7,000-Languages.....there they go...

[LottaKash]

Researchers say a language disappears every two weeks


LOS ANGELES TIMES
By Thomas H. Maugh II | September 19, 2007 in print edition A-18

One of the world’s 7,000 distinct languages disappears every 14 days, an extinction rate exceeding that of birds, mammals or plants, researchers said Tuesday. At least 20% of the world’s languages are in imminent danger of becoming extinct as their last speakers die off, compared with about 18% of mammals, 8% of plants and 5% of birds.

The extinction of a language translates into a loss of knowledge, said K. David Harrison, associate director of the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages and a linguist at Swarthmore College.

“When we lose a language, we lose centuries of thinking about time, seasons, sea creatures, reindeer, edible flowers, mathematics, landscapes, myths, music, the unknown and the everyday,” he said.

Half of the world’s languages have disappeared in the last 500 years, and half of the remainder are likely to vanish during this century, Harrison said.

Many of the languages are not easily translated into English. In the endangered south Siberian language Todzhu, for example, the word “chary” means “2-year-old male castrated reindeer that can be used for riding.”

Harrison and Living Tongues Director Gregory D.S. Anderson have identified five language “hot spots” where the extinction rate is particularly high, they said at a news conference sponsored by the National Geographic Society, which supports their research.

One such area encompasses Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico, where 40 languages spoken by Native Americans are at risk. Only five elderly members of the Yuchi tribe, for example, are fluent in the Yuchi language, which may be unrelated to any other language in the world.

The top hot spot is northern Australia, where 153 languages spoken by Aborigines are at risk. There are currently only three known speakers of Magati Ke in the Northern Territory and three Yawuru speakers. The team found one elderly speaker of Amurdag – which had previously been declared extinct – and he could barely recall the language spoken by his father.

Other hot spots include central South America, parts of the Pacific Northwest and eastern Siberia. All the areas are similar in that they were colonized with indigenous languages giving way to a colonial language either voluntarily or through coercion. A map of the hot spots is at www.languagehotspots.org (http://www.languagehotspots.org/).

The Native American languages in Oklahoma are giving way to English, Anderson said. That process has already taken place on the East Coast, which was colonized earlier. Virtually all indigenous languages have disappeared there.

Researchers from the Living Tongues Institute are visiting these locales and using digital audio and video equipment to record the last speakers of the most endangered tongues. “In many cases, these are the first and only digital recordings of the languages,” Anderson said.

In as few as seven to 10 days, they can record enough information to prevent the complete loss of a language, he said.

SOURCE: Researchers say a language disappears every two weeks - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/19/science/sci-language19)</FONT>




The fact that mankind's languages are vanishing from civilization at any alarming rate is proof that evolution is a lie (http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm). If evolution were true, then the process by which mankind has obtained 7,000 languages would be continuing today. Has the evolutionary process ceased? According to the Bible it never happened in the first place. One would have to be a fool to follow the nonsense of evolution. Hey, if the Big Bang Theory is true, then why was there only one? Why not two or three big bangs, or a thousand? It's amazing to me how people continually place God and the Bible on trial; yet unquestioningly accept the illogical theories of evolution. This just shows their wicked heart of unbelief in the Word of God.

[boxcar]

Uh, oh....be prepared for 'cap-style onslaught. :D

Boxcar

[TJDave]

It's amazing to me how people continually place God and the Bible on trial; yet unquestioningly accept the illogical theories of evolution.

Do tell. :rolleyes:

[GaryG]

Uh, oh....be prepared for 'cap-style onslaught. :D

BoxcarWhy are the wing nut lefties also atheists? Is that a requirement of their so called ideology?

[DJofSD]

The fact that mankind's languages are vanishing from civilization at any alarming rate is proof that evolution is a lie (http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm). If evolution were true, then the process by which mankind has obtained 7,000 languages would be continuing today. Has the evolutionary process ceased? According to the Bible it never happened in the first place. One would have to be a fool to follow the nonsense of evolution. Hey, if the Big Bang Theory is true, then why was there only one? Why not two or three big bangs, or a thousand? It's amazing to me how people continually place God and the Bible on trial; yet unquestioningly accept the illogical theories of evolution. This just shows their wicked heart of unbelief in the Word of God.




With all due respect, your logic and reasoning suck - big time.

[JustRalph]

don't sweat it......... I invented a new language last night when I stubbed my toe on the way to the bathroom...............

[rastajenk]

Agreed...at least I'm not following it.

[DJofSD]

In your new language, how many different words do you have for your toes? 2? Toe, and toetoe?

[GameTheory]

Loss of languages is proof the evolution is a lie? You'll have to explain that to me. I suspect you (or the article writer, not sure who is making that point) don't really understand what evolution is, and are just picking on the straw man that anti-evolutionists like to knock down.

It seems pretty obvious why we have lots of languages (lots of people spread out and isolated from each other for generations) and just as obvious why they are going away (geographic isolation doesn't really exist in the modern world). How that's a knock on evolution I don't know. It's evolution in action (in the general sense).

[boxcar]

Agreed...at least I'm not following it.

Which? LK's thread or JRs new language that expresses pain?

Boxcar

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't agree that language elimination is a sign of disrespect for God. I agree with Game Therorey on his points. The important point is for mankind, esp. those of us who believe in God, is to not get so high on ourselves or mankind's accomlishments that we feel and especially society no longer wants or feels they have a need for God. That's a key lesson from the Hebrew Bible story of the Tower of Babel. (And the converse in the Christian Bible stories of the Apostles speaking in tounges through the Gift of the Holy Spirit in order to bring all people together in God through Jesus Christ.)

But merging modern societies sure accomplish that loss of old languages and the learning of new ones. Then again, if groups don't teach their young the old languages (or don't reproduce!) then languages and groups will die off. But people go on, and their ways regularly adavnace, baring catastrophy (Black Plague, other mass diseases. Any group bombing and/or nuking people back to Stone Age -at least temporarily.)

Not saying everyone has to believe all that, but that's where what my faith has led me to believe.

Not trying to start yet another religious argument, so accept or reject.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I expect urban groups, especially street gangs, to have their own languages as well (besides mainstream languages). Given the turbluent lives and murder rate in these situations, those languages my also die within a generation or two.

[LottaKash]

Loss of languages is proof the evolution is a lie? You'll have to explain that to me. I suspect you (or the article writer, not sure who is making that point) don't really understand what evolution is, and are just picking on the straw man that anti-evolutionists like to knock down.

It seems pretty obvious why we have lots of languages (lots of people spread out and isolated from each other for generations) and just as obvious why they are going away (geographic isolation doesn't really exist in the modern world). How that's a knock on evolution I don't know. It's evolution in action (in the general sense).
Why 7,000 Languages?

By David J. Stewart




http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/catholics_believe_in_evolution.jpgIf, as evolutionists claim, all of mankind evolved from the SAME primitive life-source, then how did we end up with 7,000 different languages? Did one gorilla get angry at another gorilla and decide to start a new language? I'm intrigued to know.



The Bible teaches that God created all the different languages at Babel... "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech ... Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:7,9). It is far more reasonable to accept the Biblical claim that God created all of mankind's different languages; than it is to believe that some space-dust from a massive chaotic explosion somehow became life, and then took on intelligence, and then from the same evolutionary process ended up with 7,000 different languages. That makes no sense at all.

There are no "primitive" languages. All languages have a system of sounds, words, and sentences that can adequately communicate the content of culture. This is evidence of a divine Creator. The languages of the so-called "primitive" peoples are often very complex in their grammatical structures. If mankind had advanced through an evolutionary process, then there should still be developing languages today; but in fact, one languages disappears every 2-weeks...


P.S. NO !. that Chimp is not our "Tom".....

[Robert Goren]

I don't think that the loss of all of those languages is a bad thing. I may be the only one to think this way but I think we would all be better off speaking the same language. The Bible says that the reason for different languages was the tower of Babel. It was a punishment for a sin against God. It would be nice if God forgave us and allowed us to have common language again.

[Robert Goren]

Why are the wing nut lefties also atheists? Is that a requirement of their so called ideology? They aren't and not all atheists are left wing nut. Karl Rove comes to mind. I aways thought that his pat answer when asked it was a wee bit too clever. For those who haven't heard it, it goes something like this. "I am not fortunate enough to be a person of faith" As for left wing nuts who are not atheists, Phil and Daniel Berrigan come to mind. Jesse Jackson may be a lot of things, but he is not an atheist. Neither was Joan Baez.

[JustRalph]

In your new language, how many different words do you have for your toes? 2? Toe, and toetoe?

