Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I mearly stated that the more complex something is, the more likely it was designed. This does not seem to me to be a fallacious argument by any degree.

---

Oops! The most complex things imaginable are entirely random. A simple example - "d93ncimecofmsj8;" is a more complex phrase than "a simple example" because it cannot even be summarized, at least not to a simpler form than "a simple example." [b] [QUOTE]I believe evolutionary biologists would be much more comfortable if life was not so complex, but unfortunately, life is extremely complex.[/b][/QUOTE]Interesting belief - supported by evidence? [b] [QUOTE]I merely stated that there seems to be a breaking point in which it is more likely that something was designed. Whether or not life is "too" complex (the breaking point) is where are opinions differ. I believe life is too complex, you do not.[/b][/QUOTE]No. This is not the issue. The issue is how complexity arises - the degree of complexity is only an issue for enthusiasts of Intelligent Design.

Also, an interesting thing about linguistics (refering back to the Tower of Babel, and the creation of the worlds languages) is that languages ( dare I say it ) evolve over time ( note: not refering the theory of evolution : ) . This is evident. Take the romantic languages of French, Spanish, and Italian. By looking at each, we see alot of similarities. The roots of words between all three languages are extrodanairly similar. There are a few reasons for this. First off, all are derived from Latin. While Latin is essentially a dead language, it has given birth to several new languages. Considering that various regions are isolated from each other by distance and geography. Consequently, each language changed over time to reflect the conditions and styles of the region. However the common roots of these languages is still evident, and if we compare them to Latin, we find a common link to these languages. However, languages also change over time to adapt to new ideas, and will borrow from other languages, if they don't have similar equivelants in their own languages. While english is a germanic language, it is heavily influenced by Latin and Gaelic. Also, english is notorious for borrowing words from other languages, such as french and spanish.
We can see similar adaptation between non-related languages. While russian is based on a cyrillic base, modern russian is borrowing alot of modern english words for fairly new ideas that the language has no words for. (for example, russian uses the the english word "computer" in there language, though its pronounciation reflects russian pronounciation of words. In fact, alot of modern technology and equipment are described in russian using english cognates).
Generally speaking, the more isolated a language is from other languages, or even its own root stock, the faster it mutates from the original. Culutures with more contact will not only perserve common language, they will borrow new terms from other languages with which they have contact to describe items or concepts for which their own language has no equivelant.
Thus over time we see language change and adapt. If you have ever read Shakespear, you will quickly notice that modern english is quite different from that spoken in the 1600's . Also, slang rapidly adapts far faster than overall linguist differences, another area of change within a given language.
While I can readily except the possibility that there was a tower of babel, I doubt it was smote down by god ( more likely gravity was the culprit). As for language diversification, we can see even today how language changes, adapts, and grows. There is a whole field of research that delves into the development of modern languages from ancient roots.

It is interesting to note the parallels between the "theory of the evolution of language" and the "theory of the evolution of life".I'll leave it to the genetics enthusiasts to pursue this further, if they wish.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't believe my post contained an analogy at all....

​

"It is a logical fallacy to claim that because some things that are complex are designed all complex things are designed."

​

I don't think I claimed this. I think I am being VERY fair in this argument. I said, clearly, "Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process." I never ruled out naturalistic processes as a possibility, I mearly stated that the more complex something is, the more likely it was designed. This does not seem to me to be a fallacious argument by any degree. I believe evolutionary biologists would be much more comfortable if life was not so complex, but unfortunately, life is extremely complex. I never claimed that complexity "requires" a designer, I merely stated that there seems to be a breaking point in which it is more likely that something was designed. Whether or not life is "too" complex (the breaking point) is where are opinions differ. I believe life is too complex, you do not.

---

Why does complexity imply design ?Does simplicity imply that an object was NOT designed ?Effectively what you are saying is 'I can't beleive that that
wasn't designed!'I think some more objective design criteria would be useful.
Not sure there are any though.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]
"Why does complexity imply design ?"Do you have a serious objection to the SETI program? The SETI program is designed to locate signals that have specified complexity. Even if we didn't know the nature of the sender, we could imply that the signal was created."Does simplicity imply that an object was NOT designed ?"Not neccesarily. It merely implies that it is likely that natural processes COULD of created it. Likewize, complexity merely implies that it is likely that natural processes DID NOT create it."Effectively what you are saying is 'I can't beleive that that
wasn't designed!'"So? Effectively, what many evolutionists are saying is, "I can't believe that that was designed." What's the difference? (In fact, many evolutionists don't even consider the ID argument. Instead they make bogus claims about ID being "God of the Gaps" or it being "the end of scientific inquiry.")"I think some more objective design criteria would be useful.
Not sure there are any though."I realize that you may not like ID very much, but I don't see your point. No where in my posts have I claimed something ridiculous like "Life is so complex, it must of been designed! You evolutionists are retards!" I simply claimed that complexity tends to point to a designer (in all known cases that I'm aware of, it has). Maybe life is different, but given our knowledge, I believe the ID argument is worth heavy consideration.

"Oops! The most complex things imaginable are entirely random. A simple example - "d93ncimecofmsj8;" is a more complex phrase than "a simple example" because it cannot even be summarized, at least not to a simpler form than "a simple example."Ok, but does d93ncimecofmsj8; have a meaning?"Interesting belief - supported by evidence?"Nope, which is why I presented my belief as just that- a belief. I think it is important to try to distinguish between beliefs and facts supported by evidence.

[QUOTE][b]Ok, but does d93ncimecofmsj8; have a meaning?[/QUOTE][/b]What does it matter? Meaning is context-sensitive.

I know alot of the arguements on this board tie in, but lets try to keep each thread semi-focused on the topic. ID is being addressed in other threads. I believe the discussion was the Tower of Babel and linguistics.

