Should I try to get from Evolutionists, what happened to "Evolution", at the tower of Babel?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So this is a linguistic question, and I am not sure if you think it will be productive to argue the point with Evolutionists. The question is - even if Evolution had not been discovered - what happened to the chance that Evolution would be discovered and used, at the tower of Babel? I mean mankind's languages were confused and Evolution is at least partially a linguistic construct - so what happened? Should I push the idea that Evolution was harder to discover, or should I point out that it couldn't be discovered at all, as an expression of cooperation between the species? See what I am getting at? Why would Man's language be confused, but not the instinct of animals?

I'm not sure if I've given you enough information, but there you go.

PS. Could God confuse different kinds of Evolution?

 

[coffee4u]

God confused the people at Babel to stop the collaborative building of the tower by giving them a large variety of languages. They were then forced to find others who spoke the same language and so formed the various people groups.

I would be interested to know how an evolutionist interprets the passage.
Genesis 11
11 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. 3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. 4 And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”


5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9 Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what is scary, is that Evolutionists would say "the tower of Babel, didn't change anything Evolutionarily".

...as if the modus operandi, has no bearing on who Evolves when?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I like this question. Questions seeking answers to very foundational issues are actually highly favourable i think to Christian answers.

It seems to me that Evolutionary theory has man coming from the same region in the world. If that is the case, then yes, how is it that language ended up different considering this?
If man didnt evolve from the same place, how then did completely unrelated tribes, develop almost identical fundamentals of survival and basic social structure?

Another interesting point, it seems very coincidental that evolutionary theory uses as points of origin the same regions as the Bible does (and yet the Bible predates evolution by thousands of years).

To me however, the real issue with evolution actually isnt an evolutionary one directly...its based on Einstein's theory of relativity. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did the matter and energy come from to start the big bang? (the best answer i have heard so far from a non creation science perspective..."we dont yet have the knowledge to answer that question")

 

[The Barbarian]

Another interesting point, it seems very coincidental that evolutionary theory uses as points of origin the same regions as the Bible does (and yet the Bible predates evolution by thousands of years).

Actually, evolution predates the Bible by over a billion years, just as the Krebs cycle in metabolism did. You're confusing the phenomenon with the theory that explains it.

And actually, humans first appeared in Africa, and only later in Eurasia. So that's wrong, also.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Actually, evolution predates the Bible by over a billion years, just as the Krebs cycle in metabolism did. You're confusing the phenomenon with the theory that explains it.

And actually, humans first appeared in Africa, and only later in Eurasia. So that's wrong, also.

You have misread and misinterpreted what I said ( no surprise). Darwin's theory wasn't written until thousands of years after the Bible...is that simple enough... easier to understand?

Also, Neanderthals (precursors to humans) actually originated in Eurasia possibly up to 800,000 years ago and went extinct at least 40,000 years ago.

It has been shown that humans spread throughout at least that part of the world from this region , the Neanderthals dying out as a result of, for want of a better description, the Darwinian "survival of the fittest"!
I obviously don't believe any of this Evolution tripe, but that's the evolutionary story anyway.

Finally, since you are convinced in evolution and science...would you mind explaining where the energy and matter came from that is the BIG BANG?

When you can do that, then we shall talk. It's going to be a stretch for you however...even Stephen Hawking wasn't able to successfully resolve the problem against Einsteins theory of relativity which is the foundation of all science.

The best answer at present ranges between "we don't have the knowledge to answer that question yet" and "Einsteins theory is kinda wrong or incomplete"...there is another one that is interdimensional...ie if some travels across dimensions it isn't really breaking his conservation of energy theory rules. Trouble is, where did the energy and other dimension originate? (It only gets worse going down that pathway). And so scientists are still seeking the "God" particle !

 

[The Barbarian]

You have misread and misinterpreted what I said ( no surprise). Darwin's theory wasn't written until thousands of years after the Bible...is that simple enough... easier to understand?

Well, let's take a look... you wrote:

(and yet the Bible predates evolution by thousands of years)

Maybe you have misread and misinterpreted what you wrote. Whether or not that's a surprise to anyone, I'm not sure.

At any rate, you're wrong. Evolution preceded the Bible by over a billion years.

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, Neanderthals (precursors to humans) actually originated in Eurasia possibly up to 800,000 years ago and went extinct at least 40,000 years ago.

You missed that, too. They aren't precursors to anatomically modern humans. But they are human just as we are. They happen to be a subspecies of H. sapiens, just as we and Denisovans are. Anatomically modern humans first appeared in Africa and moved into Eurasia long after Neanderthals. They did interbreed to some degree, but essentially anatomically modern humans replaced them and Denisovans throughout the world.

However, archaic H. sapiens predated all these subspecies, and they did indeed originate in Africa. Would you like to learn about that?

Finally, since you are convinced in evolution and science...would you mind explaining where the energy and matter came from that is the BIG BANG?

Not part of evolutionary theory. No wonder you're confused. But of course, "why is there a universe?" is not a scientific question. My thought is that He said "let there be light." It's O.K. to be unscientific for many things. I'm often unscientific, myself.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have misread and misinterpreted what I said ( no surprise). Darwin's theory wasn't written until thousands of years after the Bible...is that simple enough... easier to understand?

Also, Neanderthals (precursors to humans) actually originated in Eurasia possibly up to 800,000 years ago and went extinct at least 40,000 years ago.

