Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[Lui]

Ok- good.

Right, language normally develops slowly. So then what accelerated those changes that have occurred in the last 5000 years or so?

Now let us look at the language part:

THE TOWER OF BABEL
AND
THE CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES

I don’t mean this the wrong way but don’t you sometimes have problems actually believing stories like Noah’s ark and the tower of Babel as historical facts too? They ARE pretty far-fetched. I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand how educated adults can believe this.

I’m pretty sure different languages go back 100 of thousands of years.

What is your explanation for the Neanderthals? Were they humans, were they human relatives? Did they exist al all? Where did they go? When did they live? I know the answers but I just want to know what your view is.

 

[Farsight001]

Ok- good.

Right, language normally develops slowly. So then what accelerated those changes that have occurred in the last 5000 years or so?

Now let us look at the language part:

THE TOWER OF BABEL
AND
THE CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES

Odd article. A lot of “probablies” and “maybes” and very little in the way of argument for why it’s “probably” or “maybe”, and very little in the way of citation. Now do you actually have a scholarly and knowledgeable source, and not just some random guy who seems to think he’s an expert? Stedman is a pastor. He has no qualifications or expertise in the history of language. Likewise on the other guys too. Its a strange trend in what you cite - almost always to someone with no relevant credentials whatsoever.

So what expert - you know, someone who actually knows what they’re talking about because they have an education - is expounding this sudden divergence of language concept? It would be very interesting, especially since, if I recall correctly, it is said that there was just one language before Babel even though we have 10,000 year old (so older than Babel) writings in multiple languages - a couple of them pretty fair recipes for beer from what I hear.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t mean this the wrong way but don’t you sometimes have problems actually believing stories like Noah’s ark and the tower of Babel as historical facts too? They ARE pretty far-fetched. I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand how educated adults can believe this.

I’m pretty sure different languages go back 100 of thousands of years.

What is your explanation for the Neanderthals? Were they humans, were they human relatives? Did they exist al all? Where did they go? When did they live? I know the answers but I just want to know what your view is.

No - but I used to.

Why? Because there came a time after much study I realized the strength of Revelation. I had to drop my educated arrogance and become humble to a richer understanding. Of course this pitted the current scientific narrative against Revelation. Faith and reason cannot be opposed since they flow from the same God. So I had to examine how we are reasoning the science. I am simply asking science to do true science. No one should have a problem with ratcheting up the truths tests for what science is claiming and reexamining these claims illuminated by the light of Revelation (truth). Making an argument that educated people would not believe this stuff is bogus I think. One only has to examine what education is. How many of the actual experiments did you yourself do? What assumptions are made? The point is that we are regurgitating what we are taught by others. Over time a worldview gets set. It was hard for me to come to terms with this.

Pretty sure languages go back 100 of thousands of years? Pretty sure, huh. But you don’t really know. The vanishing point for a lookback is around 10000 years in language studies.

Neandetals were isolated humans that died off, although we all still have a portion of their DNA.

 

[buffalo]

Odd article. A lot of “probablies” and “maybes” and very little in the way of argument for why it’s “probably” or “maybe”, and very little in the way of citation. Now do you actually have a scholarly and knowledgeable source, and not just some random guy who seems to think he’s an expert? Stedman is a pastor. He has no qualifications or expertise in the history of language. Likewise on the other guys too. Its a strange trend in what you cite - almost always to someone with no relevant credentials whatsoever.

So what expert - you know, someone who actually knows what they’re talking about because they have an education - is expounding this sudden divergence of language concept? It would be very interesting, especially since, if I recall correctly, it is said that there was just one language before Babel even though we have 10,000 year old (so older than Babel) writings in multiple languages - a couple of them pretty fair recipes for beer from what I hear.

Perhaps God gave Adam the recipe for beer.

Lots of citations in this one…

The Origin of Language
and Communication

© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

[Farsight001]

Perhaps God gave Adam the recipe for beer.

I don’t find this statement particularly amusing. Mostly just patronizing and mocking, as are much of your statements. Please stop.

