Since evolutionists think that their 'evolution of man' timeline is so water-tight, what's the problem with the evolution of man's speech? Surely there must be some DNA analysis, some radiocarbon dating, some bones or some observation of apes that makes it as clear as day - after all, the whole world is so sure that man most definitely, undeniably (and un-test-ably) descended from them.
There are two schools of thought: continuity and discontinuity - either a gibbering monkey managed to say 'b', then 'ba', and then thousands of generations later 'banana', or suddenly after thousands of years of hominid silence someone suddenly burst into a full-blown language and someone else also instantly developed the ability to understand it. Yes, I know it sounds silly, but if you start out with believing that everything made itself then you will end up with some pretty bizarre conclusions.
The thing is apes look a little bit like us - they have arms and legs and can walk upright for short periods of time - so they were the best candidate for those who want to deny God to point to as our ancestors. I mean who would have believed it if they pointed to an elephant? A monkey losing its hair, strength and tree climbing ability to survive is just so much more plausible. But monkeys don't talk. Not even close*. They gibber because they don't have the biological structures to produce words or the mind to do it. Monkeys deceive each other all the time, and therefore all the other monkeys are programmed by this to act on nothing that is not immediately verifiable. There is just no room for abstract things such as words - any time another monkey wanted to say 'oo-ah' for banana instead of just pointing to it, the other monkey would disregard it to protect himself from those naughty other monkeys trying to deceive him - I mean it was obvious it was a snake not a banana!
Displaced references - those that have no relation to the immediately perceivable surroundings have no place in Darwinism. In fact, words themselves have no place as symbolism has no place without a culture that already has mutual understanding of socially endorsed, symbolic cultural facts. They cannot be trusted amongst animals that need inherent value and meaning in communication for their survival. To put this simply, if all the monkeys haven't got together and decided that 'wah-wah' now means banana and that it is okay to use a newly invented sound by arbitrarily assigning it to an object then there is no way within Darwinism or any other secular theory of origins for language to come about.
The Bible has the answers, yet again. In the beginning was The WORD! Language has its origins with a transcendent, intelligent creator that injected it into His creation. God is spirit and to express Himself in a limited, physical creation it took symbolism and abstract meaning. When he made man in His image He made him for fellowship, and that took an ability for Adam to express Himself and converse, and in conversing, understand what he could of his almighty Creator.
*I think God made parrots such great speakers just to make Darwinism look stupid. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N'kisi
No comments:
Post a Comment