There are many theories that hold that language as we know it, was only invented in one location and spread to all humanity. Languages evolve in so many different dirrections, that it would be impossible to confirm these theories. Still Occams razor suggests that it is the most likely theory.
At the point that languaguge first developed, it was probably very simple. Less than a Pidgin Language, probably around 100 words.
Would you consider something that small to be a Language?
As I said, it's all to do with certain amount of belief and can never reach an agreement because of that.
You believe that the language (if there ever was) was "developed" and was rather primitive because of common belief by darwinists.. am I right?
Well, I don't. And please don't tell me that you know this by fact..
''Why should I believe that it happened? It's nothing but a myth that happens to be written in a book taken as sacred by a couple of religions.''
Why should I believe that evolution happened? It's nothing but a myth that happens to be written in a science book excepted by many scientists.
Ghoti,
I've never heard of fossilised myths before. Unlike creationism, evolution really is written in stone. You should try going to a few museums instead of wasting your time in loony bins with pulpits.
Ghoti,
Would you kindly take your weak argument over to the Europa thread that Jim provided for you (that is unless you want to discuss the linguistic aspect of this myth).
Hi Paul
I have no facts. I only have theories. I said as much.
The story of Babel is valuable to me as an understanding of G-ds actions.
I believe it is literally true, but I accept that my understanding of G-d and G-ds actions as reported in the Hebrew Bible could be incomplete.
Hey it's a translation.
Regards, Paul V.
It's not evolution that's written in those stones. Those fossils are not evolution. There just fossils of animals that became extinct. None of the fossils prove evolution to be true.
Re: "None of the fossils prove evolution to be true." Dear, dear. Next you'll be saying that there was no such thing as dinosaurs.
"The US was founded in Christianity ..." writes Juan "... so I don't know why everyone now deems it is ok to attack and demean it."
I'm sorry Juan but I just don't seem to get the connexion. It's not okay to attack or demean something that the US was founded in? The USSR was founded in atheism so is thus not okay to attack and demean atheism?
Ghoti,
Go to Europa II and I'd be glad to fill you in on a little of the last three thousand years of what we call "science".
<<I just don't seem to get the connexion.>>
Tha't a fancy variant of the word "connection". First time I've ever seen it in this form.
The connection is that the US is supposedly THE shining example to the the world.
Which means that it can't all that bad, could it? Since the US thrived under Christian values.
"The connection is that the US is supposedly THE shining example to the the world."
Good on ya Juan, I love a good laugh.
Might is does not make right. Economic, military and political success is no justification for a given system of values.
Let me explain what I'm on about here. I intend on disrespect to any of our American friends on this forum but if the US is any kind of example to the World it's no shining kind in my view. The USA has had success but that doesn't mean that what they believe must be right.
Suppose that it were the facists who won WWII. Would you then be willing to say that because they have thrived under facism that facism can't be all that bad? I say that your argument is not valid but we've already strayed too far from the linguistic aspect. Please let's take this debate elsewhere.
SO ... BACK TO LANGUAGE
"There are many theories that hold that language as we know it," writes Paul "was only invented in one location and spread to all humanity. Languages evolve in so many different dirrections, that it would be impossible to confirm these theories. Still Occams razor suggests that it is the most likely theory."
I agree it is a quite plausible theory.
"At the point that languaguge first developed, it was probably very simple." Paul writes "Less than a Pidgin Language, probably around 100 words." by "less than" I guess you mean "more simple than". That language, if it ever existed, would have been a very different thing to a pidgin but perhaps (at least at first) simpler than most known pidgins.
"Would you consider something that small to be a Language?" Pauls asks. Yes I would. Here's a definition from a dictionary.
language [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
a system of communication consisting of sounds, words and grammar, or the system of communication used by the people of a particular country or profession:
http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=44596&dict=CALD
It doesn't specify any minimum number of words or minimum level of complexity. Why couldn't you have a very simple language?
Both connexion and connection appear in the dictionary.