Lots of citations in this one…

The Origin of Language
and Communication

© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Again - a relevant expert. You seem to not be getting it. A doctorate in biology would not make them experts on the origin of language. Nor would a bachelor’s in linguistics. A probably doctorate in a RELEVANT category along with extensive study on the subject and published, professionally peer-reviewed papers is what I’m talking about. I have this gut feeling that you can dig through all your regular sources till the cows come home and you won’t find a single one, which would explain how you understand so little, but think you know so much. These people you are citing are no more an expert on the evolution of language than I am on “women’s studies.”

 

[buffalo]

I don’t find this statement particularly amusing. Mostly just patronizing and mocking, as are much of your statements. Please stop.

Again - a relevant expert. You seem to not be getting it. A doctorate in biology would not make them experts on the origin of language. Nor would a bachelor’s in linguistics. A probably doctorate in a RELEVANT category along with extensive study on the subject and published, professionally peer-reviewed papers is what I’m talking about. I have this gut feeling that you can dig through all your regular sources till the cows come home and you won’t find a single one, which would explain how you understand so little, but think you know so much. These people you are citing are no more an expert on the evolution of language than I am on “women’s studies.”

I then welcome your sources.

 

[Farsight001]

I then welcome your sources.

Don’t try and play the ditch responsibility game with me. I’m a little insulted you actually tried it. It is YOUR responsibility to provide the good sources, not mine. Put up, or shut up.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t try and play the ditch responsibility game with me. I’m a little insulted you actually tried it. It is YOUR responsibility to provide the good sources, not mine. Put up, or shut up.

I at least provided sources. I have no problem with scrutiny. Posters here just spout out they are nonsense and do not bring their own sources. So now I have two sources out without legitimate rebuttals.

 

[Lui]

No one should have a problem with ratcheting up the truths tests for what science is claiming and reexamining these claims illuminated by the light of Revelation (truth). Making an argument that educated people would not believe this stuff is bogus I think. One only has to examine what education is. How many of the actual experiments did you yourself do? What assumptions are made? The point is that we are regurgitating what we are taught by others. Over time a worldview gets set. It was hard for me to come to terms with this.

Pretty sure languages go back 100 of thousands of years? Pretty sure, huh. But you don’t really know. The vanishing point for a lookback is around 10000 years in language studies.
.

You have to consider that it is not my main goal in life to convince people of my world view which is what usually people do who want to achieve something specific(money, power, control, followers etc). As a person who does not work in the field of science I rely on the education, practice and results of hundreds of thousands of people who work in the field. I don’t think hundreds of thousands of scientists are just delusional.

No, I don’t know how many years ago language developed. I go by common sense. You don’t know it either just for the record. You have zero PROOF that Noah or the tower of Babel ever existed. You only have theories.
Since modern man is at least 200000 years old according to modern science, I assume that humans were capable of speech 200000 years ago and since humans didn’t live together as one single group 200000 years ago but probably in different tribes, like people in the amazon still do, I assume each tribe had its own language or dialect.

Here is what I found on human speech. Actually it goes back about 400000 years:
uvafon.hum.uva.nl/bart/papers/deBoerEncyclopedia2006.pdf

 

[Dan_Daly]

Although YEC is an American phenomenon in origins

I didn’t realize St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were Americans. Learn something everyday I guess.

Pax.

 

[Farsight001]

I at least provided sources. I have no problem with scrutiny. Posters here just spout out they are nonsense and do not bring their own sources. So now I have two sources out without legitimate rebuttals.

Clearly, you do have a problem with scrutiny. If you didn’t, you would have been far more scrutinous about the sources you cite. You provided two completely useless sources from people who know as much about language development as a school child. If those are your standards when it comes to sources, then give me a a day or two to find a classroom of five year olds and some crayons, and I’ll have 20 times the sources you have, and just as valid too…

I already told you once - I am not playing this game. Put up or shut up. The onus of evidence rests on you, not me. So far you have provided none. Sources, yeah. But sources from people who have no idea what they’re talking about and no qualifications to talk about it with any more authority than a five year old. They are unacceptable. You would have more credibility if you hadn’t bothered citing them in the first place.

