Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #1951707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-01 22:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-02 12:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-01 22:19 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-01 22:54 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-02 08:34 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-02 11:07 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-02 11:24 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-02 18:43 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-03 10:06 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-03 15:48 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-03 19:37 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-03 19:30 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-04 08:49 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2015-08-04 17:30 -0400
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-04 14:55 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-04 17:22 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-08-04 21:43 +0000
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-04 14:54 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-04 17:11 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:01 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-05 21:10 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-08-05 01:19 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-08-05 19:05 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-04 17:17 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-05 13:31 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-05 20:57 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:14 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-05 21:20 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:43 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-06 06:46 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-06 14:16 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-06 12:26 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-08 12:41 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-08 06:19 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-08 05:55 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-08 18:42 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:41 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hhyapster@gmail.com - 2015-08-04 16:59 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2015-08-02 15:32 -0400
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-02 10:39 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2015-08-02 19:03 +0000
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:46 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-02 07:28 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-02 10:44 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-05 21:52 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 07:49 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-02 12:23 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 10:44 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-02 10:57 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-08-02 21:21 +0000
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-02 18:51 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-03 18:53 +0200
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-02 13:14 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 09:09 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:38 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages regniermarco3@gmail.com - 2015-08-02 08:02 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages regniermarco3@gmail.com - 2015-08-02 08:02 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 12:20 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-02 18:41 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 21:59 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com - 2015-08-02 22:44 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 06:34 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-03 11:22 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2015-08-03 09:47 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-03 14:41 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-03 00:03 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-03 08:24 -0500
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Paul <papa_fox@cybertown.com> - 2015-08-03 10:25 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Planet Visitor II <nappy@nosuchserver.com> - 2015-08-03 13:56 -0400
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 18:18 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Planet Visitor II <nappy@nosuchserver.com> - 2015-08-05 17:23 -0400
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 21:35 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2015-08-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 17:19 -0700
Re: Defies Evolution Fraud: Languages rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2015-08-02 12:30 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 01:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55c1489d$0$23222$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk> |
| In reply to | #1953078 |
"Smiler" skrev i meddelelsen news:mprbmk$ued$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:49:20 -0700, Paul wrote: > (snip to OT) > > According to his myths, everybody had the same language at first, then > > suddenly *poof* everybody had different languages. > > > > That was the simple part. The hard part was getting them all to migrate > > to specific part of the globe by language family groups. > > But not as hard as getting the penguins back to Antarctica after the > supposed flood. Actually, that one is easily explained. They flew! But they now have, because of the Fall and the Law of Genetics, lost their ability to fly. A perfect example of devolution. God is awesome. Just awesome! -- Malte Runz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 19:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55c24246$0$23224$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk> |
| In reply to | #1953078 |
"Smiler" skrev i meddelelsen news:mprbmk$ued$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:49:20 -0700, Paul wrote: > (snip to OT) > > According to his myths, everybody had the same language at first, then > > suddenly *poof* everybody had different languages. > > > > That was the simple part. The hard part was getting them all to migrate > > to specific part of the globe by language family groups. > > But not as hard as getting the penguins back to Antarctica after the > supposed flood. Actually, that one is easily explained. They flew! But they now have, because of the Fall and the Law of Genetics, lost their ability to fly. A perfect example of devolution. God is awesome. Just awesome! -- Malte Runz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05490c69-a805-4422-ac79-e8ec90733969@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1952913 |
