Origin of Language (from Quora, Debating with Barry Hampe)

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 1) Old and Original Languages (from Quora) · Creation vs. Evolution : 2) Origin of Language (from Quora, Debating with Barry Hampe)

Barry Hampe

80-something, lifelong atheist from a Christian family

Written May 30, 2016 · Upvoted by Barry Blatt and Jon Jermey

How does one convert an evolutionist into a creationist?

A2A

At gunpoint, of course, would be one way.

Electro-shock therapy might work, given enough time.

Use the medieval system — tied to a stake atop the makings of a bonfire.

Prefrontal lobotomy might do it.

Or as Noam Kaiser's answer states, you could use evidence (if you had any).

Here’s the thing: evolution is a rational explanation, supported by over 150 years of scientific observation and testing. Creationism is, at best, wishful thinking and at worst (young earth creationism) an irrational fantasy based on willful ignorance.

Absent any convincing evidence, that’s a really hard sell without some form of coercion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“you could use evidence (if you had any).”

Which of it do you want first? Against possibility of evolution theory being right or for possibility of young earth being right?

Barry Hampe

I’ll be glad to consider either, as long as it is credible, objective, and verifiable, i.e. empirical, evidence.

I do not accept hearsay evidence from religious folklore.

Take your best shot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My best?

This one will not involve YEC as opposed to OEC, but it will involve a huge problem for Evolutionism including Theistic such.

You formed a sentence of the words 1 I 2 do 3 not 4 accept 5 hearsay 6 evidence 7 from 8 religious 9 folklore.

4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have lexical and other words grammatical, i e context defined meanings.

The last word is a compound from folk and lore, both of which have lexical meanings.

Folk is divided into phonemes f, aw, k or f, aw, l, k, none of which has any meaning either lexical or grammatic. Order has to be precise, k, aw, l, f would mean something else.

Lore is divided into phonemes l, aw, or l, aw, r, none of which has any meaning either lexical or grammatical. Order has to be specific, r, aw, l would mean sth else.

Meaningful units are made from meaningless units and recombined into other meaningful units, giving an infinity of potential messages.

Any "language" of any brute has a list, certainly often larger than the 40 phonemes of English, sometimes into 500, but which nevertheless is a limited sound repertoir, where sounds or sometimes reversible combinations have the meanings of complete messages.

This cannot have evolved into human language. And this cannot reflect the same basic type of mind as the human mind which is reflected in the human language. Therefore there is an original and not a developed limit between man and brutes, and language was a gift completely given to the first human.

Barry Hampe

Nice analysis of the language I used.

Your argument, however, rests on an a priori belief in a “language giver” (probably a god) for which you have offered no credible, objective, verifiable i.e. empirical, evidence.

At best you have a hypothesis for the development of language, but it is only one among several that are available. And, in my opinion, the least likely.

Sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"it is only one among several that are available."

Do you consider contradictory or knowledge empty assertions as "available hypotheses"?

Barry Hampe

See my answewr to your previous comment.

[which I give below, since that is where the debate continued a bit:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

False analysis of the logic.

I deduce a language giver from impossibility of a language evolution.

So, a language giver is a conclusion, not a premiss.

I just gave proof “development of language” (as a faculty, conf. “of languages” from already existing language, that is another thing) is impossible.

Barry Hampe

Sorry. You have only asserted the “impossibility of a language evolution,” but without evidence. You are ignoring several hundred years of study of the origins and development of language in humans. It is a well studied field.

Unless you are able to support your assertion with acceptable evidence, you have nothing. As we like to say over here on the dark side, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are ignoring several hundred years of study of the origins and development of language in humans. It is a well studied field."

I am not ignoring that it is a field which has several hundred years of abandoned guesses in it.

Either you are, or you are hoping I wouldn't notice.

“ As we like to say over here on the dark side, ‘What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.’”

Precisely my attitude to evolutionistic hypotheses on origin of language.

Barry Hampe

I see. Now that we have that cleared up, this is the point at which I must say I am done here. I'll leave it to anyone who may read this thread to decide for themselves which of us -- if either one -- makes the most sense. As always, when I leave a fruitless discussion, I feel compelled to offer you the last word -- if you care to take it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was foreseeing some reference to Proto-Indo-European and of countering that, while it has been a hypothesis accepted since 1868 (at least), it deals with the origin of specific languages (including Latin and English, but not Finnish), not with language.

You escaped that trap. You didn’t try to specify what learned men had dealt with origin of language.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly on letting anyone seeing this thread decide for himself. That is why I am reblogging this.

And another comment linking here was added.