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?   
   >   
   >Not that I am aware of.   
      
   Ah, then it must have been one of those discussion topic in the members   
   version of the watchtower?>   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >No one can know all things about everything, so we just do the best we   
   >can with what we have.   
   Indeed, but blindly posting such illogical and uninformed info reflects   
   poorly on the poster, no?  One has to know even a minimal about a topic to   
   avoid being self defined as to understanding, no?   
   >   
   >>       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.   
   >   
   >Not according to evolutionists. We allegedly started out in a pond or   
   >something, then developed a brain which is 'the most complex thing in   
   >the known universe.' (statement taken from a brain surgeon)   
      
   Bingo, you just demonstrated the person speaking on matters of which he is   
   almost totally ignorant.  This instantly discredits him on this and most   
   likely on matters of other topics, no?   
      
   You just repeat the strawman again, the concept of evolution says no such   
   thing.   
      
   Happy to entertain credable web info to the contrary.   
   >>   
   >> Also   
   >> and most telling, change over time of languages is not change in biological   
   life forms, for which growing required complexity is nonsense also   
   >   
   >Alleged grunting and groaning 'cave men' turned into modern man with a   
   >full language.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> .  Language change proceeds by its own principles not related to biology.   
   >   
   >I don't recall saying it was related to biology. It is basically just   
   >more complex the farther back you go. (except for pig-Latin:)   
   >   
   Bingo, you again reveal your level of ignorance, including the mistakes you   
   make without realiing what it reveals.   
      
   Tell us, how are a language and a living thing alike regarding   
   evolution,ie. change over time.  Happy to entertain any creddable web info.   
   >>   
   >>               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.>   
   >   
   >There are two books mentioned.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >Then show me.   
   >   
   Thre sre a ton of web sources discussing early human language, google is   
   your friend.   
      
   It is your empty assertion and strawman to defend, happy to entertain any   
   credable web info in support.   
      
   >>> 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 .   
   >   
   >?? As he said, ancient languages are more complex than modern languages.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   >Like what?   
      
   Bingo, the speaking from ignorance illustrated again, no?   
      
   Languages change by their inherent content and structure.  Some hav grown   
   less complex. some more complex over time.   
      
   Chinese is an example of the latter,ie. more complex now then in older   
   writtten forms..   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >There is nothing wrong with comparing doctrine (beliefs) with facts.   
   >That is how we learn.   
      
   But that is not what was done here. Again and again jw have been blasted   
   by people whose writing in bits has been used to support jw doctrine.   
      
   That is not to 'compare"; it is to form  falsehood of what they actually   
   hold on a topic.  The jw use such misleading practices to make it appear an   
   expert agrees with them falsely.   
   >>   
   >> 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]   
   >>   
   >   
   >What he believed or didn't believe about creation or about Leprechauns   
   >etc, is moot. I was using his data as an expert on older languages   
   >compared to modern languages.   
      
   It was not "data", another example of ignorance in the lead, no?  You did   
   not read the source, you took the jw published bit blindly, no?  	   
   Because you are ignorant of his point and the full extent of his discussion,   
   you have *no* idea in the least to what he was refering, no?   
      
   He was giving example of how *some* languages have become simplified over   
   time,  He could just as easily given many examples of the oppisite and   
   might well have done so.   
      
   >You would do well to read your Bible more.   
      
   To that point, I do know the bible and creation of the revelation of God.   
   Might you apply your own words accordingly?   
      
   I have found jw knowledge of scripture inferior.  It is taught as when that   
   topic comes up, insert this scripture bit.  Jw are told not to read   
   scripturre exept as the study cookbook prescribe.  *Any* idea contrary to   
   jw dogma is to be avoided at all cost and reason to be tossed out and   
   shunned.   
      
   They have little to no grasp of the scripture as a whole nor the   
   historical and cultural context in which it was written.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)