I'm sorry if the above title of the post comes off to rude to some (other than "Sir Sic"), but as you will see, I'm just replying in fairly equal terms to his own rudeness:
Theist Moron Thinks God INVENTED Language (Lines Of Evidence)
Sir Sic | 15 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aQJ5vZaAtY
[Refusing to link, since the video contains blasphemy.]
"its not like we invent new sounds to mean thing all the time or anything"
From description.
Know what? Monkeys don't do that. And feral children who never learned to speak don't do that either.
What was your point again?
[Will anyone comment? Maybe Sir Sic himself? I'm leaving this post unpublished until we may have found out in about a week. Two days before publication, I'm starting to make comments on the actual content beyond the description. As some reviewers eager to find fault with my mental coherence won't watch the video and imagine I stopped it at relevant and given time stamps, and see what I say as a response to what the video just said, I'll describe the things said in the video beyond what I quote in the comment, some. Because some guys will miss what the time stamp means, and go, "wait, his rant changed direction again" totally missing that this is not a monologue, but a dialogue with points in the video, skipping the parts with blasphemies.]
3:21 While some would consider body language 90 % of communication, it's not exactly how you communicate thoughts.
3:40 If you are able to do some communications of the thought type either by illustrations or charades, that's because you have already been able to communicate in "language-language" how these things work.
"well first off as I 3:56 understand it language came largely as a 3:59 way to communicate ideas in a simple 4:01 fashion and developed to be able to 4:03 communicate more complex ideas over time 4:06 so it would have started with danger 4:08 calls and food locations and even 4:10 general sounds of comfort or of distress 4:13 and as what would become humans 4:15 developed into what they are now the 4:17 complexities of language evolved 4:19 alongside them"
This is so unspecific as to be totally useless. Bees certainly communicate food locations (and specify pollen or nectar) without using language. An ape couldn't do that kind of thing.
In order to describe things at a distance, we need to be able of expressing beyond the present. However, in order to do that, we need a repertoir of words, and words are something other than shout-outs of either distress or comfort. And I'm excepting words like "ouch" ...
In fact, in order to be able to express sufficiently varied ideas to even say "thick savourous honey is over across the hill in a tree which is third right from the path" you need to have a vocabulary where 1 sound is NOT = 1 word, but where each 1 word is several sounds. This means, unlike in ape communications, the sounds individually have to be meaningless.
You also need to be able to put notions together, since without that, the other guy would not know what you meant when you said "honey" ... another thing apes don't do. As they only communicate commands or requests for stereotyped actions (sth like traffic signs) and emotions (admittedly a wide range of them, but something like smileys), each communication has ONE moment. Not TWO or MORE.
What you described totally fails to explain the transition from ape to human.
[Reviewed video starts off to "consider the origin of language" on evolutionist terms, and the reviewer breaks off here to surmise that it's going to be a strawman. At 5:20, we have not heard what the Christian is going to say, just that Sir Sic thinks it's going to be a strawman.]
5:20 You have already presented yourself a very idiotic nonsense of how you think language evolved, no need to strawman you.
But the video might be citing more competent Evolution believers than yourself, and you may think it's nonsense because you hadn't learned even that much about your own world view.
8:29 Evolutionists doesn't mean biologists, it's not the name of a scientific field and it's practitioners.
Evolutionists means evolution believers, just like Creationists means people who believe in Genesis. Not meaning Abio- such.
If I am a Creationist now, you may presume I was a Creationist since small childhood, but at age 6 I was actually an Evolutionist.
[Nostalgia outside the video comments:
It was fun reading it, I got it from gramp who was Agnostic and Evolutionist, but the explanations aren't explaining the origin of language or even the appearance of new kinds.]
8:37 No. How "language evolved" from non-human communications is not linguistics.
Linguistics is the study of languages as they exist among actual people, within mankind. You are speaking about "evolutionary linguistics" which most of the time is done by neuro-specialists like Pinker and Tecumseh Fitch. When an actual linguist (like Jean Aitchison) studies the field, it seems she forgets part of what she learned as a linguist. Birds have a two tier system of communication (if as much), but the "double articulation" she knows is typical for human language is actually two connections of three levels.
