|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2003 : 20:52:55
|
Writing in another post about language, it stuck me that I'm not sure I've ever seen a creationist-- either here on this forum or elsewhere-- actually try and argue that langauge diversity on this planet came to be as it was told in the Genesis story of Babel. Creation websites have lots on evolution and biology, and they also have lots on the flood. In fact, discussions of the Grand Canyon (no doubt as some sort of proof of the flood) are frequently seen. But language is largely not discussed.
Sure, sure-- langauge diversity doesn't quite create (haha) the stir that biological evolution does, but you'd think that with so much evidence around those biblical literalists would jump at the chance to shut everyone, er, I mean, convert us all to the true faith.
No matter- I did the work for them: Now, if we assume that the earth is 6000 years old, then we know that the gap between when humans first walked the earth and when they first started writing is around 800 years (writing appear ca 3200 BC). However, the length, in years, of the generations from Adam to that of Noah's first child-- allowing for overlap, of course (that is, counting from a person's birth to when he first begat a child)-- is about 1,550 years. Thus, counting from the creation of Adam to the birth of Noah's first son should take us from 4000 BC to around 2500 BC. This also tells us that the first lannguage was Sumerian.
Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, the time that we begin to see Akkadian, Amorite, probably Eblaite, and no doubt other languages, is ca. 2500 BC! Thus, according to the external sources, the Bible is looking good.
Things stop looking good, however, when we broaded our scope. This is because the earliest attestations of written Egyptian appear (independantly) soon after Sumerian, or ca. 3000 BC. Elamite, an ancient language spoken in ancient Iran and, like Sumerian a language isolate, also appears around this time. Thus, the evidence suggests that well before the Bible's Babel, at least three languages were being spoken. And the news gets worse when you consider that some scholars (albeit a minority) have argued that the earliest cuneiform doesn't represent Sumerian, but rather some other now lost language, and that the Sumerian speakers simply co-opted it for their own use. Thus, by 3200 BC there are already two langauges spoken in southern Mesopotamia (and elsewhere). One might also add that there are a number of so-called Kulturwoerter, such as the word "wine", which are at least as old as Sumerian, and point to other unattested languages conteporary with it. Finally, it should be noted that the names of several cities in southern Mesopotamia, e.g. Uruk, don't appear to be Sumerian at all, and thus point again to the existance of other languages being spoken in ancient Southwest Asia ca. 4000 BC-- the time of Adam!!
To conclude, it now seems clear why creationists haven't involved Genesis 11 in their quest to prove their case; even a cursory glance of the evidence (albeit enough to postpone real dissertation research until tomorrow) shows that the Babel story can't be right for YECs. The argument is more difficult to make for the arguments of OECs, but that's a whole new day of procrastination.
Thanks for your time.
P.S. Does anyone know of a site or person who does use the Babel story as part of their overall evolution argument?
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 22:59:41 [Permalink]
|
| I have actually seen a few creationists argue for the babel story of language diversity, even though language drift is so readily visible , even in simply comparing modern english to english script only a few hundred years old. My favorite claim they made was that language continues to change because of the babel effect, and isn't neccesarily a result of cultural and technological influences. Man, my sides hurt after that one. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 03:41:41 [Permalink]
|
O thou unsaved spawn of the Beast! How dare you use God's very own, blessed Word against Him?!
Cursed heretic you are, but still, I'll give you the explanation. It is all very simple. Before Babel, there was but one, world-wide, spoken tongue; it was merely spoken with many, regonal accents. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Avenel
Skeptic Friend
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 07:03:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
P.S. Does anyone know of a site or person who does use the Babel story as part of their overall evolution argument?
On the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) tenets page, the literal interpretation of the Babel story is included.
The "A Defense of Creationism" page includes the Babel story.
The Creation Research of the North Coast (CRNC) tenets page also mentions Babel. It may be identical to the ICR tenets page, I didn't examine it that closely.