If I remember right, about 80 percent of the words started with an F

very similar to the Italian Alphabet

[GameTheory]

It is far more reasonable to accept the Biblical claim that God created all of mankind's different languages; than it is to believe that some space-dust from a massive chaotic explosion somehow became life, and then took on intelligence, and then from the same evolutionary process ended up with 7,000 different languages. That makes no sense at all.Making some big leaps there. From space-dust to 7,000 languages in one sentence. Are you trying to say that there have been no new languages since Babel? If I can show otherwise, is that evidence against your point? So you must be happy about the loss of languages then? God is letting us get back to a smaller number because our arrogance has decreased? (We must have REALLY arrogant back then if our current state is an improvement.)

There are no "primitive" languages. All languages have a system of sounds, words, and sentences that can adequately communicate the content of culture. This is evidence of a divine Creator. The languages of the so-called "primitive" peoples are often very complex in their grammatical structures. If mankind had advanced through an evolutionary process, then there should still be developing languages today; but in fact, one languages disappears every 2-weeks.Man has a hard-wired ability for spoken language -- a language-speaking engine if you will. That engine is what has evolved, so there are no primitive languages by your parameters because there are no men around with primitive brains.

The leaps in your logic are pretty extreme, there is no point in debating because...well we don't speak the same language. So we're never even going to be able to agree to enough common terms to agree to disagree. But please don't take my pro-evolutionary stance as anti-God -- personally I don't see a conflict there. (Although I do admit I'm an agnostic at best.) But from a logical perspective, you do sound pretty wacky. It's a losing game trying to out-logic the logicians on matters of faith. After all, even if evolutionary theory is 100% internally consistent, it could still be wrong -- by trying to poke logical holes in it you're merely recognizing that even to you, it MOSTLY makes sense. Of course your version is not evolutionary theory at all, which is the fundamental mistake of most anti-evolutionists. They're arguing against a phantom. That, and the fact that you are taking on one side an unchanging dogma and fighting against an (ahem) evolving body of knowledge and saying "See, GOTCHA!" whenever new evidence comes in to change ideas a bit, which of course is just the natural course of the building up of knowledge and not the destruction of a house of cards. Your gotchas (if valid, which they never are, but let's pretend) are just interesting curiosities to the scientist -- areas in which more investigation is to be done, i.e. "why IS it that way?" (Not, oh my god, evolution is all wrong! Lord show me the way!)

[TJDave]

If, as evolutionists claim, all of mankind evolved from the SAME primitive life-source, then how did we end up with 7,000 different languages? Did one gorilla get angry at another gorilla and decide to start a new language? I'm intrigued to know. [/font]


You're suggesting that evolutionary theorists claim that man's descendancy from lower primates began as a singular event... in one specific location? ;)

[TJDave]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

[LottaKash]

conflict there. (Although I do admit I'm an agnostic at best.) But from a logical perspective, you do sound pretty wacky. It's a losing game trying to out-logic the logicians on matters of faith. !)

Not me Game (from the you part of your post)....I simply plaguerized this content, and you might say, to stir up the people a bit....

Personally, I think evolution is a bunch of hooey....Heck, even Darwin admitted in his later years, that it (evolution) may not be all that it would seem, after all......

There was a "previous EARTH-AGE" before this one, and the Bible is quite clear on this, and those who would believe that they are fluent in the Bible are ignorant of this, as well.....The previous Earth-Age (dispensation of time, millions of years), was just loaded with animals and lifeforms of all descriptions, and their evidence has been fossilized for all time, for us to see....Yet, so many so called Bible scholars, are ignorant of this aspect of the God's Word, and they believe that Man is only about 6,000 years old....This is true, but only to this EArth AGe (the current dispensation of time)....Man, in this, the current Earth Age, was created "directly and distinctly" the same as we are today.....This ignorance, of a previous dispensation of time, may have been what led Darwin to go off on his merry way, creating fallacies on an order of magnitude.....But, if he were to subscribe to the notion or fact that there "was" an Earth Age, prior to this one, he may not have been so "whacky" in his own right, and perhaps he could have furthered "science" in a more useful way, and not one based on lies and false leads,....(Somewhere along the way, someone found and ape-skull in a cave, and then presumed that somehow we evolved from this ape, because an ape may have wanted some of the same shelter as well as a man might want shelter...haha)

Besides, who would want to out-logic the logicians anyway, many simply don't get it, and are way too full of themselves to believe anything but their own self deluding nonsense, and many remain "ignorant" of the "real truth", because they haven't searched in the right places for it, imo.....

best,

[DJofSD]

There are new languages. They just do not appear to be languages to most people. These are computer programming languages, e.g. COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal, BASIC, C, Ruby, HTML, JAVA, etc. ad nauseum.

