Languages

[tjdisc]

but I daresay the atheist is hard-pressed to come up with a theory which would explain where and how so many distinct languages came about in such a short period of time.  

Atheist? So any explanation on any topic that is not taken from the Bible as an explanation, but let's say is based on observation, is to you automatically atheist.

Let me break it down for you.  The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening - such as in the Tower of Babel.  When I said "hard-pressed" I was being kind, in reality if one was truly open-minded to a deity did something, linguistic origin would be high on the list of the supernatural reasons as the only way we see what we see today.  It's why in a world that seeks to show God doesn't exist, language origin is avoided and you don't hear about it much.  You can't just try the old throw billions and billions of years at it to explain what we see today - recorded language only goes back a few thousand years, but it goes from nothing to an explosion of distinct languages.  Like what was shown in that computer model that placed a sort of origin of Indo-European language in Turkey a few thousand years ago.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Atheist? So any explanation on any topic that is not taken from the Bible as an explanation, but let's say is based on observation, is to you automatically atheist.

Let me break it down for you.  The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening - such as in the Tower of Babel.  When I said "hard-pressed" I was being kind, in reality if one was truly open-minded to a deity did something, linguistic origin would be high on the list of the supernatural reasons as the only way we see what we see today.  It's why in a world that seeks to show God doesn't exist, language origin is avoided and you don't hear about it much.  You can't just try the old throw billions and billions of years at it to explain what we see today - recorded language only goes back a few thousand years, but it goes from nothing to an explosion of distinct languages.  Like what was shown in that computer model that placed a sort of origin of Indo-European language in Turkey a few thousand years ago.

‘Recorded language’ isn’t the same as ‘the origin of language’. You seem desperately focused on when people learned to write, as opposed to when they learned to speak. I find it unlikely in the extreme that Oog said the word ‘tree’ and invented the appropriate pictograph the same day.

Boru

[tjdisc]

Let me break it down for you.  The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening - such as in the Tower of Babel.  When I said "hard-pressed" I was being kind, in reality if one was truly open-minded to a deity did something, linguistic origin would be high on the list of the supernatural reasons as the only way we see what we see today.  It's why in a world that seeks to show God doesn't exist, language origin is avoided and you don't hear about it much.  You can't just try the old throw billions and billions of years at it to explain what we see today - recorded language only goes back a few thousand years, but it goes from nothing to an explosion of distinct languages.  Like what was shown in that computer model that placed a sort of origin of Indo-European language in Turkey a few thousand years ago.

‘Recorded language’ isn’t the same as ‘the origin of language’. You seem desperately focused on when people learned to write, as opposed to when they learned to speak. I find it unlikely in the extreme that Oog said the word ‘tree’ and invented the appropriate pictograph the same day.

Boru

That seems rather desperate reply actually.  So the explosion of writings in distinct languages happened a few thousand years ago, but everyone was all talking in their own distinct languages (not writing) before that (for how long)?  And that solves everything?

[tjdisc]

"You seem desperately focused on when people learned to write"

Welcome to the world of linguistic history and origin study

[Fake Messiah]

The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening

There are many languages but what YOU mean by DISTINCT remains a mystery. All languages that we have today came from other languages, there is no mystery about it. Like, Spanish came from Latin in a documented fashion because there are books that are something between those languages. Similar is with German and English which are both Germanic languages that are also distinct but somewhat similar because they have the same origins. And inside both German and English languages are other German and English languages because languages constantly evolve. This is why it is hard today for the English person to read Shakespeare because the English language of 400 years ago was different and that is why thousand years in the future people will not understand what we are writing now, and yet there was no god to interfere.

[tjdisc]

The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening

There are many languages but what YOU mean by DISTINCT remains a mystery. All languages that we have today came from other languages, there is no mystery about it. Like, Spanish came from Latin in a documented fashion because there are books that are something between those languages. Similar is with German and English which are both Germanic languages that are also distinct but somewhat similar because they have the same origins. And inside both German and English languages are other German and English languages because languages constantly evolve. This is why it is hard today for the English person to read Shakespeare because the English language of 400 years ago was different and that is why thousand years in yhe future people will not understand what we are writing now, and yet there was no god to interfere.

I can read old English just fine.  It's certainly not distinct like Russian.

[Pat Mustard]

Atheist? So any explanation on any topic that is not taken from the Bible as an explanation, but let's say is based on observation, is to you automatically atheist.

Let me break it down for you.  The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening - such as in the Tower of Babel.  When I said "hard-pressed" I was being kind, in reality if one was truly open-minded to a deity did something, linguistic origin would be high on the list of the supernatural reasons as the only way we see what we see today.  It's why in a world that seeks to show God doesn't exist, language origin is avoided and you don't hear about it much.  You can't just try the old throw billions and billions of years at it to explain what we see today - recorded language only goes back a few thousand years, but it goes from nothing to an explosion of distinct languages.  Like what was shown in that computer model that placed a sort of origin of Indo-European language in Turkey a few thousand years ago.

So it's our job to prove the bullshit a con artist shat out is wrong? You really don't understand burden of proof do you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me break it down for you.  The atheist has to explain how thousands of (DISTINCT) languages could have "evolved" or come about naturally in such a short period of time without a god intervening - such as in the Tower of Babel. 

Wrong. Only those who believe in a short Biblical timeline have the problem of explaining how the various languages evolved so quickly. Those of us who have studied a little and know that humans have been around a couple hundred thousand years do not have the narrow time-constraint that your faith imposes upon your thinking.

[Angrboda]

I will be focusing on Mandarin and Swahili from now on. Cantonese is easier to speak than Mandarin, but the former uses more complex characters than the latter in its reading/writing system, and I want to learn how to read and write Chinese the easiest way possible, not to mention Mandarin is a lot more popular than Cantonese. Swahili has piqued my interest because it's said to be a relatively simple language, and who knows, maybe if I ever end up in Africa I can get on the natives' good side and score myself a cute African chick.

I thought you were gay?

[Ahriman]

I will be focusing on Mandarin and Swahili from now on. Cantonese is easier to speak than Mandarin, but the former uses more complex characters than the latter in its reading/writing system, and I want to learn how to read and write Chinese the easiest way possible, not to mention Mandarin is a lot more popular than Cantonese. Swahili has piqued my interest because it's said to be a relatively simple language, and who knows, maybe if I ever end up in Africa I can get on the natives' good side and score myself a cute African chick.

I thought you were gay?

More like bi, with a preference for guys. But I still like girls. And I bet one of those humble African chicks would make a great partner.