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 11:49:22 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 10:30:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. > > > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > According to his myths, everybody had the same language at first, then suddenly *poof* everybody had different languages. > > That was the simple part. The hard part was getting them all to migrate to specific part of the globe by language family groups. Of course, he believes in the Tower of Babel myth. He still believes in chariot wheels in the Red Sea, even though it should be the Reed Sea according to the correct translation. Faith has no time for what it doesn't want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 13:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2eagsFskm2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1952913 |
On 04/08/2015 17:49, Paul wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 10:30:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: >> Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam >> as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > According to his myths, everybody had the same language at first, > then suddenly *poof* everybody had different languages. > > That was the simple part. The hard part was getting them all to > migrate to specific part of the globe by language family groups. > Not forgetting to ensure a sprinkling of languages that belong to no known language group, often surrounded by entirely alien languages. Regards from the Basque...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 20:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f071b42-292b-42f0-ac4e-1113b7406ad3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1952705 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. I've been trying to explain to Michelleolivegoiyo the truth about "primitive" tribes, namely that they do not substantiate the primitive to complex evolution myth. > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. nothing but confirmation michellolivegoiyo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 21:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abf772e8-7640-46ae-b766-fb4927f69c4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1953864 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:58:03 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. > > > I've been trying to explain to Michelleolivegoiyo the truth about "primitive" tribes, namely that they do not substantiate the primitive to complex evolution myth. > > > > > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > > nothing but confirmation michellolivegoiyo. Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never developed their language beyond what was needed in their comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or their environment changes, that their language can't change or become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall back, as far as their culture and language is concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c46cd20a-271d-4ef5-af57-a444fa393fcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1953878 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:58:03 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > > > > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. > > > > > > I've been trying to explain to Michelleolivegoiyo the truth about "primitive" tribes, namely that they do not substantiate the primitive to complex evolution myth. > > > > > > > > > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > > > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > > > > > nothing but confirmation michellolivegoiyo. > > Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never developed > their language beyond what was needed in their comfortable environment. > That doesn't mean that, if they move or their environment changes, that > their language can't change or become more complex or even less complex > due to the changes in how they have to live. In such cases there is always > more than one answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or > even fall back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. excuses, excuses you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 21:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1df334a3-2df2-4754-96ea-b5bd629372b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1953879 |
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 12:21:02 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:58:03 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > > > > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > > > > > > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. > > > > > > > > > I've been trying to explain to Michelleolivegoiyo the truth about "primitive" tribes, namely that they do not substantiate the primitive to complex evolution myth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > > > > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > > > > > > > > nothing but confirmation michellolivegoiyo. > > > > Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never developed > > their language beyond what was needed in their comfortable environment. > > That doesn't mean that, if they move or their environment changes, that > > their language can't change or become more complex or even less complex > > due to the changes in how they have to live. In such cases there is always > > more than one answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or > > even fall back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. > > excuses, excuses > > you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." Expected. You are unable to actually respond.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 06:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpvhc3$h1h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1953879 |
On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: <huge mercy-snip> >> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. > > excuses, excuses > > you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." > Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends from people who had language for that length of time. So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more long-developed languages. Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. Get over the idea that you, of all people, know jack shit about language. Your ideas of how language develops are, ironically, simple and primitive and naive and just fucking *wrong*. I think it comes from your abysmal lack of understanding of evolutionary ideas on all levels and in all contexts. You seem to think shit like language gets 'poofed' into existence by your god at different times, and that somehow translates to starting from fucking scratch with each poof. It doesn't happen that way. But please, please please don't learn from me or anyone else. Please stay as naive and silly as you are now. I'm old, and don't have as much excitement in my life as I once did. Your idiocy and child-like naivete cause you to spout some truly hilarious shit, like this language business, that makes me laugh. Keep it up, you are doing your lord's work of entertaining the elderly. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 14:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2h1hlFitjpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1954027 |