Again, you have no real sources. So try again. Take responsibility instead of trying to shirk it off on me.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I don’t mean this the wrong way but don’t you sometimes have problems actually believing stories like Noah’s ark and the tower of Babel as historical facts too? They ARE pretty far-fetched. I’m seriously asking because I don’t understand how educated adults can believe this.

I find them no more difficult to believe than:

-An infinite God knows me by name and made me in His image and likeness and loves me as his son.
-This God became man, fully human and fully divine.
-He was born of a Virgin.
-He died and rose again.
-He instituted the Mass, in which bread and wine truly become his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Lots of things seem “far fetched” if we look at them through worldly eyes. Why exactly are the flood and the Tower of Babel so hard to believe? Because men have told you throughout your life that they are unbelievable.

I do know where you are coming from. Not very long ago at all, I found them too difficult to believe as well. But the problem wasn’t that the stories were unbelievable, it was that I was unbelieving.

Take the Flood for example, most people have never really examined the scientific evidence for themselves, they simply trust what they have been told throughout their life by “respected” sources. While most who deny the flood due so simply out of this indoctrination, the underlying motivation for the denial of the event has very little to do with science and a great deal with denying the reality of sin. That God would destroy all mankind- except for 8 people- makes us take a hard look at our own lives. The modern idea, even in the Church, is that the vast majority of people, even those who don’t believe in God, will go to Heaven regardless of how they live. This belief has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.

When Christ told his followers that He would give them his Flesh to eat, many of them said “this saying is hard”…and they left Him.

Christ also told them that if they did not believe what Moses wrote, they would not believe Him.

So, yes the events of Genesis are “hard” to hear for worldly ears. But with Christ we can do hard things.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[inocente]

I at least provided sources. I have no problem with scrutiny. Posters here just spout out they are nonsense and do not bring their own sources. So now I have two sources out without legitimate rebuttals.

Not to be outdone, I’ll also post two sources. These are on mind control protection helmets, another subject where it’s hard to find legitimate rebuttals due to the nonsense already having legitimately rebutted itself.

zapatopi.net/afdb/
stopabductions.com/

 

[inocente]

I do know where you are coming from. Not very long ago at all, I found them too difficult to believe as well. But the problem wasn’t that the stories were unbelievable, it was that I was unbelieving. …

So, yes the events of Genesis are “hard” to hear for worldly ears. But with Christ we can do hard things.

Are you saying that you’re further along in your journey with Christ than those of us who haven’t abandoned our God-given powers of reason? When did Christ tell you that the age of the world has anything to do with why He died on the cross?

PS: Could you click the Quote button to quote another poster. That way we can see who you’re quoting and click the link to get back to their post. Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

Clearly, you do have a problem with scrutiny. If you didn’t, you would have been far more scrutinous about the sources you cite. You provided two completely useless sources from people who know as much about language development as a school child. If those are your standards when it comes to sources, then give me a a day or two to find a classroom of five year olds and some crayons, and I’ll have 20 times the sources you have, and just as valid too…

I already told you once - I am not playing this game. Put up or shut up. The onus of evidence rests on you, not me. So far you have provided none. Sources, yeah. But sources from people who have no idea what they’re talking about and no qualifications to talk about it with any more authority than a five year old. They are unacceptable. You would have more credibility if you hadn’t bothered citing them in the first place.

Again, you have no real sources. So try again. Take responsibility instead of trying to shirk it off on me.

Since you have nothing, my sources stand until toppled.

 

[Farsight001]

Since you have nothing, my sources stand until toppled.

