Man is Polluting Science

[lesliedellow]

What is your explanation for how separate languages have arisen long after the tower of Babel?

To answer that question, you only have to look at what happened to Latin, well within recorded history.

 

[lesliedellow]

The many myths around the world from many religions and cultures about the origin of language are different.

The same could be said of the many hypotheses linguists have come up with. None of them testable.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The same could be said of the many hypotheses linguists have come up with. None of them testable.

well, we definitely know the different languages showed up, over time.

 

[Heissonear]

Man is the one who has corrupted science, who degrades what he develops.

It is easy to notice EPA is run by Green Activist Groups. They have become Activist Scientists, using craftiness to bring their world demands upon others.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Fine with me.

Obviously you did not read Egypt because the scientific evidence does contradict the content of the Bible! The Egyptians were not Jewish as you assert. There is no scientific evidence that they spoke or wrote anything other than their own languages. There is no scientific evidence that they worshiped anything but their own gods.
They existed in the Nile valley there was a Hebrew tribe. The Nazlet Khater skeleton was dated in 1982 from nine samples ranging between 35,100 and 30,360 years ago
The Jewish people originated about 2000 BCE. At that time the Egyptian kingdom had Pharaohs for about 1000 years!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The same could be said of the many hypotheses linguists have come up with. None of them testable.

That is wrong as reading Origin of language shows:

The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language. One problem makes the topic difficult to study: the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of the language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.

The hypotheses can be tested against the fossil record, archaeological evidence, etc.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is easy to notice EPA is run by Green Activist Groups..

It is easy to see that this a fantasy, Heissonear, because the United States Environmental Protection Agency is run by the United States federal government !

An image of a paranoid rant on some web page does not change the real world.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is wrong as reading Origin of language shows:

The hypotheses can be tested against the fossil record, archaeological evidence, etc.

Not so long ago I read a book by a linquist, who was writing on the subject, so I will quote him:

"Needless to say, the lack of any reliable information about when and how speech first words emerged has not prevented people from speculating. Quite the reverse - for centuries, it has been a favourite pastime of many distinguished thinkers to imagine how language first evolved in the human species. One of the most original theories was surely that of Frenchman Jean-Pierre Brisset, who in 1900 demonstrated how human language (that is to say, French) developed directly from the croaking of frogs. One day, as Brisset was observing frogs in a pond, one of them looked him straight in the eye and croaked 'çoac'. After some deliberation, Brisset realized that what the frog was saying was simply an abbreviated version of the question 'quoi qu tu dis?' He thus proceeded to derive the whole of language from permutations of 'coac coac'.

It must be admitted that more than a century on, standards of speculation have much improved. Researchers today can draw on advances in neurology and computer simulations to give their scenarios a more scientific bent. Nevertheless, despite such progress, the speculations remain no less speculative, as witnessed by the impressive range of theories circulating for how the first few words emerged: from shouts and calls; from hand gestures and sign language; from the ability to imitate; from the ability to deceive; from grooming; from singing, dancing and rythm; from chewing, sucking and licking; and from almost any other activity under the sun. The point is that as long as there is no evidence, all these scenarios remain 'just so' stories. They are usually fascinating, often entertaining, and sometimes even plausible - but still not much more than fantasy."

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not so long ago I read a book by a linquist, who was writing on the subject, so I will quote him:

An unattributed quote that does not support your "None of them testable" assertion.
There is no list of every possible hypothesis showing that each one cannot be tested. Any hypothesis can be tested against the fossil record, archaeological evidence, etc.

IMO It is unlikely that we will ever have a comprehensively supported hypothesis for the origin of language. That is not a reason to believe in any unsupported myths on the origin on language: Mythical origins of language

 

[lesliedellow]

An unattributed quote that does not support your "None of them testable" assertion.
There is no list of every possible hypothesis showing that each one cannot be tested. Any hypothesis can be tested against the fossil record, archaeological evidence, etc.

What do you take the words "no evidence" to mean? The person being quoted is a linguist and academic by the name of Guy
Guy Deutscher.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Egyptians were not Jewish as you assert.

I beg your pardon?