On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: > On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > <huge mercy-snip> > >>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. >> >> excuses, excuses >> >> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." >> > Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely > the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow > just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at > least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends > from people who had language for that length of time. In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel actions in the name of science.... > > So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just > started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more > long-developed languages. There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from scratch. Hugely interesting .... > > Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than > others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' > are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq058b$us1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1954036 |
On 8/6/2015 7:16 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: >> >> <huge mercy-snip> >> >>>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >>>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >>>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >>>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >>>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >>>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >>>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >>>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. >>> >>> excuses, excuses >>> >>> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." >>> >> Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely >> the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow >> just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at >> least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends >> from people who had language for that length of time. > > In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation > experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of > language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel > actions in the name of science.... Yeah, fucked up shit done to infinks in the name of science is perhaps one of the worst things done to humans other than outright physical and (other) mental torture. >> So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just >> started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more >> long-developed languages. > > There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as > Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from > scratch. Hugely interesting .... Creoles are examples of merging of languages, or radical adaptation of a language to a new population and/or environment. The base language(s) have the same time depth of development as other languages. The case of sign languages is somewhat the same, and somewhat different. The same as they are usually (always?) based on the language of the culture they come from. Different in that they use short-cuts, syntax, grammar, and gestures and facial expressions in ways much more free-flowing and expressive, in many cases, than the base language(s) they come from. I suspect some deaf folks pity the lack of color and flair hearing folks are stuck with in the base language. >> Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than >> others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' >> are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. > > "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a > degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or > ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils > down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections.... > My reading of Asstroll's view of 'primitive' was that he meant simple, unsophisticated and perhaps quite newly acquired. My thinking was related to the YEC's lack of understanding of time-depth of history, languages included. Might be wrong about part or all of that. But I like my theory, and I'm stickin' to it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 12:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2m4n6Fqvk6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1954153 |
On 06/08/2015 19:26, Tom McDonald wrote: > On 8/6/2015 7:16 AM, Alex W. wrote: >> On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: >>> On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: >>> >>> <huge mercy-snip> >>> >>>>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >>>>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >>>>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >>>>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >>>>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >>>>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >>>>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >>>>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. >>>> >>>> excuses, excuses >>>> >>>> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." >>>> >>> Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely >>> the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow >>> just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at >>> least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends >>> from people who had language for that length of time. >> >> In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation >> experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of >> language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel >> actions in the name of science.... > > Yeah, fucked up shit done to infinks in the name of science is perhaps > one of the worst things done to humans other than outright physical and > (other) mental torture. Absolutely. It's abuse of the highest order. And it doesn't even have the saving grace of producing any sort of scientifically useful results. > >>> So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just >>> started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more >>> long-developed languages. >> >> There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as >> Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from >> scratch. Hugely interesting .... > > Creoles are examples of merging of languages, or radical adaptation of a > language to a new population and/or environment. The base language(s) > have the same time depth of development as other languages. True, that; but don't you think this evolution of a new language gives insight into how languages develop? Creole speakers would originally have taken