How many times do I have to tell you I’m not going to fall for your game? I work mental health. I have seen every game in the book, including faking a seizure to get out of facing the facts. We actually have a name for what you’re trying to pull I see it so much. So cut the **** and provide REAL sources. Know-nothings blovating on and on about a subject they have no expertise in ARE NOT REAL SOURCES. So no, it is YOU who have nothing. Your sources do not stand until toppled because they never stood in the first place. So provide proper support for your claims. I am not stupid and every time you try this ****, you are insulting our intelligence, so cut it out. I have sources and I will provide them, but AFTER you provide proper sources yourself. That’s how this works. Welcome to real life.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Did anyone check out the historic fact that the Hebrew People used the stories and even the social laws of their Babylonian forebears to write their story of “Beginninga” aka Genesis.
One can literally believe in the dogma of Incarnation,Virgin Birth, the Catholic understanding of Eucharist etc and not take the stories of man’s creation and the world and the Flood and Cain and Abel*** literally in the popular sense***
The word Myth classically has nothing to do with its popular meaning- false, never happened. It refers to a sacred story which contains a people’s beliefs and their relationship with their gods which is not true in the popular sense. Just look at the use of animals and birds and journeys in Greek, African and European and South and North American stories to describe their origins. Fanciful but they had a special meaning for them with religious overtones, myths in that true and proper sense
Pius X11 and no Pope or Council since has required us to believe that we are all descended from one couple. He said at that stage of the understanding of Genesis he could not see how it could be reconciled with sin if we argued that. IF it were clear he would have said so.It was only 100 years before that 1850 AD/CE when he wrote in 1947 so the unpacking of the discovery of those 20,000 tablets.
With all that we can separate dogma from we must accept from false understandings of how to read the Bible. Then we can let science study, examine, make guesses and theories about where the Earth came from and humans originated. As long as we believe what we are bound to in defined faith inclinding the Lordship of God and His being in charge of how we got here, we are safe

 

[buffalo]

How many times do I have to tell you I’m not going to fall for your game? I work mental health. I have seen every game in the book, including faking a seizure to get out of facing the facts. We actually have a name for what you’re trying to pull I see it so much. So cut the **** and provide REAL sources. Know-nothings blovating on and on about a subject they have no expertise in ARE NOT REAL SOURCES. So no, it is YOU who have nothing. Your sources do not stand until toppled because they never stood in the first place. So provide proper support for your claims. I am not stupid and every time you try this ****, you are insulting our intelligence, so cut it out. I have sources and I will provide them, but AFTER you provide proper sources yourself. That’s how this works. Welcome to real life.

So you are ignoring the sources too?

 

[Farsight001]

So you are ignoring the sources too?

If you think that, you can’t possibly have read what I said, seeing as how I made clear by my earlier posts that I actually read your “sources”, so try again. You still think your tactics are novel, new, and actually smart and effective, don’t you? I’m not falling for it, and no matter how many times you try, I never will, nor will anyone with half a brain. Provide proper sources or just go away and stop bothering those of us who want to have an adult conversation.

 

[buffalo]

If you think that, you can’t possibly have read what I said, so try again. You still think your tactics are novel, new, and actually smart and effective, don’t you? I’m not falling for it, and no matter how many times you try, I never will. Provide proper sources or just go away and stop bothering those of us who want to have an adult conversation.

Here is the list:

[1] Lemonick, M.D., How man began, Time 143(11):80-87, 1994, p. 81.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[2] Lieberman, P., Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 5, 1998.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[3] Jones, S., Martin, R. and Pilbeam, D. (Eds), Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 128, 1999.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[4] Deacon, T., The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 25, 1997.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[5] Matthews, S., Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (Eds), Atlas of Languages: The Origin and Development of Languages Throughout the World, Facts on File, New York, p. 7, 1996.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[6] Aitchison, J., The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, p. 5, 2000.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[7] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 110.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[8] Aitchison, Ref. 6, p. x.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[9] McCrone, J., The Ape That Spoke: Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind, William Morrow, New York, p. 9, 1991.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[10] Corballis, M.C., From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 183, 2002.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[11] Zimmer, C., Evolution, HarperCollins, New York, p. 291, 2001.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[12] Aitchison, Ref. 6, p. ix.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[13] Liebereman, Ref. 2, p. 133.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[14] Liebereman, P., Peak capacity, The Sciences, 37:27, November/December, 1997.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[15] Grimes, Barbara F. editor, The Ethnologue, SIL International, Dallas TX, 2001.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[16] Duursma, K.J. The Tower of Babel account by linguistics, TJ, 16(3):27-31, 2002, p. 30.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[17] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 35.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[18] Pinker, S., How the Mind Works, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 562, 1997.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**