Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Just as biological evolutionists preach a dogma that contradicts the first two chapters of Genesis, linguistic evolutionists advocate a belief system that contradicts the 11th chapter of Genesis, which plainly states that the Lord "did there confound the language of all the earth" to enforce His holy zoning laws. If a linguistic evolutionist tries to convert you to his demonic doctrine, here are some hard questions for you to ask:

How do you know that languages evolved? Were you there? Why don't you trust the account given to us by God, Who tells that He was there?

How could language have evolved from random babbling? If a tornado going through a junkyard couldn't produce a Boeing 747, how could random babbling result in something so complicated as the Spanish verb paradigm?

How could random mutations in language introduce information, which is what language is all about? Whenever I see a typo in a document, it doesn't add information, but takes it away.

If the language spoken by English settlers in what is today Brooklyn evolved into Brooklynese, why are there still other dialects of English? Shouldn't the entire English-speaking world now sound like Vinny Barbarino?

Which evolved first, the ability to speak French or the ability to understand spoken French?

If languages evolved, why don't we see one language kind suddenly becoming another language kind? Why don't Portuguese speakers suddenly start speaking Farsi? For that matter, why don't we hear people speaking a transitional form?

How could a language evolve in stages from less complicated to more complicated? Of what use is half of a future tense?

The Nazis, the Communists, and American racists have all tried to force people to give up their "less evolved" languages in favor of "more evolved" German, Russian, and English. Doesn't that prove that linguistic evolutionism is at the root of Nazism, Communism, and racism?

How do you experimentally verify the supposed evolution of French from Latin? What would you use as the control? If you can't, is linguistic evolutionism scientific at all?

The "evidence" for linguistic evolutionism consists of a bunch of supposedly old documents that are dated either by reference to one another or by the dates that those documents themselves purport. Isn't that circular logic?

If languages improve through evolution, why don't teenagers automatically speak better English than their parents?

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Those are a lot of questions to ponder, pastor.

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Another thing linguists have in common with evolutionists is their support from Hollywood. Notice that they just made a movie about "Beowolf", a poem which liberal-bias linguists claim is the "missing link" between Viking Languages and English. Well, if that's true, then where's the missing link between Viking languages and Beowolf? And where's the missing link between Beowolf and English?

Languages where intelligently designed by the LORD and radical atheist ultra-liberals want to obscure this truth, so that they can promote immorality.

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

[quote=Pastor Isaac Peters;117333]
No,Were you. And its easy to see languge evolved. Look at the bible and then look at a soilder of fortune magizine. The people speak diffrently dont they?

Well,take it like spanish. Comoesta=how are you. So if we put random babbiling into a sequence and one kind of noise/babble stands for somthing then we have words.

.

Thats written lang. The eskimos have 32 diffrent words for snow...that would be one example of how that works.

Dialect my friend, Dialect. We speak like the people spoke to us when we were born,thats why you speak english and not french.Because your parents spoke english.(Im typing this as I scroll down and I didnt see the french thing below this when I wrote this, weird huh?)

They would have had to evolve at the same time.

We do see that,it just takes a while. Look at the bible,now say: Wife! Bring me a beer! If you had been speaking like the bible it would have sounded like; Wench, doth bringest thou a head of mead! See it just takes a while,not to mention cultural aspects.

I dont really get this one, Im still in highschool.I guess it all depends on what you call complicated or not.

I dont think the germans ever made someone speak a certain way...I suppose they wanted to make them give up thier lang. so we wouldnt have to learn thiers to communicate.

Well, Im only 16 so I cant answer everything, but since your asking questions that means your intrested. Its a start.

I suppose It could be,but why does that matter, as long as the evidence supports itself it can be whatever it wants to be.

Evelution doesnt always mean for the better, we learn to speak a lang. that was spoken to us while our minds were forming(infants/toddlers). But if you look at slang, thats basicly evelution of words...think back to the 60s and 70s we speak a somewhat entirely diffrent lang. from then because of slang.

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

In that case you are banned from this Godly forum. You are underage and lied about it when you signed up. Come back after you turn 18, if Jesus lets you live that long, sodomite.

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Since when have athiest promoted immortality? Immortality cant happen and If it could it would be horrible,who would not want to die at some point in time!

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

How do you know that languages evolved? Were you there? Why don't you trust the account given to us by God, Who tells that He was there?-because there is no proof God was there, and if you can't even prove he exists, then how do you prove he was there?(selective reasoning on the part of the questioner)

How could language have evolved from random babbling? If a tornado going through a junkyard couldn't produce a Boeing 747, how could random babbling result in something so complicated as the Spanish verb paradigm?-no specific language can ever come of it if it's specified before the language begins developing, much like if you were to specify that a tornado was going to produce a Boeing 747 from rubble, it wouldnt be likely, but it would be likely to produce a pile of SOMETHING (example, if you were to go to a completely undeveloped area, with no language, which by the way doesnt exist today, but if it did, and you went there, and said "english is going to develop from these people within 100 years," it's HIGHLY likely that you'd be wrong, but they WOULD develop some words, like water, rock, earth, rain, etc., words enough to get by, and then over time they would develop a complex language by mutually understanding what a word means before moving on to create another)

How could random mutations in language introduce information, which is what language is all about? Whenever I see a typo in a document, it doesn't add information, but takes it away.-mutations in a language are made intentionally, or circumstantially, not randomly, such as slang evolving in english today (ex., the word "dude" is generally meant as a person, usually male, or in some instances to call to a person or to get their attention, this was not around in england while our ancestors were there, without evolution of language, how did this word come to exist?)