available linguistic sources, thrown out all the rules and started making something new. This would, it seems to me, allow us to observe the development of grammar in real time, for instance. > > The case of sign languages is somewhat the same, and somewhat different. > The same as they are usually (always?) based on the language of the > culture they come from. Different in that they use short-cuts, syntax, > grammar, and gestures and facial expressions in ways much more > free-flowing and expressive, in many cases, than the base language(s) > they come from. I suspect some deaf folks pity the lack of color and > flair hearing folks are stuck with in the base language. How can deaf people base their sign language on the language of their culture if they never heard it? Particularly if the speakers are also illiterate... It's fascinating stuff in any case .... http://www.boker.org.il/english/newsignlanguage.htm In this context, it's interesting to note that sign languages are often not related in the same way as the languages of their wider society may be. Frex, American Sign Language and British Sign Language are quite distinct and mutually unintelligible. A USaian deaf person visiting the UK would need a translator the way his hearing partner wouldn't... Now that is truly screwy, IMO. > >>> Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than >>> others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' >>> are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. >> >> "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a >> degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or >> ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils >> down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections.... >> > My reading of Asstroll's view of 'primitive' was that he meant simple, > unsophisticated and perhaps quite newly acquired. My thinking was > related to the YEC's lack of understanding of time-depth of history, > languages included. Might be wrong about part or all of that. But I like > my theory, and I'm stickin' to it! > I like your theory, too, and I am pretty damned confident that you are spot on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 06:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq4oh3$ev0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1955502 |
On 8/8/2015 5:41 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 06/08/2015 19:26, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/6/2015 7:16 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>> On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: >>>> >>>> <huge mercy-snip> >>>> >>>>>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >>>>>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >>>>>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >>>>>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >>>>>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >>>>>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >>>>>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >>>>>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. >>>>> >>>>> excuses, excuses >>>>> >>>>> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." >>>>> >>>> Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely >>>> the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow >>>> just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at >>>> least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends >>>> from people who had language for that length of time. >>> >>> In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation >>> experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of >>> language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel >>> actions in the name of science.... >> >> Yeah, fucked up shit done to infinks in the name of science is perhaps >> one of the worst things done to humans other than outright physical and >> (other) mental torture. > > Absolutely. It's abuse of the highest order. > > And it doesn't even have the saving grace of producing any sort of > scientifically useful results. > > >> >>>> So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just >>>> started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more >>>> long-developed languages. >>> >>> There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as >>> Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from >>> scratch. Hugely interesting .... >> >> Creoles are examples of merging of languages, or radical adaptation of a >> language to a new population and/or environment. The base language(s) >> have the same time depth of development as other languages. > > True, that; but don't you think this evolution of a new language gives > insight into how languages develop? Creole speakers would originally > have taken available linguistic sources, thrown out all the rules and > started making something new. This would, it seems to me, allow us to > observe the development of grammar in real time, for instance. I'm really out of my depth on this issue and on the issue of the development of the language by deaf folks. I don't think, though, that creoles throw out all the rules of the languages they are amalgamating, but rather using them selectively in sometimes simplified ways. I don't know, for instance, whether any creole languages have developed solid literary traditions, and I don't know how long they last in their original form, or whether they complexify (how's that for a neologism?) out of necessity or even tend to migrate to one or the other of the 'parent' languages over time. As I say, out of my depth, and reduced to armchair speculation. Much like Asstroll, but with better grammar. >> The case of sign languages is somewhat the same, and somewhat different. >> The same as they are usually (always?) based on the language of the >> culture they come from. Different in that they use short-cuts, syntax, >> grammar, and gestures and facial expressions in ways much more >> free-flowing and expressive, in many cases, than the base language(s) >> they come from. I suspect some deaf folks pity the lack of color and >> flair hearing folks are stuck with in the base language. > > How can deaf people base their sign language on the language of their > culture if they never heard it? Particularly if the speakers are also > illiterate... I don't know. I was spit-balling, probably basing my ideas on the example of Helen Keller. She couldn't hear or see, yet she developed very sophisticated writing and 'speaking' skills in American English out of her learning from an American teacher, Anne Sullivan. But she was a true isolate, cut off even from the deaf community. Those raise in a deaf community who themselves are deaf, I grant you, are likely to take their intramural language skills from their deaf peers. Still, their communication with the majority, hearing culture around them is likely to be in the language of the majority. I've not heard of any deaf written language, for instance. Though, again, armchair speculator here. > It's fascinating stuff in any case .... > > http://www.boker.org.il/english/newsignlanguage.htm > > In this context, it's interesting to note that sign languages are often > not related in the same way as the languages of their wider society may > be. Frex, American Sign Language and British Sign Language are quite > distinct and mutually unintelligible. A USaian deaf person visiting the > UK would need a translator the way his hearing partner wouldn't... > Now that is truly screwy, IMO. I suspect the mutual unintelligibility is limited to sign language, that written language is less of a mystery between the American and Brit deaf communities. Though, as Churchill said, separated by common language. ;-) >>>> Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than >>>> others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' >>>> are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. >>> >>> "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a >>> degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or >>> ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils >>> down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections.... >>> >> My reading of Asstroll's view of 'primitive' was that he meant simple, >> unsophisticated and perhaps quite newly acquired. My thinking was >> related to the YEC's lack of understanding of time-depth of history, >> languages included. Might be wrong about part or all of that. But I like >> my theory, and I'm stickin' to it! >> > > I like your theory, too, and I am pretty damned confident that you are > spot on. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-8B2A8E.05551308082015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #1955502 |
In article <d2m4n6Fqvk6U1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/08/2015 19:26, Tom McDonald wrote: > > On 8/6/2015 7:16 AM, Alex W. wrote: > >> On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: > >>> On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > >>> > >>> <huge mercy-snip> > >>> > >>>>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never > >>>>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their > >>>>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or > >>>>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or > >>>>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how > >>>>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one > >>>>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall > >>>>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. > >>>> > >>>> excuses, excuses > >>>> > >>>> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." > >>>> > >>> Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely > >>> the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow > >>> just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at > >>> least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends > >>> from people who had language for that length of time. > >> > >> In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation > >> experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of > >> language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel > >> actions in the name of science.... > > > > Yeah, fucked up shit done to infinks in the name of science is perhaps > > one of the worst things done to humans other than outright physical and > > (other) mental torture. > > Absolutely. It's abuse of the highest order. > > And it doesn't even have the saving grace of producing any sort of > scientifically useful results. > > > > > >>> So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just > >>> started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more > >>> long-developed languages. > >> > >> There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as > >> Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from > >> scratch. Hugely interesting .... > > > > Creoles are examples of merging of languages, or radical adaptation of a > > language to a new population and/or environment. The base language(s) > > have the same time depth of development as other languages. > > True, that; but don't you think this evolution of a new language gives > insight into how languages develop? Creole speakers would originally > have taken available linguistic sources, thrown out all the rules and > started making something new. This would, it seems to me, allow us to > observe the development of grammar in real time, for instance. I'll bet there's literature out there about the development of Haitian Creole. Lots of theses. > > The case of sign languages is somewhat the same, and somewhat different. > > The same as they are usually (always?) based on the language of the > > culture they come from. Different in that they use short-cuts, syntax, > > grammar, and gestures and facial expressions in ways much more > > free-flowing and expressive, in many cases, than the base language(s) > > they come from. I suspect some deaf folks pity the lack of color and > > flair hearing folks are stuck with in the base language. > > How can deaf people base their sign language on the language of their > culture if they never heard it? Particularly if the speakers are also > illiterate... They can read. But it does diverge from their home culture because of the different way the hearing-impaired experience the world. And it IS a subculture absolutely. One with debates about what to do when cures for certain conditions are found that would let babies escape deafness; some think it's a treasonous act removing offspring of the group from the culture. You're stating that you are flawed when you're perfectly suited for the culture in which you live, where everybody else has this one trait in common. > It's fascinating stuff in any case .... > > http://www.boker.org.il/english/newsignlanguage.htm > > In this context, it's interesting to note that sign languages are often > not related in the same way as the languages of their wider society may > be. Frex, American Sign Language and British Sign Language are quite > distinct and mutually unintelligible. A USaian deaf person visiting the > UK would need a translator the way his hearing partner wouldn't... > Now that is truly screwy, IMO. Interesting that they've separated so quickly. > >>> Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than > >>> others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' > >>> are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. > >> > >> "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a > >> degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or > >> ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils > >> down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections.... > >> > > My reading of Asstroll's view of 'primitive' was that he meant simple, > > unsophisticated and perhaps quite newly acquired. My thinking was > > related to the YEC's lack of understanding of time-depth of history, > > languages included. Might be wrong about part or all of that. But I like > > my theory, and I'm stickin' to it! > > > > I like your theory, too, and I am pretty damned confident that you are > spot on. The way some of them are able to jump back and forth between 5000 years ago and 4 billion years ago without any clue how vast the distance is strong evidence. -- JD Išve officially given up trying to find the bottom of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom Rosario, Addicting Info
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 18:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2mpr8F1ktgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1955589 |
On 08/08/2015 14:55, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <d2m4n6Fqvk6U1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 06/08/2015 19:26, Tom McDonald wrote: >>> On 8/6/2015 7:16 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2015 13:46, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>>> On 8/5/2015 11:20 PM, AsteroidSeven@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:14:49 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <huge mercy-snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> Some tribes are what is commonly called primitive and have never >>>>>>> developed their language beyond what was needed in their >>>>>>> comfortable environment. That doesn't mean that, if they move or >>>>>>> their environment changes, that their language can't change or >>>>>>> become more complex or even less complex due to the changes in how >>>>>>> they have to live. In such cases there is always more than one >>>>>>> answer or explanation for how people behave or develop or even fall >>>>>>> back, as far as their culture and language is concerned. >>>>>> >>>>>> excuses, excuses >>>>>> >>>>>> you could never say, "you Johnboi, me Michelleolivegoiyo." >>>>>> >>>>> Every human being, every human group, has been evolving for precisely >>>>> the same length of time. There are no 'primitive' groups that somehow >>>>> just started speaking a few generations ago. We've been speaking for at >>>>> least hundreds of thousands of years, and every human group descends >>>>> from people who had language for that length of time. >>>> >>>> In this context, it might be worth reading up on language deprivation >>>> experiments where newborn children were denied exposure to any sort of >>>> language in an effort to find the "original" human language. Very cruel >>>> actions in the name of science.... >>> >>> Yeah, fucked up shit done to infinks in the name of science is perhaps >>> one of the worst things done to humans other than outright physical and >>> (other) mental torture. >> >> Absolutely. It's abuse of the highest order. >> >> And it doesn't even have the saving grace of producing any sort of >> scientifically useful results. >> >> >>> >>>>> So there are no 'primitive' languages in the sense that they just >>>>> started a little while ago and have to 'catch up' to other, more >>>>> long-developed languages. >>>> >>>> There are a few instances of "spontaneous" language development, such as >>>> Creoles or several instances of deaf sign language evolving from >>>> scratch. Hugely interesting .... >>> >>> Creoles are examples of merging of languages, or radical adaptation of a >>> language to a new population and/or environment. The base language(s) >>> have the same time depth of development as other languages. >> >> True, that; but don't you think this evolution of a new language gives >> insight into how languages develop? Creole speakers would originally >> have taken available linguistic sources, thrown out all the rules and >> started making something new. This would, it seems to me, allow us to >> observe the development of grammar in real time, for instance. > > I'll bet there's literature out there about the development of Haitian > Creole. Lots of theses. There is, and it's fascinating stuff ... at least the parts of it that I as a non-linguist can understand. > > >>> The case of sign languages is somewhat the same, and somewhat different. >>> The same as they are usually (always?) based on the language of the >>> culture they come from. Different in that they use short-cuts, syntax, >>> grammar, and gestures and facial expressions in ways much more >>> free-flowing and expressive, in many cases, than the base language(s) >>> they come from. I suspect some deaf folks pity the lack of color and >>> flair hearing folks are stuck with in the base language. >> >> How can deaf people base their sign language on the language of their >> culture if they never heard it? Particularly if the speakers are also >> illiterate... > > They can read. In the West, they can. I was thinking of spontaneously evolving sign languages in West Africa or Palestine where literacy is the exception rather than the norm. > > But it does diverge from their home culture because of the different way > the hearing-impaired experience the world. And it IS a subculture > absolutely. One with debates about what to do when cures for certain > conditions are found that would let babies escape deafness; some think > it's a treasonous act removing offspring of the group from the culture. > You're stating that you are flawed when you're perfectly suited for the > culture in which you live, where everybody else has this one trait in > common. > It is a sub-culture, absolutely. And as such, it faces the same dilemmas as any other sub-culture. Is assimilation a good thing? How far should one go to preserve cultural distinctiveness? What about the children: is cultural allegiance more important than their chances in the wider world? What is lost, what is gained? > >> It's fascinating stuff in any case .... >> >> http://www.boker.org.il/english/newsignlanguage.htm >> >> In this context, it's interesting to note that sign languages are often >> not related in the same way as the languages of their wider society may >> be. Frex, American Sign Language and British Sign Language are quite >> distinct and mutually unintelligible. A USaian deaf person visiting the >> UK would need a translator the way his hearing partner wouldn't... >> Now that is truly screwy, IMO. > > Interesting that they've separated so quickly. They did not separate. They have different roots. That is what I find riveting. Both BSL and ASL as taught and used today originated in sign languages that developed informally among communities with many deaf people and/or institutions (schools) for the deaf. ASL has some similarity with French sign language because one of the early teachers was French and taught the French system adapted to local US usage. A visible difference is that BSL is much more two-handed than ASL. In either case, the languages bear no grammatical relationship to English. What struck me as thoroughly funny was a comment by a Brit who said that even when he learned an used ASL, Americans would tell (sign) him that he signed with an accent. > > >>>>> Some languages are simpler in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc., than >>>>> others. And some of the languages you, Jonniboi, think are 'primitive' >>>>> are in fact the most complex and difficult languages of all. >>>> >>>> "Primitive" is in any case a matter of definition and perspective. Is a >>>> degree of complication primitive or sophisticated? Is the spread or >>>> ease