right arguments to try to dispel notions about
> superstitious ancients (I'm not sure what the
> right argument would actually be or I'd be
> flinging it I suppose) but I'm not sure these are
> the right arguments to counter with either.
He's making a specious argument that a word must appear in a 'document' that makes up less than 10% of the language. If it doesn't that mean the entire concept doesn't exist. All manner of words are not in the PT to include ducks, snails,etc, etc - the AE had ducks, and he insisted for a decade that since they didn't use the word ramp in the PT they didn't exist either. LOL
> I think cladking sounds like he's doing the
> "Dragons of Eden" thing that Carl Sagan taught us,
> sort of a conceit among atheist scientists that
> science saved them from superstition when of
> course we can find scientists who belong to faiths
> or sects or cults.
Perhaps but it more like he trying to BS everyone to overlook the glaring errors in his ideas
> I think cladking has a very good sense if even
> intuitively that religious writings might be
> something other than a bunch of pointless,
> superstitious rot, just as I like to think I have
> myself, even if they're not much good at face
> value. I personally think ancients Egyptians with
> mythical text must have often been making allusion
> to things like astronomy - enough of the Greek or
> Roman gods are planets that there'd be no shock
> there, right? - and had a tremendous gift for both
> hyperbole and breathless prose.
They certainly may have had double meanings but they were also religious and there is plentiful evidence of religion besides in the PT which has mysterious incantations like:
464: To say the words:
"O Gods of the West,
O Gods of the East,
O Gods of the South,
O Gods of the North !
These four pure reed floats which you placed for Osiris when he ascended towards heaven
The thousands of year's use of grave goods, especially food, in burials falsifies his idea of no religion. If you have no heaven and have no journey to make to said place you don't need food, or tools, etc.
> It occurs to me to at least try to point out that
> to try to paint an entire people with the same
> brush must be precarious at best. Does having
> three churches within five blocks of my home
> actually tell you that I subscribe to any of them?
No but it tells you that the culture had a religion but not who believed in it.
> For that matter, does indigenous people continuing
> to hand down folktales and oral traditions mean
> that anyone "in the know" interprets them in any
> "gospel" sense? The local tribe has a folk legend
> about "three sisters" which turn out to be a
> distinctive set of three peaks that served as an
> important geographic landmark for travelers. I
> don't know why that doesn't serve in itself as
> exemplary of the way some cultures see their own
> myths, and the sort of knowledge (rather than
> superstition) that goes into the creation of a
> I suppose for purposes of debate this eventually
> begs the question whether anyone anyone being so
> dismissive of cladking affords room for any
> ancient Egyptians or Greeks or Romans to have been
Sure they could have been atheists - but that is not his argument his argument is that they were not like us and had no idea what a religion even was and had none, they were super metaphysics with 'magical' mental powers but didn't know anything about sanitation and other 'scientific items'.
> It also occurs to me ask that if - okay, say this
> language has only 1000 words in it - but if they
> were so deeply superstitious that religious ideas
> held such an incredible amount of sway in their
> societies, why wouldn't words like "faith"
> or "belief" be part of their limited lexicon?
No I was speaking of the PT that it might have 1,000 separate words in it (probably less) - in 14 years he's refused to count or do any work on the actual PT to quantify any of this, yet he screams and rants that every word in the AE language is in the PT. If it isn't then that concept didn't exist. A rather childish argument.
Its just something he made up.
> Wouldn't it seem like if they were so deeply
> devout, words like that would be important
> enough to make it into their vocabulary?
Again the PT is only a small fraction of the entire language - he refuses to acknowledge this because if he does yet another aspect of his idea is debunked - it already is but he just refuses to accept it.
> Not that I think that will settle the matter, but
> maybe it does seem worth asking?
Thanks for asking.