Creation of the English Language

quote:

---

The big question, it seems, is whether this writing is the direct ancestor of modern chinese. More evidence is needed, but I would say that a form of writing dates back 8,000 years, at least.

​

Given that we were drawing 30,000 years ago, it's not a stretch to imagine a written language to develop is the need arose.

---

Australian abs are said to be 60K years old, thanks to some cave scratchings. But my response to this is it should be deemed as a total and absolute falsity, even a contrived and improvised one, that it should not be allowed as a professional declaration. Not untill it can be verified by a 60k Year population [where are the 50 Trillian Aboriginals?], the equivalent mental prowess [else forget about ToE] - and graduated imprints of both the former factors the past 60K years. I believe that is the way to go about it.And IMHO, these are not effected by deaths, deseases, wars, barren and dry terrains - not even as much as the Middle-east, where we have an actual historical poll to determine applicable ratios the last 6000, which displays all the excuses put forth as inapplicable and false.I say the same criteria must apply everywhere, including 30K year drawings or with china: no surrounding evidences - no go. Else science, history and logic becomes abandoned. This issue is up against a 6000 year factual period, on the same planet, under the same condition, and which which shows no gaps of silence and absence - no vacuum in the 6000 circle.

IAJ, will you, PLEASE, start addressing the multitude of points that have been brought against your position, instead of simply coming up with new misrepresented facts and extra red herring? Every time someone refutes your point, instead of admitting it, you try to spin support for you position in some new and unrelated direction, pulling the thread off topic and wasting everyone's time.Why don't you start debating like a grown up instead of a little toddler? Perhaps if you did, people 'round here would take you more seriously. But until then, I cannot see myself or anyone else responding to your posts with anything other than all-out laughter.Now, get on the Google and do some actual research to support your assertions!Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

quote:

---

The source of german is known, though.
That would be the indo-european language. And even that has an origin hypothesis--proto indo european.

---

That's why it is NOT known: we've no idea where and how the indo-euro emerged; we don't know how language appeared. IMHO, this must align with history: no history - no speech endowed life forms; and history refers to recallable names and specific characters and events - absolutely not by generic and de-constructed cave scratchings, agriculture, sticks and stones, etc.This is a vital and pivotal issue, and critical conditions must be placed before shouting Eureka! Here, I find perhaps the biggest let down by so-called evolutionists - they apply impossible and inapplicable demands on everyone else, but want to breeze through whatever they like as science and fact. It should be the reverse: the one over-turning hard facts has to apply the most strict criteria upon themselves. You can't have it both ways.

quote:

---

By the way, I highly doubt that anyone proposes that languages derived from grunts of cave people. The biggest reason being is that cave people really didn't exist--

---

I dont think that reason even applies. Whether they existed or not, the required critical crieria must apply.

quote:

---

Now, get on the Google and do some actual research to support your assertions!

---

I do, and found most do not apply the required criteria, and are embellished with such unscientific terms as IT IS BELIEVED; PERHAPS; and MOST PROBABLY. Evolutionists have no problem accepting these - if it aligns with what they want to hear. If you ask, are all scientists lieing or stupid, I say that there are sufficient disputations, and sufficient academic exaggerations, which are never saistified against hard copy proof.Obviously, this debate is about a neo-scientific view which opposes established hard facts and criteria - thus the googling is not the appropriate response. As previously stated, the issue of cave marks, without surrounding and applicable evidences, or that speech cannot be verified before 6000 - are unaceptable. The premise of the criteria is false, thus the minutae details after that fact is rejected.I responded to your questions. France and Spain were conquering nations same as Briton, but lost the language war.

