To mention a few points where the article falls short in its research on history:
* the Polynesian account of the flood comes only after they were Christianized.
* likewise the Mexican account.
* Sumerian doesn't mention the Tower of Babel in the religious "mixing of languages" context.
The city of Babylon was inhabited with descendants from Noah and the great flood, where, they believed, the Gods had all but wiped out life on
The writer fails to even consult Wikipedia, which would have told them that many cities existed before Babylon -- that it was not the oldest one
around. Further, the writer would have found that Egypt and Sumeria and Phoenecia and China all had developed writing (as had other civilizations)
and they all show language diversity.
Theory 2 is religious, so I won't comment other than to say it's a uniquely Old Testament view. In other religions, people visited the high god or
gods and nobody got struck down for it.
Some have taken the statement that the tower of Babel was constructed to reach the heavens as a literal concept - ie a construct that housed, or was
itself, a type of spacecraft which could literally reach the heavens.
Okay... the thing was made of mud bricks that melted if the rains got too heavy. It's hardly airtight. Makes a bad hangar.
Some have theorised that the tower was a communications device - to either communicate with other humans around the globe who escaped the flood
Again, they didn't do basic homework. There wasn't a global flood, and there are some problems with the "communicate with gods/humans" if nobody
else had those things and at the time, mud brick and donkeys were high tech.
The tower housed, or was itself, a weapon of mass destruction
...but only if you could get everyone to stand inside and then arrange for a very very very heavy rain.
The tower was a commercial trading centre within the heart of the ancient city - a shrine to commercialism over spirituality.
But it's specifically said to be religious in nature. Again, the researcher hasn't done homework on the extensive markets found in the cities.
The linguistic speculation is just... just... unbelievably bad. I'm taking linguistics this semester, and what's summarized there is a brief rehash
of about two articles from some very poor sources.
An article was published in the Telegraph in May 2008 which described how Roger Highfield, the Telegraph's Science Editor, participated in an
experiment in which the speech area of his brain temporarily disabled by a process of “transcranial magnetic stimulation”
The area of the brain identified to be responsible for speech, speech tone and recognition is named after the man who discovered it - Broca's
Broca's area is not the only area involved in this -- linguistic processing takes place (we now know) in many areas and in both hemispheres. Volcano
studies show that the Earth's magnetic force field has been the same for billions of years. And one "blast" to the brain only produced a temporary
effect. After that, the man spoke and wrote English.
I don't mean to make light of your honest questions, but the researcher was rather biased in writing the article and didn't do what a good writer
does -- do your homework on ALL the latest findings, whether or not you like the focus of the site.