Video reviewed:
"in fact 9:44 there is a glaring hole in the logic of 9:45 The evolutionary explanation the process 9:48 of language development we observe in 9:50 history just does not fit"
Sir Sic:
"after looking 9:53 into it it looks like the oldest 9:55 language we know of and have like 9:57 records of today is Sumerian and that's 9:59 only about 5,000 years old so in terms 10:02 of human history it is positively 10:05 ancient but in terms of you know 10:07 Evolution and the life of the planet all 10:09 we have in terms of a timeline for 10:11 languages is a fraction of a percent of 10:14 the dates for that so no it kind of 10:17 doesn't because there's not enough 10:18 information to demonstrate that to be 10:20 wrong"
Very fair point. However, this means that what Linguists study in terms of actual languages actually evolving or devolving or whatever is not anything remotely like a study of what you propose to be scientic truth.
Illustrating "the origin of language" from French originating in Latin, is not taking dog breeds as an illustration of cats and dogs having the same ancestor (which is your favourite one of them?), it's much more like taking dog breeds as an illustration of Abiogenesis.
"languages 11:00 themselves evolved separately from human 11:03 evolution"
On the "Sumerian to English" scale, certainly. The "evolution" from Latin to French is compatible with Neanderthals descending from Adam and Eve who lived 7000 years ago. But that's not the point YOU are trying to argue.
[Creationist video tries to make the point of perfecting communication = languages growing closer, Sir Sic pretends that's not how it works]
12:29 On this issue, both are missing a point.
There actually is evidence that people in the Palaeolithic had long distance communications, like trading materials found at one but not the other end of a presumed trade route. There are only two explanations. Either they were all still speaking the one language that God gave Adam and Eve, which is not what we are discussing, or tribes that had common ancestors 10,000 years earlier were learning each other's languages and adapting their own in the process. Bilingual people adapt native languages to languages they have learned, unless they are stopping themselves from doing so.
13:14 At a certain level of cooperation, there actually is a pressure to make language all the same.
That's why Latin replaced so many languages West of the area of Greek and other than Basque and Tamazigh.
15:06 It's more prominent, since isolated pockets of humanity are being brought, not always in nice ways, out of their isolations.
But yes, you have a very fair point, languages are dying out. If an Indian tribe of 200 people need to learn both Spanish and the language of a related Indian tribe of 800 people, well, chances are, they will efface their own language either to Spanish or to the related Indian language or (most likely) to both.
16:09 I think your point about cultures being too big to cooperate (before modernised means) carries a certain point about mankind as it is.
I think the Creationist has a point about mankind as in Evolutionary ideal situations it could have been.
It's a translation of a different point of how mankind would have been in Abraham's time 1000 years (or according to some lots less) after the Flood. And that is absolutely not how I would have countered the pretended Evolutionary origins of language on your world view. Nostratic diverging into Japanese and English with Turkish and Finnish in between is feasible given enough time, it's just that on a Biblical chronology I don't have that much time. But the point for Babel is something very different from the point for Adam and Eve getting language as a gift from God on the moment they were first alive.
17:08 The diagramme of Indo-European (I actually don't think there is all that much time for Baltic and Greek to diverge from a common language on the Biblical chronology, so I prefer the idea of a Sprachbund) is a very far cry from demonstrating (even if it were demonstrated itself) the common origin of all languages.
And obviously, that would NOT demonstrate the common origin of all plants, animals and protids. The issues are separate.
It would also NOT demonstrate the evolutionary origin of human language as such. Those are also separate issues.
18:06 Jean Aitchison, who is in fact an Evolutionist of conviction, as much as a Linguist by profession, like for instance Labov and some other persons she cites but I didn't read independently of her, absolutely does NOT think that languages evolve independently of our will or intentions.
Sound laws are not gene mutations, they are FAR closer to fashion changes in clothing. Gene mutations happen outside our will. Fashion choices, very much less so.
19:22 I would definitely NOT say we know that thunder works in such ways as to exclude demons of thunder.
Angels have power over matter. That includes fallen angels. And if a fallen angel either on a mission from God or by His permission wanted to strike a specific person dead, well, delaying and accelerating the lightning would be just a matter (!) of making the matter in the cloud less or more dense.
The Biblical explanation is not necessary for Latin becoming French of for that matter for diversifying into French and Romanian. But it does explain why we have a diversity on the level as between Chinese and English. Otherwise the diversity would after the Flood (less than 5000 years ago) have kept within a narrower range presumably than between different branches of Indo-European.
And again, Babel is NOT the Biblical explanation for language as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment