XPost: alt.bible, alt.christian.bible, alt.christian.religion   
   XPost: alt.christnet.bible, alt.christian   
      
   Friend james, I'm curious, is this really one of the items in the jw study   
   cookbook of discussion topics?   
      
   >Ancient languages: more complex   
   >   
   >How can that be? If evolution is really the way of things, then   
   language>development should have>went from simple to complex.   
      
   Friend james, you illustrate a recurring point here.  One has to have   
   enough understaning of a topic to evaluate such bits of info.   
      
   	Secondly, the blurb above is a logical fallacy of a straw man   
   argument.   
      
   Evolution,ie. change over time  does not inherently make anything more   
   complex.   
      
   Also   
   and most telling, change over time of languages is not change in biological   
   life forms, for which growing required complexity is nonsense also   
      
   .  Language change proceeds by its own principles not related to biology.   
      
   		How do we know, we see it reveealed in God's creation as   
   	His revelation along with scripture.   
      
   >BUT IT DIDN'T.  Notice what anthropologist   
   >Ashley Montagu said.  He said that those so-called primitive languages:   
   >   
   >âare often a great deal more complex and more efficient than the   
   >languages of the so-called higher civilizations.â" (Man: His First   
   >Million Years, by Ashley Montagu) [From  "Life-- How did it get here? By   
   >evolution or by creation?"]   
   		   
   Note the title of the book.>   
      
   >Instead of grunts and groans, the early humans had complex languages.   
      
   Friend james, you are a hoot.  That is another "grunts/groans" strawman you   
   set up to knock down, no?  Humans with fully formed language have been   
   around some 200 k years.  It is shown to us in His creation revelation.   
      
   >Notice:   
   >   
   >"Many ancient languages have a structure that is more complex than that   
   >of the "respective" modern languages. Modern languages like English have   
   >simpler structure, without case, gender or declination, compared to   
   >ancient languages spoken in the same area, such as Latin. ... The same   
   >is true for ancient Greek and Sanskrit.   
      
   What he mentioned is thought to have been a by product of written languages   
   only .   
      
   Friend james; there are many existing languages among the 4000 or so that   
   are more complex then those mentioned.  How does that fit into your scheme?   
      
   This is a perfect example of a common jw practice.  Find some bits of   
   language and fit jw doctrine into them willy nilly if they fit or not and   
   are totally ignorant of the topic.   
      
   That author, now dead, would have laughed about this.  From his wiki entry:   
      
   Montagu was a noted critic of creationism. He edited Science and   
   Creationism, a volume which refuted creationist arguments.^[6]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)