Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
AiG responds to Seebs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RufusAtticus" data-source="post: 301093" data-attributes="member: 2592"><p>Reading the AiG response it seems that it mostly just reiterated what was in the original work. They didn't respond too much to seebs comments. They made a big deal about that native chineese speakers took part. So what? How many native English speakers are competant enough to discuss the historical linguistics and orthography of English? How many English speakers know what the English "ye" (as in "ye old shoppe") really is and where "&" comes from? Unless AiG has something more scholarlly than the opinion of some Chinese speakers, their analysis has no more weight than Seebs'. Given that it depends so much on the Flood story in Genesis, which there is no evidence that the Chinese knew about, it appears that AiG's analysis is much more far fetched.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3cf07639%240%2479557%243c090ad1%40news.plethora.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3cf07639%25240%252479557%25243c090ad1%2540news.plethora.net" target="_blank">Here</a> is a thread which discusses it even more.</p><p></p><p>Edit to add:</p><p></p><p>I would also like to comment that the man who wrote the responce is a Caucasian Australian with a PhD in agriculture science. Not the kind of man I'd expect to see responding about Chinese historical orthography.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RufusAtticus, post: 301093, member: 2592"] Reading the AiG response it seems that it mostly just reiterated what was in the original work. They didn't respond too much to seebs comments. They made a big deal about that native chineese speakers took part. So what? How many native English speakers are competant enough to discuss the historical linguistics and orthography of English? How many English speakers know what the English "ye" (as in "ye old shoppe") really is and where "&" comes from? Unless AiG has something more scholarlly than the opinion of some Chinese speakers, their analysis has no more weight than Seebs'. Given that it depends so much on the Flood story in Genesis, which there is no evidence that the Chinese knew about, it appears that AiG's analysis is much more far fetched. [url=http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3cf07639%240%2479557%243c090ad1%40news.plethora.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3cf07639%25240%252479557%25243c090ad1%2540news.plethora.net]Here[/url] is a thread which discusses it even more. Edit to add: I would also like to comment that the man who wrote the responce is a Caucasian Australian with a PhD in agriculture science. Not the kind of man I'd expect to see responding about Chinese historical orthography. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
AiG responds to Seebs
Top
Bottom