The Bible Studies Manuals website mentions the Tower of Babel in thier Creationism pages. |
"How many angels can swim on the head of a beer?" - Roger Ramjet |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 16:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Avenel and Dave W., thanks for the information. Some of the references were rather frightening-- how is it that people can think this?!? All it takes is five minutes to see how wrong it is, and yet thousands (tens-- or hundreds of thousands?!) hold to YEC!
On a somewhat related thought, I can't help but wonder how much scientists/scholars of the ancient world (and thus, myself) are in part to blame. Had we all been as good as, say, medical scholars, in putting forward information perhaps things would be different. Perhaps it's easier to convince people about their health as opposed to immaterial things, or things that happened so long ago. I don't know... |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 20:40:16 [Permalink]
|
| I have seen statsitics that fundamentalists count for 20% of the population. I have no idea how many of those are YEC, but I imagine fairly high, so figure at least 10 % of the population, though I have seen survays that 40% of the population is dubious or outright hostile the the concept of evolution, so that number may be much higher. |
|
|
|
Avenel
Skeptic Friend
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 21:05:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
I have seen statsitics that fundamentalists count for 20% of the population. I have no idea how many of those are YEC, but I imagine fairly high, so figure at least 10 % of the population, though I have seen survays that 40% of the population is dubious or outright hostile the the concept of evolution, so that number may be much higher.
According to a November 1997 Gallup poll on the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance web site, 44% of the US population is YEC. |
"How many angels can swim on the head of a beer?" - Roger Ramjet |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 04:00:48 [Permalink]
|
I never could grasp the reason for faith in such a ridiculous fable, but let's not forget that these same people think that a jackass can talk, the Earth is supported by four pollars and enclosed by a dome-like structure, that a river can turn to blood, people can turn to pillars of salt, and an entire sea can open up leaving an easily traveled road in it's wake. How big a leap is instant language?.
Edited because I didn't like one of the words I originally used???? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
| Edited by - Tim on 07/03/2003 04:49:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 06:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
Avenel and Dave W., thanks for the information. Some of the references were rather frightening-- how is it that people can think this?!? All it takes is five minutes to see how wrong it is, and yet thousands (tens-- or hundreds of thousands?!) hold to YEC!
Another Talk.Origins Post of the Month - written by a former YEC - answers your question with a new term: Morton's Demon.quote:
On a somewhat related thought, I can't help but wonder how much scientists/scholars of the ancient world (and thus, myself) are in part to blame. Had we all been as good as, say, medical scholars, in putting forward information perhaps things would be different. Perhaps it's easier to convince people about their health as opposed to immaterial things, or things that happened so long ago. I don't know...
Apparently, you haven't been following the goings-on in "alternative medicine," in which people are convinced that substances with no known therapeutic effects are actually curing diseases for which scientific medicine has no known cures. This is big business, with much money to be made, and those who are making lots of money are screaming pretty loud, with infomercials, books, clinics, etc.. This leads to people, in general, being very badly informed about their health, and the situation hasn't been improving recently. Morton's Demon also affects people's beliefs about alternative medicine, you see.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 14:03:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently, you haven't been following the goings-on in "alternative medicine," in which people are convinced that substances with no known therapeutic effects are actually curing diseases for which scientific medicine has no known cures. This is big business, with much money to be made, and those who are making lots of money are screaming pretty loud, with infomercials, books, clinics, etc.. This leads to people, in general, being very badly informed about their health, and the situation hasn't been improving recently. Morton's Demon also affects people's beliefs about alternative medicine, you see.
I was speaking more of medical advances and the general population's perception of medicine since, say, the ninetheenth century. Sure, now there are plenty who think that such-and-such herb will do x, y, or z. (When there's no such proof (or proof otherwise!)) But I'm sure that more people are willing to accept that germs and viruses exist and--rather than evil spirits-- cause illness than think that evolution is an accurate way to explain life's diversity on this planet. That is, if Hank Hanegraff or James Dobson got cancer, sure they might ask for prayers and such, but they'd also be first in line to get top flight cancer care-- this despite holding that God made the world blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2003 : 22:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Again, you'd be surprised. Books with titles like "Pasteur's Big Mistake" are becoming best-sellers. People only worry about germs and viruses when CNN tells 'em to. At other times, they're busy reading about how the germ theory of disease is fundamentally mistaken, and instead all illness is caused by (A) poor diet, (B) parasites, (C) wrong-thinking, or (D) all of the above.
And the perception of science in general is going down, too. Medical science has been spending billions of dollars and decades of time on trying to solve the problem of, for example, cancer. People see this as a failure, and are turning to those who claim to be able to cure them, instead. After all, "science can't prove anything," so what the hell good is it?
I'm damned if I can't remember her name, but there was a woman who was studying the effects of pray on one particular and rare form of brain cancer. She got that particular and rare form of brain cancer. Rather than let her supporters down by going with mainstream medicine, she let them pray over her, instead. She died. If I could recall her name, I could give you a link to a wonderful and long article about the whole mess. Great stuff about how dangerous these ideas can be.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 00:11:36 [Permalink]
|
People will prefer concrete and comforting lies than only partially understood facts. The truth is the universe is complex, biology especially so. People expect miracles, but science doesn't work that way. We know more about cancer than we did 20 years ago. Many forms of cancer are curable, or at least containable, today which would have killed people 20 years, heck, 10 years ago. The universal cure for cancer may not be around the corner, but it can be treated, and sometimes cured.
As for science not delivering, the fact that people live into their 70's and 80's all the time is amazing. 100 years ago, 50 to 60 was good, and if you go much further back, death at 40 wasn't uncommen, and that was if you survived childbirth and childhood. It wasn't uncommon for children to die from a myriad of diseases. The next time I hear someone say modern medicine is a mistake, I welcome them to stop seeing a doctor. Heart attack, go get some prayer beads. Pnuemonia, go get some healing crystals. Oh, you have cancer, how about a healing crystal..........
As for the rest, the fact that we have any technology beyond horse and cart, and some metal working is all thanks to science. I don't remember the design for a tunneling microscope in the bible....
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 06:33:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Again, you'd be surprised. Books with titles like "Pasteur's Big Mistake" are becoming best-sellers. People only worry about germs and viruses when CNN tells 'em to. At other times, they're busy reading about how the germ theory of disease is fundamentally mistaken, and instead all illness is caused by (A) poor diet, (B) parasites, (C) wrong-thinking, or (D) all of the above.
No doubt this is true. Sadly, some of this gets mixed in with real, honest science about health and body. Thus, a health food store with, say, organic meat-- animals not fed on cheap filler and not treated with hormones and such-- will also have shelves of herbal remedies to whatever ailment you can imagine.
Interestingly, in my own field of research--ancient Near Eastern studies-- there is a signifigant fringe who have co-opted everything in the name of New Age junk. Thus, some websites focus on a mythical "mother goddess" (that is, there's no evidence that the earliest religions of ancient Mesopotamia were matriarchal), or make crazed assertaions about the pyramids and astronomy. Ugh.
And I do recall more than one story about a person opting not to get real treatment for a disease, instead trusting prayer or magnets or whatever. Truely tragic. Still, I think medical science is ahead of evolutionary science in terms of where people are. |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 10:05:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...snip...
I'm damned if I can't remember her name, but there was a woman who was studying the effects of pray on one particular and rare form of brain cancer. She got that particular and rare form of brain cancer. Rather than let her supporters down by going with mainstream medicine, she let them pray over her, instead. She died. If I could recall her name, I could give you a link to a wonderful and long article about the whole mess. Great stuff about how dangerous these ideas can be.
Elizabeth Targ. The article was in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/prayer.html
-- Henry |
- TW
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 14:07:58 [Permalink]
|
| I noticed that her first study had twenty people. From everything I have heard about statistics, that is such a low number, that her numbers fall well within random deviation. As for the latter, I notice the article is quite vague about the study, but larger sample could still be well 30 or 100 people, and 300% could be 15 getting sick instead of 5, or even 3 instead of 1 out of the two groups. Most medical studies, for drugs and such, are conducted by the hundered, or thousands, or in cases where records can be used, sometimes hundreds of thousands. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
