Is the Afro-Asiatic linguistics incompatible with Young-Earth Creationism?

[FlatAssembler]

I think that, while you can perhaps make Indo-European linguistics compatible with Young-Earth Creationism (by claiming Proto-Indo-European was spoken around 2200 BC, right after the Tower of Babel, and, obviously, by rejecting all forms of glottochronology), Afro-Asiatic linguistics is blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth-Creationism. I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/96177/62325

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's sad when even  young earth creationists can make you look foolish. But i'll whip out the popcorn and watch the quacks battle it out 

[Anomalocaris]

I think that, while you can perhaps make Indo-European linguistics compatible with Young-Earth Creationism (by claiming Proto-Indo-European was spoken around 2200 BC, right after the Tower of Babel, and, obviously, by rejecting all forms of glottochronology), Afro-Asiatic linguistics is blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth-Creationism. I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/96177/62325

You can generalize your point to “all aspects of reality, if seen in context, are fundamentally incompatible with young earth creationism”.


Will you make a separate thread for each and every aspect of reality?  That could take a very large number of quintillions years.

[FlatAssembler]

It's sad when even  young earth creationists can make you look foolish. But i'll whip out the popcorn and watch the quacks battle it out 

I don't think my arguments are actually flawed, I think Matthew on that forum is making ad-hoc hypotheses that make less sense than Flat-Earthism.

[FlatAssembler]

I think that, while you can perhaps make Indo-European linguistics compatible with Young-Earth Creationism (by claiming Proto-Indo-European was spoken around 2200 BC, right after the Tower of Babel, and, obviously, by rejecting all forms of glottochronology), Afro-Asiatic linguistics is blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth-Creationism. I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/96177/62325

You can generalize your point to “all aspects of reality, if seen in context, are fundamentally incompatible with young earth creationism”.


Will you make a separate thread for each and every aspect of reality?  That could take a very large number of quintillions years.

Yes, but not all aspects of reality are equally incompatible with Young-Earth Creationism. Indo-European linguistics is not nearly as blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth Creationism as Afro-Asiatic linguistics is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think that, while you can perhaps make Indo-European linguistics compatible with Young-Earth Creationism (by claiming Proto-Indo-European was spoken around 2200 BC, right after the Tower of Babel, and, obviously, by rejecting all forms of glottochronology), Afro-Asiatic linguistics is blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth-Creationism. I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/96177/62325

You know what else is incompatible with YEC? Reality.

This isn’t really a linguistics issue.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I'll bet the people on Stack Exchange are as excited as I am about this new thread topic.

[FlatAssembler]

I think that, while you can perhaps make Indo-European linguistics compatible with Young-Earth Creationism (by claiming Proto-Indo-European was spoken around 2200 BC, right after the Tower of Babel, and, obviously, by rejecting all forms of glottochronology), Afro-Asiatic linguistics is blatantly incompatible with Young-Earth-Creationism. I have started a thread about that on Christianity StackExchange: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/96177/62325

You know what else is incompatible with YEC? Reality.

This isn’t really a linguistics issue.

Boru

Not all arguments against YEC are valid, just like not all arguments against Flat-Earthism is valid. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that I feel like I am being pulled downwards?" or "How do the airplanes fly?" is not a valid argument. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that the gravitational acceleration measurably changes if you go to a high mountain?" is a valid argument (although it is unlikely to be convincing).

[arewethereyet]

You know what else is incompatible with YEC? Reality.

This isn’t really a linguistics issue.

Boru

Not all arguments against YEC are valid, just like not all arguments against Flat-Earthism is valid. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that I feel like I am being pulled downwards?" or "How do the airplanes fly?" is not a valid argument. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that the gravitational acceleration measurably changes if you go to a high mountain?" is a valid argument (although it is unlikely to be convincing).

This is not linguistics.  It's your disordered mind going off on another tangent.

[FlatAssembler]

Not all arguments against YEC are valid, just like not all arguments against Flat-Earthism is valid. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that I feel like I am being pulled downwards?" or "How do the airplanes fly?" is not a valid argument. Asking Flat-Earthers "How it is that the gravitational acceleration measurably changes if you go to a high mountain?" is a valid argument (although it is unlikely to be convincing).

This is not linguistics.  It's your disordered mind going off on another tangent.

Afro-Asiatic linguistics is a science you (as it seems) need to reject if you accept the Young Earth Creationism. Just like astrophysics is. And just like you can use the Distant Starlight Problem to argue against Young Earth Creationism, you can use Afro-Asiatic linguistics.