I said the Egyptians came from Mizraim, Noah's grandson through Ham.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

The Jews came centuries later, from Shem.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I beg your pardon?

You are right so:
If you are taking the Bible literally then you did not read Egypt because the scientific evidence does contradict the content of the Bible! There is no scientific evidence that Egyptians spoke or wrote anything other than their own languages. There is no scientific evidence that Egyptians worshiped anything but their own gods. They existed in the Nile valley before Noah or Mizraim. The Nazlet Khater skeleton was dated in 1982 from nine samples ranging between 35,100 and 30,360 years ago. Mizraim lived after the Biblical Flood about 2348 BC. At that time the Egyptian kingdom had Pharaohs for about 1000 years!

If you are not taking the Bible literally then the generations of Noah are a story made up by various authors a couple of thousand years after the Old Testament was written.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What do you take the words "no evidence" to mean?

That you have cherry picked a phrase from a quote from one linguist in one book.
Read Origin of language. There is a shortage of empirical evidence.

Read what you quoted where Guy Deutscher starts with stating there is a "lack of any reliable information". He then either contradicts himself with "no evidence" or relies on readers known about context.

 

[lesliedellow]

That you have cherry picked a phrase from a quote from one linguist in one book.
Read Origin of language. There is a shortage of empirical evidence.

Read what you quoted where Guy Deutscher starts with stating there is a "lack of any reliable information". He then either contradicts himself with "no evidence" or relies on readers known about context.

He does not contradict himself. We could go on exchanging quotes forever, but that very fact would only point to the fact that no evidence is available to establish a scholarly consensus.

Without empirical evidence, and (obviously) without written records, the only other approach would be to try and infer language's origins from language itself. In that connection, even getting as far back as a hypothetical Proto Indo European Language is highly speculative; even though it only involves rolling the clock back a few thousand years.

 

[Heissonear]

Man has polluted science to the extent that natural selection is devolving science.

And then came Activist Climate Scientists with bold but unsupported claims.

Climate science has devolved. Man has polluted it.

Below is another excuse for The Slowdown/Pause/Hiatus.

Trying to fit observation to a failed hypothesis.

The graph below shows CO2 induced Global Warming should be the opposite, it should be seriously escalating Earths temperature at this point in time. It's not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Man is the one who has corrupted science, who degrades what he develops.

Which pales in comparison to how he's corrupted God's word... but good luck getting them to admit that.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Man has polluted science to the extent that natural selection is devolving science.

Statements that lie and inane images without citations is corruption of everything, Heissonear.

1. Climate scientists have physical evidence for their claims so "unsupported claims" is a lie.
2. The "Slowdown/Pause/Hiatus" is 2/3 of a lie (or 2 lies and a truth).
   There was no pause. There was no hiatus. There was a slowdown in the rate of warming which has stopped with the warmest years on record occurring.
3. "Trying to fit observation to a failed hypothesis" is a lie.
   The success of climate science in fitting observations is one reason that more than 97% of climate scientists support AGW.
4. An ignorant assertion that temperatures must follow a graph of the increase of CO2 exactly.
   Natural variation means that global temperatures will never follow increases in CO2 exactly.

 

[RealityCheck01]

He does not contradict himself.

What he wrote in your quote contradicts itself

• a "lack of reliable evidence" is not
• 'no evidence"

It is not no empirical evidence - it is a shortage of empirical or direct evidence. Linguists use several types of indirect evidence including language itself as you point out.
Origin of language

The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language. One problem makes the topic difficult to study: the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals (particularly other primates).

My emphasis added.

Yes: That lack of direct evidence has lead to a forest of scientific hypothesis based on indirect evidence. These are better supported than the many mythological language origins

There have been many accounts of the origin of language in the world's mythologies and other stories pertaining to the origin of language, the development of language and the reasons behind the diversity in languages today.

These myths have similarities, recurring themes, and differences, having been passed down through oral tradition. Some myths go further than just storytelling and are religious, with some even having a literal interpretation even today. Recurring themes in the myths of language dispersal are floods and catastrophes. Many stories tell of a great deluge or flood which caused the peoples of the Earth to scatter over the face of the planet. Punishment by a god or gods for perceived wrongdoing on the part of man is another recurring theme.