Darwin is a misunderstood man and he never refuted evolution. His theory was not completely understood.

[PhantomOnTour]

This 'Disappearing language disproves evolution' thing has got to be the most absurdly ridiculous thing I've ever read here at PA.

So the article came out almost 2yrs ago...how many languages have they saved since then? Any updates for us?

[Steve 'StatMan']

So the article came out almost 2yrs ago...how many languages have they saved since then? Any updates for us?

Tink paki hai boop boop.

[GameTheory]

Not me Game (from the you part of your post)....I simply plaguerized this content, and you might say, to stir up the people a bit....

Personally, I think evolution is a bunch of hooey....Heck, even Darwin admitted in his later years, that it (evolution) may not be all that it would seem, after all......

There was a "previous EARTH-AGE" before this one, and the Bible is quite clear on this, and those who would believe that they are fluent in the Bible are ignorant of this, as well.....The previous Earth-Age (dispensation of time, millions of years), was just loaded with animals and lifeforms of all descriptions, and their evidence has been fossilized for all time, for us to see....Yet, so many so called Bible scholars, are ignorant of this aspect of the God's Word, and they believe that Man is only about 6,000 years old....This is true, but only to this EArth AGe (the current dispensation of time)....Man, in this, the current Earth Age, was created "directly and distinctly" the same as we are today.....This ignorance, of a previous dispensation of time, may have been what led Darwin to go off on his merry way, creating fallacies on an order of magnitude.....But, if he were to subscribe to the notion or fact that there "was" an Earth Age, prior to this one, he may not have been so "whacky" in his own right, and perhaps he could have furthered "science" in a more useful way, and not one based on lies and false leads,....(Somewhere along the way, someone found and ape-skull in a cave, and then presumed that somehow we evolved from this ape, because an ape may have wanted some of the same shelter as well as a man might want shelter...haha)

Besides, who would want to out-logic the logicians anyway, many simply don't get it, and are way too full of themselves to believe anything but their own self deluding nonsense, and many remain "ignorant" of the "real truth", because they haven't searched in the right places for it, imo.....

best,No, you sound pretty wacky too. Previous earth age? And for the record, relatively few believe the 6,000 years thing, and very few indeed who are bible scholars. (Although it sounds like your view is even stranger.) Most mainstream Christians have no particular problem with evolution. Even the Catholics are on board. (Most non-religious people and smug liberals who mock the "young Earth" people probably don't realize most religious and conservative people mock them also.) At some point, there is just no denying it, like finally admitting the Earth isn't the center of the solar system and the universe. That didn't take as long, but still Galileo didn't get his apology until 10 years ago...

[rastajenk]

Does mankind get credit for creating new languages as well, or do we just get to suffer the guilt that goes with losing them? Aaarghh, another portal to the past snuffed out by modern man's short-sighted race to total homogeneity!! How could we? :(

Along with computer languages DJ listed, I'm thinking fictional stuff like Eltish or Klingon, and I'm sure there's others, that geeks of a certain nature play around with. And where does a dialect end and a new language begin? Spanglish...Ebonics...We could program a computer to create a new one for every one lost with no trouble at all. If no one actually speaks it, how is it much different from recordings of a language no one speaks anymore? Those are the kinds of question the original post raised in my mind; certainly not whether the entire concept of evolution could be disproved in favor of a more literal Biblical theory. :liar:

[Robert Goren]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif:lol: :lol: :lol: That is just too funny.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I understand the humor, but I thought they left one panel out of the Doonesbury cartoon. The final one, where the patient says, "Just give me whatever works the best, asshole."

[LottaKash]

No, you sound pretty wacky too. Previous earth age? And for the record, relatively few believe the 6,000 years thing, and very few indeed who are bible scholars. (Although it sounds like your view is even stranger.) Most mainstream Christians have no particular problem with evolution. Even the Catholics are on board. (Most non-religious people and smug liberals who mock the "young Earth" people probably don't realize most religious and conservative people mock them also.) At some point, there is just no denying it, like finally admitting the Earth isn't the center of the solar system and the universe. That didn't take as long, but still Galileo didn't get his apology until 10 years ago...

