posted on May, 2 2003 @ 09:59 AM
The author is making some rather biased points, and they don't really fit in with modern research.
Originally posted by Lysergic
Reading The Evolution of a Creationist
If evolution is true and man gradually evolved from more primitive creatures, language should get more and more simple the older it is said to be.
Prehistoric man should have communicated first with grunts; then with single syllables; then with mutli-syllabic words (ba-na-na); then, with setence
fragments, developing into sentecnes ("I want banana"), etc.
As others have pointed out, this is a fairly bogus argument. We have no clue what prehistoric man said. They forgot to invent the record player
during the ice ages.
What is found is just the ooposite. early languages such as Sumerian are so complex that only a handful of the most brilliant scholars can decipher
Argh! Bogus! The reason they're hard to decypher is that they vanished and there are few records in multiple languages so we have to piece out what
they say by a lot of detective work. Until the Rosetta Stone was found, we couldn't translate ancient Egyptian.
The Tower of Babel incident explains the races and the problem of complex "primitive" languages.
Only if you ignore other evidence.
God created the languages instantly and fully mature.
Uh... no. WE created languages from other languages and can actually trace them backwards. As societies get isolated, they devleop "family" and
"slang" words that turn into a language different from their mother tongue. We can trace British English and American English and Australian
English (which all sound different and have unique words) back to a common Old English and that to still older languages.
Languages are like family trees. Your grandparents didn't just suddenly show up out of thin air. They had parents and so on and so forth.
Languages show the migration of people and the technology.
Evolution offers no good explanation for the complexity of the earlist known languages!
The author doesn't understand evolution.
Linguistic researchers from around the world have published their ideas concerning the geographic location of our "primitive" mother tongue.
Linguists call this language Proto-Indo-European. Two Russian linguistic experts, Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov, have offered evidence
"...that Indo-European originated in an area known as Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey, and from there spread throughout Europe and the
Well, they did get that much right. That's one theory.
The Bible records fro us that Noah and his family had their post-flood beginnings in Turkey: And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the
seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4).
...a location which has never actually been identified. There are several contenders for the title in various locations.
Scientists trace Language back to a particular place on earth, the Bible would describe that place to be the mountains of Ararat in Turkey. The
No, they don't. Turkey is not a specific small location on and around a mountain. Turkey is a rather large country. And Babel was located in IRAQ
-- not Turkey. So if we got all those 'mature languages' we wouldn't see languages of different ages and with different roots -- they'd all
spring up with no precursors in one location in Iraq.
Here's a better web site on languages: