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

[The Valkyrie]

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

Beat me to it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing ever is. We can describe the world a multitude of ways, from the purely fact based to the entirely poetic. Nothing about any of that….ever…..is a problem for the world and how it actually is.

Not even ye creationism. It’s literally unimportant , even to ye creationism, what the facts are. The only relevant and inviolable fact it seeks to impart is that some stupid fucking god made the world. Like potter to clay. Just forging souls out here like a seven eleven.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Aspects only look less incompatible with young earth creationism if one classifies arbitrarily and then puts on blinders and decline to view it in its broader context.    For example if you view Indo-European languages in the broader context of its relationship with other language families, then pretty soon it looks as incompatible with young earth creationism as any other language family.

[Belacqua]

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.

There are many kinds of evidence against young earth creationism, and if you've identified one more I think it's good to add it to the list. 

Of course we've all seen that when someone doesn't want his mind changed, no amount of argument will do the trick. Still, it happens that occasionally a person may be persuaded, and every little bit helps.

[FlatAssembler]

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.

Aspects only look less incompatible with young earth creationism if one classifies arbitrarily and then puts on blinders and decline to view it in its broader context.    For example if you view Indo-European languages in the broader context of its relationship with other language families, then pretty soon it looks as incompatible with young earth creationism as any other language family.

What relationship with other language families? Mainstream linguistics considers the Indo-European language family to be unrelated to any other language family. Though, I have done a bit of research, and I think Indo-European and Austronesian languages are related. You can read about it on my blog. In short, I think that Proto-Indo-European 's' corresponds to Proto-Austronesian 'q', and a crude calculation shows that the probability of such a pattern appearing due to chance is around 6%.

[Anomalocaris]

no, main stream linguistics consider all human languages to probably have just one or very few common origins, far back in Africa before Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa. some even think the common mother tongue may prefatevthe rise of homo sapiens by considerable time.

Because of the antiquity of the relationship between major  language families, their exact relationships are somewhat blurred and the subject to debate, but nobody thinks Indo European language originated separately from any other language. The closest linguistic relative of Indo European languages have been proposed to be Uralic, pontic or none other than ypur Afroasiatic families languages

Think of it this way, there are people in the world who are said to have no known living relatives. That does not mean they were dropped on the earth from a UFO. They still share the same genetic heritage as every person around them, it’s just that you have to go back may be a few more generations to find the common ancestor, and it takes more work to identify call the closest living relative’s are.

[FlatAssembler]

no, main stream linguistics consider all human languages to probably have just one or very few common origins, far back in Africa before Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa. some even think the common mother tongue may prefatevthe rise of homo sapiens by considerable time.

Because of the antiquity of the relationship between major  language families, their exact relationships are somewhat blurred and the subject to debate, but nobody thinks Indo European language originated separately from any other language. The closest linguistic relative of Indo European languages have been proposed to be Uralic, pontic or none other than ypur Afroasiatic families languages

Think of it this way, there are people in the world who are said to have no known living relatives. That does not mean they were dropped on the earth from a UFO. They still share the same genetic heritage as every person around them, it’s just that you have to go back may be a few more generations to find the common ancestor, and it takes more work to identify call the closest living relative’s are.

Maybe, but that's very unlikely to be convincing to a Young-Earth Creationist.