"English is a West Germanic language originating in England, and the first language for most people in Australia, Canada, the Commonwealth Caribbean, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (also commonly known as the Anglosphere)."from this source"Today, it is one of the official languages of Spain, most Latin American countries, and Equatorial Guinea. In total, 21 nations use Spanish as their primary language. Spanish is also one of six official languages of the United Nations."from this sourceSo English is the Primary language in eight nations and Spanish is the Primary language in twenty-one nations.So far you have never posted anything except jibberish and absolute falsehoods.Is there any hope that you will one day contribute something that is not either false or nonsense?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The only reason you are still able to post IaJ is some people seem to be silly enough to continue to want to respond to your nonsense.At some point even that will not be enough and I will get back to suspending you.You have not, however deluded about it you may be, posted anything that isn't wrong and/or nonsense here.It might be a time for you to ask yourself some questions such as: should I continue to talk about things which I clearly no nothing about? Also you might as a doctor for assistance. I think it may be a bigger problem than simple, correctable ignorance.I will not carry on a discussion with you. Sometime you will be simply banned outright as an utter waste of time.

Oh, but did they?

quote:

---

Wikipedia: List of Language by Number of Native Speakers

1 | Mandarin | Sino-Tibetan, Chinese            |  873 million
2 | Spanish  | Indo-European, Italic, Romance   |  322 million
3 | English  | Indo-European, Germanic, West    |  309 million

---

How can you lose the language war and still be up at top? How can a loser of the language war be above the winner of the language war?Why is English the language of commerce? Well... Do you think that if a, let's say, Spanish-speaking country had swooped in to x up WWII, subsequently became one of two dominant world powers (Russia being the other), and then been the only dominant world power left after the other collapsed (like Russia did), that English would still the language of commerce? That, let's say, all those Spanish folk would go learn English suddenly?If so, why? Provide linked-to information to support your claims, please.Jon

quote:

---

I will not carry on a discussion with you. Sometime you will be simply banned outright as an utter waste of time.

---

Don't threaten me - my breathing remains at a good steady pace. Ban me if you like, but you cannot stop responsa of participants in all forums, as you seem not to be able to do so here either. I have discussed my views with far more advanced science forums than you imagine.YOUR THOUGHTS ARE NOT MINE, NOR YOUR WAYS.

quote:

---

So English is the Primary language in eight nations and Spanish is the Primary language in twenty-one nations.

---

This factor is effected by those countries being conquered by english. This is the point of english being the global language - the nations subjected to a previous language, whether by conquering or nativity - are being taken over by english. You cannot use the negative impact as a positive one: its not the case.

I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense, jabberwocky and bullshit.Can you EVER post anything that is not nonsense or false?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If so, why? Provide linked-to information to support your claims, please.

---

Sure. Take Singapore for example: 1000s of years of chinese are becoming overturned with the government mandating english education at schools. Why -because of the global and advancement propspects, and the real fear of not being in the backwaters. There is a logical and evidential reason why many countries are lacking, and which are advancing, and why. Aside from minerals and oil deposits, only english speaking nations are advancing. The service workforce is beling allocated to India, not south America or Europe!

There's nothing false about english taking over nations, and that those who cannot attain parity here are going backwards. Today, some nations are trying desperately to hold off the english invasion, by enforcing laws which will stop this encroachment, including not stating in english any words which are also available in the host nation's language: this is an astonishing display of my point.

YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS!At least make your arguments worthy of rebuttals. Jeesh.Jon

I'm sorry but that is simply jabberwocky, nonsense and bullshit as well as your classic attempt to move goal posts. You are simply repeating assertions that have been shown to be false.Between 1998 and 2001, English on the web decreased from 75% to 52% and the trend has continued. The fastest growing segments are Spanish, Japanese and Chinese. The majority of websites today are NOT in English.Sorry but your posts are all just nonsense and falsehoods.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have a toddler of my own (I'm many years removed from my university days), and I believe he's got a better grasp of reasoned argumentation than IAJ does.Maybe the Admin is right. Perhaps we're the fools for debating this guy. What's despairing is that sometimes there are one or two kernels of truth in his posts mixed in with the most ridiculous generalizations this side of Archie Bunker. The discussion is going nowhere and probably can't.Joseph, I did get you to admit that the English language arose from the accumulation of slow, gradual, random, non-directed changes. I would hope that this might cause you to reconsider the evolution of species, but if not, or if you choose to deny my claims, I won't be surprised.Some of the contributions by some of you, especially those of you who seem very familiar with languages, were great. Apart from its relevance to discussions of evolutionary science, I find the topic of languages to be fascinating, so thanks again.