Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Fool Hath Said...

I just read this article, it just goes to show how stupid the evolutionists are.
There are several theories set forth by evolutionists as to how humans created language, this is just another attempt at trying to shove the vast amount of evidence for Creation into the dirt.

I copied the following from a website run by an evolutionist, I did not write the following in Italics, I only insert it to show the utter stupidity embraced by people who hate "Religion" (A.K.A. Christianity).

The "ding-dong" hypothesis
This hypothesis places the origin of human language in
onomatopoeia: the various imitative sounds that humans make to mimic the sounds of the world around them. For example in English, boom is the sound of thunder, oink is the sound made by a pig, and tweet is the sound made by a small bird. Of course, many languages contain their own onomatopoeic words (eg. in Basque, ai-ai, which means "ouch-ouch", refers to a knife).
There are several reasons why this hypothesis has not met with universal acceptance, as it does not adequately explain the creation of words for inanimate objects, such as rocks, much less
prepositions and other grammatical particles or abstract concepts. Words marked by onomatopoeia are conspicuous and somewhat unusual in most languages. The "ding-dong" hypothesis is therefore not considered to be a complete explanation for the origin of language.

The "bow-wow" hypothesis
Similar to the "ding-dong" hypothesis, this one has humans forming their first words by imitating
animal sounds.
Not only do all of the objections involving other sorts of onomatopoeia explanations apply here, it is worthy to note that the names of
animal sounds are strongly culturally determined and differ remarkably from one culture to the next, as the article on oink sets forth. It seems difficult to accept that humans learned to speak to one another by talking to the animals.

The "pooh-pooh" hypothesis
According to this hypothesis, the first words developed from sighs of pleasure, moans of pain, and other semi-involuntary cries or exclamations. These vocalisms then became the names of the phenomena that made people say them.
Most of the objections to the "ding-dong" hypothesis apply here also. Such words are found in most languages; they are conspicuous by their proverbial nature and incomplete assimilation into the
lexicon. Moreover, they are culturally determined, and themselves show a great deal of arbitrariness.

The "ta-ta" hypothesis
Charles Darwin lent his authority to this hypothesis. According to this, human language represents the use of oral gestures that began in imitation of hand gestures that were already in use for communication. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's research into synesthesia and sound symbolism would seem to support this hypothesis.
The difficulty with this hypothesis, is that it
begs the question: it requires that a fairly sophisticated repertoire of gestures be in place already for humans to imitate with their mouth gestures. It assumes the existence of a language of gestures without explaining how it arose (however, see Nicaraguan Sign Language). At any rate, though sign languages do have somewhat imitative (or iconic) gestures, they also contain quite arbitrary symbols and have vastly different meanings in different human cultures.
One other difficulty with this hypothesis is that hand gestures and facial expressions are useless unless they are seen. That means it must either be daylight, or firelight, and with nothing blocking one's view. For facial expressions, the communicators must also be facing each other. In addition, hand gestures are difficult if the hands are doing something else.

The "uh-oh" hypothesis
According to this hypothesis, human language begins with the use of arbitrary
symbols that represent warnings to other members of the human band. It is agreed that one sort of vocal cry means that lions have been spotted in the area, and another one indicates a snake. You holler one thing at your neighbour to warn them, "Don't eat that! It'll make you sick!" and something distinguishable to warn them "Don't eat that! It's mine!"
This hypothesis seems to have the potential to explain the perceived diversity of human speech; obviously the warning cries uttered here are to some measure arbitrary. It is less certain that this hypothesis could explain how more abstract features of human language developed.

The "yo-he-ho" hypothesis
According to this hypothesis, language arose in rhythmic chants and vocalisms uttered by people engaged in communal labour.
This may have more to do with the origins of
poetry than with language itself. Sea chanteys, jody calls, and similar work songs all show humans engaged in communal work improvising with their language around the rhythms of their work. It is uncertain from this hypothesis how meanings came to be associated with the vocalisms uttered by the workers.

The "watch the birdie" hypothesis
This one is associated with
ethologist and linguist E. H. Sturtevant. According to this hypothesis, human language became elaborated because humans found selective advantage in being able to deceive other humans. Since exclamations and vocalisms can involuntarily reveal your true mental state, humans learned to feign them in order to deceive others for selfish advantage.

And now it seems we have the "Blub, blub, blub hypothesis" which says that humans learned to talk just by evolving from fish.
It's soooo much easier to believe than creationism like we see in the first few chapters of Genesis isn't it?
Just so any passers-by know, I am being sarcastic.

Here is one the evolutionaries have not thought of yet, we learned to talk from aliens or something-of-that-sort.

God Bless,



Stephen Boyd said...

Most informative and interesting article Mr. Powers! You could probably make a good case for all of the different hypothesis's to be referred to collectively as the "pooh-pooh" hypothesis!

Mike said...

I agree!

God Bless,


Gravelbelly said...


A clear-headed Irishman! What will they think of next? ;-)

Great post. Continue fighting the good fight.

(& thanks for the kind comments on WARSKYL)

Mike said...

Yes Sir!

Your very welcome.

God Bless,