Whacky indeed....If knowing the truth is whacky, then I am whacky...

Still, Darwin was "the" whack job, imo....

1 Cor 3:19
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (KJV)

Rom 1:21-22
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (KJV)

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov 1:7).



Darwin reminds me of a self-annointed, modern day handicapping scholar, who will give you a "most convincing" two page treatement and analysis of a particular race, presenting his pre-ordained view of the race scenario, convincing the readers that the race just "has to come out this way", only to find out in the end that the race didn't turn out the way it should have, and then with a vain attempt, he will then try and explain the outcome further as to why the race didn't pan out the way it he predicted.....That was Darwin as well, imo, with his "dead-end" theory ( with emphasis on theory and not the real truth)...He was a "false teacher", as no one as of yet has proven his "way" to be true.....Sure he had a bright mind and a sincere approach, but his was a false way...He took some false "angles" ran with it and lost his bet and his shirt, and probably his soul, in the process....A bogus handicapper, imo...If he was selling tout and tip sheets, he would have duped the general crowd (and he did, as well as you, but not the small % of real winners), because his horse(s) didn't and won't come in........A Galileo or Pittsburgh Phil, he was not...Just a misguided handicapper using "false angles and false-favorites", imo....
================================================== ======


Game Theory, I present you with a "challenge", take it if you care or dare to....Perhaps the link below will give you some new insight into this topic...It is a bit lengthy, but please read it in it's entirety, and then come back tell me what you think.....At the very worst it will be "food for thought".....You can't lose...:cool:

http://www.biblestudysite.com/1stage.htm



best,

[OTM Al]

Most stupefying thread ever. Might as well say the Bible is irrelevant because the languages most was originally written in are dead as well. Logically makes no more or less sense that these statements.

[GameTheory]

Game Theory, I present you with a "challenge", take it if you care or dare to....Perhaps the link below will give you some new insight into this topic...It is a bit lengthy, but please read it in it's entirety, and then come back tell me what you think.....At the very worst it will be "food for thought".....You can't lose...Sorry, not much food there. It is standard crackpot nonsense. How anyone can read sentences like these:

How on God's earth they could call that thing an "Ape-Man" is beyond me. What do you think? Am I missing something here? Scientists should be ashamed at their foolishness and admit their error instead of covering one lie with an even more bizarre one.... But then their funding would be cut off, wouldn't it? And we couldn't have that, could we? Take a wild guess who's funding them; remember the four Hidden Dynasties of antichrist that he will corrupt and set himself in world power through, i.e., Education, Finance, Politics, Religion!

and nod their head sagely and continue I don't understand. Look, if your aim is to use scientific method to show how science is wrong, you've got to get the scientific method right or you've lost before you've begun. That means leaving the bible verses out completely and not starting out with a conclusion at the beginning and then looking for evidence to back it up while ignoring everything contrary. Since you are not willing to "put the bible aside" I suggest you just leave the subject be.

I know you're thinking but that's what the scientists do (ignore evidence, etc), so if that is true, then you've got to reconcile ALL the facts. I mean, your assertions are totally ridiculous. "Languages are disappearing so evolution is false!" "Someone found a footprint, evolution is false!" Absurd.

I'm done talking about this now. Like I said above, we are so far apart there is no point. You are in an alternate universe. (Scientists believe in those nowadays too, oh boy.)

[TJDave]

the link below will give you some new insight into this topic...It is a bit lengthy, but please read it in it's entirety, and then come back tell me what you think.....At the very worst it will be "food for thought".....You can't lose...:cool: [/left]

http://www.biblestudysite.com/1stage.htm



best,

I did some poking around the 'Watchman' site and found this:

http://www.biblestudysite.com/answers82.htm#9

Classic Christian anti-semitic propaganda.

Do you subscribe to these views?

[OTM Al]

Frankly I'm shocked that anyone in this world still believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real. Over and over this work of absolute hatred has been proven a fake. If this website exemplifies your faith, you need to be taking a very close look at yourself.