It has been shown that humans spread throughout at least that part of the world from this region , the Neanderthals dying out as a result of, for want of a better description, the Darwinian "survival of the fittest"!
I obviously don't believe any of this Evolution tripe, but that's the evolutionary story anyway.

I just want to say that I appreciate your effort in at least beginning to understand the theory. Though neanderthals, I'm not sure I would call precursors. They interbred with mankind, but I wouldn't consider them ancestral.

Anyway, it's appreciated none the less.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I just want to say that I appreciate your effort in at least beginning to understand the theory. Though neanderthals, I'm not sure I would call precursors. They interbred with mankind, but I wouldn't consider them ancestral.

Anyway, it's appreciated none the less.

I dont think one could say they interbred with mankind...humans did not exist 800,000 years ago when Neanderthals are first thought to have existed. I would say that its more of a Darwinian evolutionary "wipe out the lesser race" kind of thing.

i do not believe that we have ever seen an improvement in nature as a result of any evolutionary process. In the examples I have seen, whilst yes it appears that the creature has changed, the original has tended to have been stronger/more robust than the changed. This is hardly an improvement!

I also find a discrepancy in the Neanderthal theory in terms of the apparent lack of any form of intellectual verbal communication. i personally think that the "mouse trap theory" also applies to physical and cognitive development in us. We know from studies in child development (I am a former school teacher) that both physical activity and cognitive development are intricately linked. Leave one out and the other suffers. despite this being what is demonstrated in documented history (which we know dates back between 6,000 & 10,000 years), science ignores that reality and conjures up these very shady theories anyway. People believe them without even considering that they go against real life norms with hardly a peep of doubt.

To be honest i think one of the greatest mysteries of life for me lies in the stupidity of people due to the comforts of life making the individual both lazy and uninterested in the longevity of the goods we buy.
"Dont worry about how it works, if it breaks, just throw it away and buy a new one"!

Society increasingly takes no interest in asking epistemological questions!

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont think one could say they interbred with mankind...humans did not exist 800,000 years ago when Neanderthals are first thought to have existed. I would say that its more of a Darwinian evolutionary "wipe out the lesser race" kind of thing.

Did you happen to read about when neanderthals went extinct? It wasn't 800,000 years ago.

 

[Job 33:6]

"i do not believe that we have ever seen an improvement in nature as a result of any evolutionary process. "

As I'm sure you've probably heard a million times before, it isn't about "improvement", it's about survival. A duck or a pigeon isn't nearly as powerful and deadly at hunting as a velociraptor. They're absolutely "weaker". But it doesn't really matter because at the end of the day, there are billions of birds on earth and there are 0 velociraptors. Which means that one way or another, these weak little birds have evolved to thrive on our planet.

A poodle isn't nearly as powerful as a wolf, but poodles live quite successfully while wolves are in and out of endangered species nearing extinction.

Same case. Has nothing to do with "improvement", but rather it's simply about survival.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Same case. Has nothing to do with "improvement", but rather it's simply about survival.

and yet here were are with scientific drawings showing the gradual incline of apes into upright humans. That would seem to disagree with your statement. It is a clear attempt to show not only survival, but improvement!

also, i dont believe i wrote Neanderthals became extinct 800,000 years ago. Not sure why you would say that? IF you were to carefully read the context, it was in answer to a position that humans inbred with Neanderthals and that they were not ancestors of humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

and yet here were are with scientific drawings showing the gradual incline of apes into upright humans. That would seem to disagree with your statement. It is a clear attempt to show not only survival, but improvement!

also, i dont believe i wrote Neanderthals became extinct 800,000 years ago. Not sure why you would say that? IF you were to carefully read the context, it was in answer to a position that humans inbred with Neanderthals and that they were not ancestors of humans.

Soooo what is your point about neanderthals?

Neanderthals were alive well past 800,000 years ago, meaning that timing wasn't an issue for interbreeding. What is your response?

They lived up until roughly 50,000 years ago, which is well into the age of homosapiens.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Soooo what is your point about neanderthals?

Neanderthals were alive well past 800,000 years ago, meaning that timing wasn't an issue for interbreeding. What is your response?

They lived up until roughly 50,000 years ago, which is well into the age of homosapiens.

yes that is consistent with exactly what i said all along.

I personally do not believe the evolutionary theory, however, that is generally the accepted view from its proponents.

 

[Job 33:6]

"I dont think one could say they interbred with mankind...humans did not exist 800,000 years ago "

These are your words.

But of course neanderthals lived up until 50,000 years ago, which is when homosapiens or humans lived. So what was the meaning of your response?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

"I dont think one could say they interbred with mankind...humans did not exist 800,000 years ago "

These are your words.

But of course neanderthals lived up until 50,000 years ago, which is when homosapiens or humans lived. So what was the meaning of your response?

my first point was in response to the statements Neanderthals are not ancestors of humans.

Second point was in response to same thing...only this time giving a date to the period in which they are generally believed to have existed from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[Job 33:6]

my first point was in response to the statements Neanderthals are not ancestors of humans.

Second point was in response to same thing...only this time giving a date to the period in which they are generally believed to have existed from an evolutionary perspective.

Nobody said they were ancestors of humans.

I said that they interbred with our ancestors.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's try this again. You said:

"I dont think one could say they interbred with mankind...humans did not exist 800,000 years ago"

But neanderthals and humans both existed 100,000 years ago.

So what do humans not existing 800,000 years ago have to do with anything? Why even mention it?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

??????