Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9042 total)
590 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), Stile (3 members, 587 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,148 Year: 3,794/14,102 Month: 99/315 Week: 99/131 Day: 20/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Languages and the Creationist account.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 5 of 32 (633102)
09-12-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Son Goku
09-12-2011 7:07 AM


Good heavens, Son Goku!
I propose that the literal Biblical account cannot be reconciled with the historical picture uncovered by linguists.

Well, creationists have rejected the findings of biologists and geneticists and geologists and astrophysicists and cosmologists. Does anyone really think that linguistics are going to fare any better in their gentle hands?


You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Son Goku, posted 09-12-2011 7:07 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 32 (633107)
09-12-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wollysaurus
09-12-2011 11:21 AM


Re: where's the beef?
The scattering at Babel has been used to validate a lot of nonsense as well, such as the Curse of Ham and the African peoples being marked as the "servants of servants". The Creation Museum has a nice little graphic even showing the decedents of Ham migrating to Africa. Not meant to be a race card, but it is interesting that these notions persist.

Something I never noticed before. The Babel fiasco occurred many generations after the flood. That means that not only was there very little if any interbreeding between the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japheth (meaning that the post-flood population of humans is even more interbred that I realized), but when God confounded the languages, he more or less grouped similar languages according to descendants.

That's assuming that the Iranians and Indians aren't actually Semites, but good ol' Japhethite aryans who later invaded Asia. If not, then it's interesting that the language given to the Semite Iranians are so close to the language given to the totally unrelated Japhethite Greeks and Celts.

Gah! The mess creationists make of linguistics is even worse than the one they make of geology!


You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-12-2011 11:21 AM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021