[chickenhead]

crap, I followed that link thinking this somehow tied into the graphic novel, The Watchmen. It's kind of like something out of Watchmen, I guess. :)

[hcap]

And for the record, relatively few believe the 6,000 years thing, and very few indeed who are bible scholarsThere are quite a few that would disagree. I have read stranger views from some on this board than "previous and different earth ages".

[GameTheory]

There are quite a few that would disagree. I have read stranger views from some on this board than "previous and different earth ages".I said relatively. If we look at America only, and you add up the members of the churchs who have an official young earth creationist doctrine, you've got less than 5 million people. Which is dwarfed by those that take and old earth creationist stance (relatively few also) or a theistic evolution position (i.e. they accept evolution generally, but still believe in God the creator) which includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and most Protestants. Let's face it, most don't think about it much and just accept whatever doctrine their faith professes. It basically comes down to whether you want to accept the bible literally word-for-word. Those that do find themselves twisted into all sorts of crazy and contradictory positions, which is why they come across as crackpots. They are. (And most of the time they tend not to argue from the evidence, but merely declare this or that as the truth. When they try to pull out some evidence, they look really silly. See this thread.)

Please note the number of young earth people is also dwarfed by those that believe in secular liberal superstitions that are supported by even less evidence. You've got no high ground here, just a different brand of evidence-less silliness.

[hcap]

I said relatively. If we look at America only, and you add up the members of the churchs who have an official young earth creationist doctrine, you've got less than 5 million peopleThere are a few on this board that have taken positions that are scientifically (and biblicaly as well) unsupportable AND as weird as the preposterous previous and different earth ages theory . Even as the evidence for evolution has firmed up, a distinctly anti scientific attitude still exists to the degree that to even well established techniques-radiological, geological,cosmological- of testing the age of the universe/earth are dismissed as some sort of satanist conspiracy. In all my debates with boxcar,(please chime in) a proponent of "the universe is 6000 years but god makes it appear billions of years older", and through his links I have come across many of his sources that represent a sizable number of off the wall theories.The whole Left Behind bunch comes to mind. A huge following.

Personally I have no problem accepting a creator and a ongoing evolutionary process.But the group that can not and will not is larger than you may think

[GameTheory]

There are a few on this board that have taken positions that are scientifically (and biblicaly as well) unsupportable AND as weird as the preposterous previous and different earth ages theory . Even as the evidence for evolution has firmed up, a distinctly anti scientific attitude still exists to the degree that to even well established techniques-radiological, geological,cosmological- of testing the age of the universe/earth are dismissed as some sort of satanist conspiracy. In all my debates with boxcar,(please chime in) a proponent of "the universe is 6000 years but god makes it appear billions of years older", and through his links I have come across many of his sources that represent a sizable number of off the wall theories.The whole Left Behind bunch comes to mind. A huge following.

Personally I have no problem accepting a creator and a ongoing evolutionary process.But the group that can not and will not is larger than you may thinkAgreed. They're not that large (although in some regions and some message boards they are larger proportionately -- in others they are unheard of), but some are very vocal. Boxcar is a fanatic, I've said so before. I have no interest in debating fanatics on religious issues, I see no point. I will sometimes debate secular liberal fanatics not because I think I will convince them, but because the debate will be instructive to the non-fanatics and borderline people who might lean towards that side, and also to clarify arguments for people that already agree. (I don't think the religious fanatics are in danger of converting anyone, at least that I can potentially influence -- those people are on a completely different wavelength and I can't communicate with them.)

[hcap]

Quick search turned up this number. I don't oubt it



Left Behind Series Featured on 60 Minutes - Left Behind
Since its initial launch in 1995, the Left Behind series product line has racked up sales of nearly 60 million copies worldwide.
www.leftbehind.com/05_news/viewNews.asp?pageid=929...17 - Cached

I hope boxcar responds. For years I have been asking him specifically about the age of the universe and earth. Originally he quoted a site indicating literal interpretation of genesis or pretty much the 6000 year stuff. Feeling vulnerable to scientific debunking he backed off, not even taking refuge in "biblical days" or "biblical years". And finally used the "the universe is 6000 years but god makes it appear billions of years older" theory.