If the language spoken by English settlers in what is today Brooklyn evolved into Brooklynese, why are there still other dialects of English? Shouldn't the entire English-speaking world now sound like Vinny Barbarino?-wow that's a stupid question. you intend to insinuate that just because a single area develops a different language, which is unlikely since america is a monolingual country and everyone can usually understand each other, so there is no need for a new language, everyone else will immediately get an accent? no, that would not happen. to those who spoke brooklynese, anyone who learned it would have an english accent, and to anyone who spoke english, anyone who spoke brooklynese and learned english would have a brooklynese accent, but no one would immediately develop an accent in their native language, and to insinuate such is an extremely unintelligent analysis of language in general.

Which evolved first, the ability to speak French or the ability to understand spoken French?-as stated before, it was probably a mutual understanding of a single word and a mutual ability to speak it before another word came along, therefore they would have evolved around the same time for each word, depending on who was learning the word.

If languages evolved, why don't we see one language kind suddenly becoming another language kind? Why don't Portuguese speakers suddenly start speaking Farsi? For that matter, why don't we hear people speaking a transitional form?-because that would make no sense, linguistic evolution and genetic evolution are not the same thing, and even in genetic evolution one species does not wake up one morning as another. over time though, languages will change in the way you stated, example being slang in english (some time ago, "the cats meow" was popular slang, and is now basically unheard of unless actually talking about a cat meowing, much like saying "sweet" back then actually meant sweet, like in sweet tea, and now means something similar to "awesome," or "amazing.")

How could a language evolve in stages from less complicated to more complicated? Of what use is half of a future tense?-when a word is needed to communicate better, it is invented, most likely by many people, and whatever becomes most popular a name for that object or place in time or part of speech, (such as "or," "and," "is,") is usually applied to the language permanently. and the use of a half future tense, lets say "shall be" means in the future, and "will be" means in the near future (within a week.) if a person were to say "I shall be dead soon," the word "soon" implies the near future, but does not specify a week, a month, a year, etc., but if he were to say "I will be dead soon," it's safe to say he will be dead within a week, based on the meaning of "will be" over "shall be" (by the way, I know the two are synonyms and have nearly the same meaning, this was hypothetical)

The Nazis, the Communists, and American racists have all tried to force people to give up their "less evolved" languages in favor of "more evolved" German, Russian, and English. Doesn't that prove that linguistic evolutionism is at the root of Nazism, Communism, and racism?-no, it only proves that most humans are egotistical, and would like to think that their language is better than another, thus forcing it on another person to "help them" (AHEM, SOUND FAMILIAR?!)

How do you experimentally verify the supposed evolution of French from Latin? What would you use as the control? If you can't, is linguistic evolutionism scientific at all?-there is no control, if there was, this would be proven fact because we would have been there to see it. linguistic evolutionism is a theory, one that is backed by the fact that english, spanish, and french have latin root words, and japanese, who had little or no contact with other countries due to the fact that it is an island, has no latin root words. if linguistic evolutionism were wrong, it is likely that japanese would have latin root words, or there wouldnt be any root words connecting any language, putting up a full language barrier between all peoples. (if god made languages, why do some of them have words that are similar? was god not creative enough to come up with words for everything in many languages, so he had to use words with the same meaning in so many of them? why arent there root words in other languages like japanese if there are in english, spanish, and french?)

The "evidence" for linguistic evolutionism consists of a bunch of supposedly old documents that are dated either by reference to one another or by the dates that those documents themselves purport. Isn't that circular logic?-yes, in many ways it is, but there are other ways to link those documents by date. and isnt it selective reasoning to read the bible with the assumption it is true, rather than the assumption that it is a possibility?

If languages improve through evolution, why don't teenagers automatically speak better English than their parents?-they do. current english includes slang, and includes words such as "codon" and "chromosome" and "nucleotide" that they were required to learn for various subjects in school, while their parents most likely can't tell you the meaning of "codon" or "chromosome" or "nucleotide," despite that they are english words. the fact that words are taught to students in school rather than adults causes teenagers to understand english better in most situations than their parents, because any new words aren't taught directly to the parents, while the students are required to learn them. and if god made language perfect, why isn't the declaration of independence worded the way it would be worded today? doesn't the fact that it isn't prove a change in linguistics since the time it was written?




your evolution questions to ask your biology teacher were so much more difficult
maybe you're losing your touch?

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

where did you copy and paste this from you little Sodomite.

We know darn good and well that did not come from you.

:nonono:

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

search it in google if you dont believe me, silly
or yahoo, or msn, or ask, or dogpile, or any search engine you want
that came directly from my head
whether you believe it or not, I wrote every bit of that on my own
most of it was actually quite obvious
and unless you can prove it, don't say you "know darn good and well" anything

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

:brimley:Yeah you guys are right

evolution must be false!

what makes more sense than years and years of testing and facts?

"GOD DONE IT"

you christians are SO smart. Anytime you cant figure something out you say "its because god did it"

if there is a heaven Darwin is probably there talking to jesus about evolution and jesus is probly sayin to him "you are one smart brother Darwin"

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

you do realize that by saying those things, and not presenting a single fact or example, you're actually making less sense than they are?
at least they have a bible to quote
if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk
and just so you know, your name is an oxymormon
and by the way biblethumpinblonde, if it was copied and pasted, explain the gramatical errors that I tend to make because of my typing style being through the entire response, other than the questions, which I did copy and paste from the top of the page

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Interpunction can be your friend.

Re: Questions to ask linguistic evolutionists
 

Excellent advice...