Good idea. ID is indeed being discussed elsewhere. Iw ould love to have a discussion on linguistics (and the Tower of Babel), but I'm not sure what you want to discuss. You posted a meaty (if a little inaccurate) piece, about the development of languages. Was there a point you were making about the Tower of Babel?

Actually, I just wanted to state that the development and diversification of language didn't require and event, such as the fall of the Tower of Babel, to cause the earth's vast array of languages to develope. I think linguistics is a very interesting area of study. I know some of my notions are rough, and a bit inaccurate, but that is mostly due to lack of formal study on the subject. I have, however, read alot about the histories of various languages, and have learned russian as a second language. ( I know a smattering of spanish, but nothing substantial beyond a few phrases.) It seems that you can learn quite a bit about a culture by its use of language, vocabulary, and slang.

What if techonobabble had already confused the venture captialists of bioinformatics that can only see InRun>? What do you think GISH meant by all left handed gloves??

The first impression you get when you read the Bible is that Nimrod built his tower to reach heaven, although you might wonder why he did not just climb a mountain. It is more likely that he wanted to build the highest tower in the land to honor the god of his city and bring glory to himself. The most powerful god would, of course, live in the highest city temple, nearest to heaven. He would be The Most High God. Many, from other cities, would be drawn to Nimrod's tower and god, and it would tend to keep other from leaving (Gen. 11:4). This would increase Nimrod's authority in religious matters and subsequently give him more power to restrict religious freedom as far away as Ebla. Nimrod had great popularity and power. All he lacked was complete religious authority. There are several references stating that Nimrod stood on top of his tower and shot an arrow into the heavens killing the rival god (of the Hebrews?).
The tower of Babel was probably a zigguart, which was a staged tower with a temple at the apex, such as those in Central America. This was spoken of as the Bond between Heaven and Earth. The temple at the top of the tower was called The House of God or The House of the Mountain. The word ‘mountain’ as used then, had a deep religious significance and we are reminded of Isaiah 2:2 where we read that the Mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
The most remarkable event that took place is how the confusion of tongues was accomplished. Up until then (circa 3000 BC) writing was logographic. At the time of Nimord's tower, one of the Sumerians was inspired to create writing by using syllables instead of the 3000 logograms they were using (like traditional Chinese and Japanese). It caught on like wildfire and each major city wanted to develop their own way to write phonetically. This is why we find only about five written languages developed---there were only about that many major city kingdoms at that time. The orient was unaware of this revolution in writing and so continued to use logograms. William

William, apparently you missed my message about LDS perspectives on mainstream science, history, and archeaology. I think a whole thread is in order for the subject. Concerns I have about the views of the Church are this:(1) Catastrophism in North America as recorded in 3 Nephi -- everytime I ask somebody about BoM geography or archeaology I am always told that the whole landscape shifted so much to make any inquiry there pointless, to the point that the shape of the continent was completely changed. Of course, this rails against geology *and* history.(2) Presence of paleo-Indian cultures in NA from very ancient times. Surely there must have already been "Lamanites" here when the Jaredites made their landfall.(3) Apparent lack of Nephite or Jaredite iron or steel implements found in NA.(4) Nasty comments made by Apostles on geology, evolution and the Big Bang theories. (The First Presidency, in contrast, has been very careful with commentary in this area).

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-20-2002]

They were under the influence of a wicked king named Nimrod who was building the highest temple tower to house the "most high god" to protect his city. God did not want all the people to flock to him, so he inspired someone to develop phonetic writing to keep them within their own cities.
Just a small aside, is not Occam spelled Ockham, from William Ockham, and English philosopher of the 1300s.
William

William, apparently you missed my message about LDS perspectives on mainstream science, history, and archaeology. I think a whole thread is in order for the subject. Concerns I have about the views of the Church are this:
(1) Catastrophism in North America as recorded in 3 Nephi -- everytime I ask somebody about BoM geography or archeaology I am always told that the whole landscape shifted so much to make any inquiry there pointless, to the point that the shape of the continent was completely changed. Of course, this rails against geology *and* history.
The church has no views on catastrophism or unifomitarianism! Members of the church each have their own views, mostly bases on what someone else believes rather than from their own investigations. Unfortunately, when a church leader issues a belief statement on such things, they are taken as a gospel truth. LDS geologists do not cite Velikovsky or believe in catastrophism as far as I know from my own studies. Landscape changes were local. Nearly all ruins in Mexico and Central America were built upon previous structures which pre-dated the catastrophes mentioned in 3 Nephi. Don’t use misinformed LDS members as straw men to win an argument.
(2) Presence of paleo-Indian cultures in NA from very ancient times. Surely there must have already been "Lamanites" here when the Jaredites made their landfall.
There were probably Eskimoes and other people from Africa etc. The events in the lives of the familes of Jared and Lehi were basically the only things recorded. Just as you probably do not write much about other families as a family history.
(3) Apparent lack of Nephite or Jaredite iron or steel implements found in NA.
Iron and steel rusts rapidly in a hot moist environment. Why would you expect to still find any?
(4) Nasty comments made by Apostles on geology, evolution and the Big Bang theories. (The First Presidency, in contrast, has been very careful with commentary in this area).
What about nice comments by Apostles and others on evolution and the Big Bang. The LDS Church has only four books that have been canonized. All other comments and writings are opinions which we hope are inspired. But the church does not make dogmatic statements about evolution and the Big Bang. One church president stated, Leave that up to science and said evolution was not an issue for us (general authorities) to debate.
However such things are of great interest to me. I believe in the evolution of the flora and fauna, and in the creation of man. I hope we can create some threads of common interest.
William