of learning a language primitive or sophisticated? It all boils >>>> down to one's personal bias and philosophical predilections.... >>>> >>> My reading of Asstroll's view of 'primitive' was that he meant simple, >>> unsophisticated and perhaps quite newly acquired. My thinking was >>> related to the YEC's lack of understanding of time-depth of history, >>> languages included. Might be wrong about part or all of that. But I like >>> my theory, and I'm stickin' to it! >>> >> >> I like your theory, too, and I am pretty damned confident that you are >> spot on. > > The way some of them are able to jump back and forth between 5000 years > ago and 4 billion years ago without any clue how vast the distance is > strong evidence. > Maybe that is one small reason why there are so many fewer creationists and other fundies in Europe: over here, it is just so much harder to avoid the evidence of the ages. When we can take someone to Stonehenge or the magalithic temples of Malta, out their hand to the stone and say "look at them, they were built before your YE calculations claim the earth was even created" it is much harder to persist in such lunacy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <529dd58c-cbba-4bbd-8659-8da635f22cca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1953864 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:58:03 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 9:45:56 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > > > > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > > > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > > > > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > > > > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > > > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > > > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > > > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. > > > > > > The Amerinds had complex languages long before some guy in the Middle East wrote about the flood myth. > > > > That's what I've been trying to explain to Johnboi. Their ancestors already had a complex language when they crossed the landbridge. Of course, explaining about their Asian ancestors and evolution is a whole nother story. > > > I've been trying to explain to Michelleolivegoiyo the truth about "primitive" tribes, namely that they do not substantiate the primitive to complex evolution myth. > > > > > > Johnboi probably believes that language was created fully developed for Adam > > as part of the Hebrew creation myth, so there never were any slowly developed first languages as humans evolved. > > > nothing but confirmation michellolivegoiyo. Then you admit that it is pointless discussing anything with you. Evidence means nothing to you, since your mind lives in a closed box called 'faith'. You're wasting your time here, since everything you have written has been disproved scientifically and historically. Or do you enjoy living your 'life' as nothing but an annoyance troll? How do you feel knowing that everyone considers you to be nothing but an annoyance troll, a child in a man's body, and only responds to you to keep you from doing something violent, as well as cutting off your misinformation at the source?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hhyapster@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eeb0939f-651f-4fff-813c-1bb691cf3b0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1952174 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 9:45:56 AM UTC+8, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:07:16 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html > > > > > > > > > > > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > > > > > > > > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > > > > > > > > The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears > > > were plugged. > > > > > > > > > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. > > > > [changes can happen] > > > > People hunt and gather, cook, > > > > > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it > > doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them to be primitive. > > > > [but it doesn't. there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] > > > > Bad example, Johnboi. The Amerinds started out in Asia and came to North > > America in at least two waves. They already had fully developed languages > > when they got here. Over time they settled all over North and South America. > > And, over thousands of years, their cultures and languages changed. > > > no problem with that. you just said the Amerinds already had complex languages. they didn't start simple and evolve to complexity. goes against evolution fraud. good observation. See how idiotic you are trying to show yourself? Evolution doesn't necessarily make it to betterment. It can go either way, except that bad evolution species will be eventually diminish or die out as compared to the good. You have been taught of this from quite a few atheists here, but you chose to remain stupid. OR YOU ARE TRYING TO MISINFORM YOURSELF. How pathetic is that? > > > > > > > Try again. > > > > > > ook! > > > > > > Is that what you put on your test papers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 15:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlqsra5f5vja9g1j2ptddgapjsqpuqvtlo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1951943 |
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:
>> > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those African people running around the fields, too. And those people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too.
>> > >
>> > > But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html
>> > >
>> > > let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple languages.
>> > >
>> > > You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps.
>> > >
>> > > This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > we must bring back science and stop the gap thought.
>> >
>> > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? [why's that Michellegoil?] It's because you are just as delusional and uneducated [just falsify what I wrote and prove I'm 'uneducated', Michelle Olivegoil.] as Earl and ArtieJoe.
>
>
>The misinformation you always post here is how anyone could tell how poorly educated you are. Your body may have been in a classroom, but your ears
>were plugged.
A normal consequence of their being covered by his sphincter ani
externus. The posture, too, is odd for a student.
>> > Languages grow and change over a very long time.[changes can happen] People hunt and gather, cook,
>> > clean, make as much clothing as they need, create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must develop a language. It may start out primitive [but it doesn't.
>
>there's no proof of that and the currently existing tribal type people, as for example the Indians of America as shown by the link that you didn't look up, tells otherwise] , but it doesn't have to stay that way, even if you consider them yo be primitive.
>>
>> ook!
>
>Is that what you put on your test papers?
