Which Fits the Facts... Evolution or Creation?

by dorayakii 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pole

  dorayakii,
  

  To start off the discussion, for me point 6 is the easiest to refute... As an historical linguist, i'm well familiar with the fact that as ancient languages developed from "simple animal sounds" they became more and more complex.

  
  OK let me play with this statement a bit from the creationist's perspective. What do you mean you are familiar with "the fact"? What you have presentend is a mere assertion. Where is the evidence? As a historical linguist you have to have access to real evidence when drawing your conclusions. When saying: Old English used to have four cases for nouns, you point to Beowulf (for the sake of the argument) and other texts to prove it. When saying "the fact that as ancient languages developed from "simple animal sounds" they became more and more complex", what is the evidence you point to?
  

  Modern languages seem simpler to us but in reality they are much more complex. Most ancient languages had to use more complex word orders and constructions to represent tense and aspect whereas modern languages for the most part integrate them into their grammar. Therein lies the conundrum. In real terms, this modern method is more complex, because it relies on tacit knowledge of the precise meaning and connotation of auxiliaries and may even require some additional cultural knowledge.

  
  Yeah I see the point about the tacit complexity with all the undelying dead metaphors etc. However, in all fairness, I am not sure how you measure complexity. I guess if we want to be fair about the complexity of ancient and modern languages, then we'd have to admit that they are just differently complex. Can you name a single well-documented ancient language which lacked the kind of polysemy and 'tacity' (What's the English word anyway) which you say is so unique for modern languages?
  
  I once had this discussion with FunkyDerek and he actually argued that the cultural evolution of languages (as investigated by historical linguists) has little to do with biological evolution. I guess I agree with him. IMHO, with all due respect which I have for historical linguistics (as a computational linguist myself) I have to say diachronic evidence recorded in manuscripts is irrelevant for the theory of evolution.
  
  Your turn :-).
  
  Pole
• 

  Pole

  Point 6: "Language contemporaneous with man; ancient ones often more complex than modern."

  
  
  
  
  
  1) Modern languages are at least as complex as ancient ones (we can't say if they're more complex though).
  
  2) Historical linguistics, which covers the last couple of thousands of years yields very little if any evidence for or against evolution. Historical linguistics can only study 'cultural evolution'. There are other fields of linguistics which deal with the biological evolution of language (by examining the 'languages' of other primates for instance). In any case the WTS writers shouldn't have used this argument.
  
  Instead they should have focused on how Jehoovah miraculously mixed the tounges of men at the Tower of Babel, thus creating a huge mess which later prevented people from understanding the Bible in the 'original' languages. LOL.
  
  Pole
• 

  dorayakii

  Wow, it's hard to believe I posted this 8 years ago...
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Life was seeded ( created ) on Earth with the different Genera created having the ability to evolve. It did not happen by blind chance or dumb luck.
• 

  cofty

  Did you just make that up Data Dog?

  genera are arbitrary definitions.

  Evolution is the opposite of blind chance.

  I have asked you a few times now which books on evolution you have read but you keep avoiding the question.
• 

  LisaRose

  I remember one point from the evolution book that said that the eye could not evolve, because a partial eye would not be a genetic advantage, as unless it was complete, it would be useless. Then I read about a very primitive fish that lives deep in the ocean. It does not have an eye as we know it, but a much simpler and primitive version that lets it discern light and dark, and so it can detect motion. This primitive eye does give it an advantage, as it can avoid predators.
• 

  cofty

  LisaRose there are some great posts about this right now on page 7 of the Common Ancestry thread...

  Every stage of eye evolution exists in the animal kingdom.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Yes, LOL!!! I just made it up to cause trouble! LOL!! I am a brat sometimes!

  I do like this point " we simply don't have the scientific knowledge to say for certain whether it's possible for life to have arisen on its own or not."

  That being the case, my theory could end up being correct after all! The problem is that no one can say anything with absolute certainty. So let's say life arose with absolutely no outside influence. Did the Earth do the same? What about the Universe? There has to be a first cause, even before a quantum singularity. I heard some scientists saying that our Universe was caused by other Universes colliding. There is an obvious problem there. some things just cannot be answered right now, but that doesn't mean we can't keep searching.

  I think that fundemantalist Religious types piss other's off because they say, in effect, don't worry about it, God did it. If they had their way no one would search for answers and the world would be a dismal place. I say keep looking. If there is a God he certainly didn't make us to sit around and do nothing. We may never have an answer in our lifetime.
• 

  cofty

  That being the case, my theory could end up being correct after all! The problem is that no one can say anything with absolute certainty. - Data Dog

  But there are some things we know for a certainty.

  The earth is spherical and not flat.

  Plagues are caused by viruses and bacteria not by bad smells.

  All living things - including humans -descended from a common ancestor through evolution.

  Its disingenuous to hide behind "we don't know everything therefore anything is possible"

  So what books about evolution have you read?
• 

  prologos

  cofty, I am reading right now GALAPAGOS a natural History by John Krichter, have read all but one Dawkin. and am amazes at the scholarship / images on the other topics on that subject. but to my simple mind,

  The fact that we can so well explain, describe, the mechanism of evolution, laws and history of the universe, does not nessarily mean that it came about without outside intervention. (if any)

  Evolution or Creation?--- perhaps Evolution = Creation! (just made that up)

  Think about the wonder of flight that your children enjoy, and birds experience it right with their own bodies, evolving one lttle advantage at a time. wow!

  willing to wait and wonder. peace.