'Tis the secret of his success.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fcbsrahj603dm70kiirn4kj8clt7gk1nqs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1951712 |
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 22:54:34 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote: >On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote: >> if evolutionists The proven, serial, in-your face liar knows there is no such thing. >> were right those native American Indians sitting >>on the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Simple compared to what? Their language would have satisfied their needs. Remember the story about Esquimaux having twenty different words for snow? Whether or not it is true, and I suspect it is, snow played such a major part in their lives that it wouldn't surprise me. And I doubt they had words like "microwave oven", "television", etc until these were introduced. And perhaps the lying moron would like to explain who has said the words he puts into people's mouths? >> Those African people running around the fields, too. And those >> people way out in the obscure swamplands, they too. The Liar For God knows they only "ran around in fields" after being enslaved. Before that they were hunter-gatherers - whose language reflected that. >> But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the >> unevolved tribes. The nasty little shit knows that nobody says they were, except for racists. >> They are simply people who separated from civilization >>as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. WHAT FUCKING DELUGE? The Pirahã tribe of remote Brazil were in the news a few years ago - and their language was so simple it upset Chomskian linguists. They also had no concept of gods, nor even the words with which to frame that concept. http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god >> http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html >> >> let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple >> languages. What a fucking moron. The earliest languages were extremely simple, starting with communication using onomatopoeic nouns. I suspect the in-your-face, deliberately ignorant moron doesn't understand big words like that - but I'm not going to help him. And I know he has been given the example of the Pirahã people and their language previously on more than one occasion, when he has pulled the same nonsense out of his arse. >> You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, >> me Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot. How else are to people whose languages are completely different, going to communicate? You start off by trying to develop a common vocabulary. >> because the people who conceived them were blinded by evolutionist The proven serial liar knows there is no such thing. It is a dishonest creationist canard so they can pretend well understood scientific fact is merely an ideological belief. >>presuppositions. Evolution presuppositions of the gaps. What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot. It has no presuppositions. It started off with the observation that fossil species changed and diverged over time. This was investigated and testable, objective conclusions were reached. In the last century and a half, these conclusions have had so much validation and confirmation from widely different fields, that it is a scientific paradigm - and the only one that explains the divergence of life. >> This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps >> is creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Was this meant to mean anything? The only objection to evolution and all the facts which support it, comes from religious loonies who imagine their bronze-age myths and legends are correct, even when they have been shown not to be. >> Evolution ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty >> space in the evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which >> had gaps. What a fucking moron, a deliberately nasty, seriously mentally ill, psychopath and liar. >> we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. He has no idea what science is. And he's in as much denial as the Vatican was in the face of the work of Galileo, Keppler, etc, >You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? It's because >you are just as delusional and uneducated as Earl and ArtieJoe. All three should be in the psych ward, on anti-psychotic and anti-schizophrenic medication to make them function normally. Especially when they have been obsessively and nastily wiping thir self-imposed ignorance and stupidity in our faces for so long. They're way beyond just mentally ill. >Languages grow and change over a very long time. People hunt >and gather, cook, clean, make as much clothing as they need, >create the kind of shelters they need, raise children, tell stories, >develop mythologies. To do all these things, people must >develop a language. It may start out primitive, but it doesn't >have to stay that way, even if you consider them yo be primitive. It develops to meet the need of the people using it, to communicate. The speaker in the link I gave, was a missionary, an anthropologist and a linguist - although I can't picture an anthropologist inflicting the major changes on a culture that missionaries do, unless he was prostituting his field to use it to help in converting them. But they simply weren't interested (rather like the Chinese when missionaries went there, which caused mental breakdowns in many of the evangelisers). He discovered their language didn't even have the words to describe the concepts he wanted to teach them, and that it was so simple it didn't have any recursion. It caused him to rethink his linguistics, because it went against Chomsky's previously unquestioned axioms, and it caused him to lose his faith - they had no concept of god and nothing with which it could be explained, yet they were happy, content and led fulfilled lives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.08.02.19.03.33@somewhere.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1951712 |
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:54:34 -0700, hypatiab7 wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:19:57 AM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com > wrote: >> if evolutionists were right those native American Indians sitting on >> the ground around a campfire should have a simple language. Those >> African people running around the fields, too. And those people way >> out in the obscure swamplands, they too. >> >> But, no sir. These people had no simple languages. They aren't the >> unevolved tribes. They are simply people who separated from >> civilization as they spread across the earth, after the deluge. >> >> http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/rehling/nativeAm/ling.html >> >> let's say that again. But, no sir. These people had no simple >> languages. >> >> You probably thought that they did, that they say, "you Jane, me >> Ookenhauser." The movies taught it, because the people who conceived >> them were blinded by evolutionist presuppositions. Evolution >> presuppositions of the gaps. >> >> This perpetuated evolution ignorance from the evolutionf gaps is >> creating a blob of societal, anti-science, ignorance. Evolution >> ignorance of the gaps. The big evolution empty space in the >> evolutionist's brain. Evolutionist brain which had gaps. >> >> >> we must bring back science and stop the gap thought. > > You know why you're one of my pity trolls, Johnboi? It's because you are > just as delusional and uneducated as Earl and ArtieJoe. > > Languages grow and change over a very long time. People hunt and gather, > cook, Yes. Like any system that iterates, carrying information from generation to generation, languages *evolve*. Just like life itself. Cool, eh? -- MarkA The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury. -- Marcus Aurelius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web