I cannot accept others who deem their own take on religion is the only religion. After studying many, the similarities strike me as much more significant than the differences. Tolerance is a gauge of maturity of many teachings. And variations on a universal sense of morality and ethics tie believers of many faiths if only they would listen to each other. Those who are more open to others are the same ones willing to accept the scientific world as well

[GameTheory]

[I]Left Behind Series Featured on 60 Minutes - Left Behind
Since its initial launch in 1995, the Left Behind series product line has racked up sales of nearly 60 million copies worldwide.Why are you so interested in Left Behind? That's about the rapture, end times, etc, and is a fictional thriller. Who cares?

Does it even take a position on the age of the Earth? If so, so what? Does everybody who reads if *believe* it? Hardly. Does everyone who read DaVinci Code believe that? Does everybody who saw the movie JFK believe that?

[OTM Al]

Why are you so interested in Left Behind? That's about the rapture, end times, etc, and is a fictional thriller. Who cares?

Does it even take a position on the age of the Earth? If so, so what? Does everybody who reads if *believe* it? Hardly. Does everyone who read DaVinci Code believe that? Does everybody who saw the movie JFK believe that?

I think it all comes down to literal interpretations of scripture. It's where the 6000 years thing comes along with all the rapture hooey. The fact that they weren't meant to be read that way somehow gets missed entirely.

[WeirdWilly]

The fact that mankind's languages are vanishing from civilization at any alarming rate is proof that evolution is a lie (http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_the_big_hoax.htm). If evolution were true, then the process by which mankind has obtained 7,000 languages would be continuing today. Has the evolutionary process ceased? According to the Bible it never happened in the first place. One would have to be a fool to follow the nonsense of evolution. Hey, if the Big Bang Theory is true, then why was there only one? Why not two or three big bangs, or a thousand? It's amazing to me how people continually place God and the Bible on trial; yet unquestioningly accept the illogical theories of evolution. This just shows their wicked heart of unbelief in the Word of God.



Language always has been, and always will be, EVOLVING (uh oh, dirty word) to communicate what is known, considered, and needs to be expressed. When a language performs that task, it survives. When it doesn't, it fails. Sounds like the definition of evolution.



As far as the Big Bang goes...yes there is a theory that there have been multiple Big Bangs. We may not be the opening act of universal existence.

Also, why is it disrespectful to God to consider the idea that He set things in motion billions of years ago, as opposed to being a stage magician hocus-pocusing us into being about 6 to 7 thousand years ago?

[hcap]

Why are you so interested in Left Behind? That's about the rapture, end times, etc, and is a fictional thriller. Who cares?

Does it even take a position on the age of the Earth? If so, so what? Does everybody who reads if *believe* it? Hardly. Does everyone who read DaVinci Code believe that? Does everybody who saw the movie JFK believe that?
The rapture is originates with Dispensationalism and the writings of f John Nelson Darby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

The age of the universe is central to almost all of the fundamentalist beliefs that have sprung up around mostly literal interpretations of the bible. As OTM Al pointed out. Dispensationalism is pretty literal.

The Left Behind series is very influential. I would guess the readers are not at all like readers of the DaVinci Code. But closer to LottaKash. The Left Behind books have connected up guys like Falwell, Swaggert and Robertson. It is a populist movement that sort of justifies all sorts of off the wall stuff. I do agree mainstream Christianity has nothing to do with it and does accept the secular science pointing to a much older universe. But don't underestimate the numbers of fundamentalist interpretations and followers.

BTW, there are some similarities with Darby and LottaKash's previous and different earth ages theory. Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium.

[hcap]

Political as well.



<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjxVw49ftfA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjxVw49ftfA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[hcap]

The message is based on Darby and LaHaye
Well done and why this stuff resonates

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l0ktKCX3ufA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l0ktKCX3ufA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[GameTheory]

The Left Behind series is very influential. I would guess the readers are not at all like readers of the DaVinci Code. But closer to LottaKash. The Left Behind books have connected up guys like Falwell, Swaggert and Robertson. It is a populist movement that sort of justifies all sorts of off the wall stuff."The" readers. Like they are all the same. You know, some diet books are very influential, for a little while. People go on the South Beach diet for a couple weeks, and then they are back to whatever they were eating before. Very few people read something and then change their behavior or views permanently. It has got a bunch of crackpot ideas and many people have read it. So what? What else is new?

Like I keep pointing out, things like the New York Times are also full of crackpot ideas and lots of people read that too. Marx is very influential. You may even have sympathy for his brand of nonsense. How much misery has that caused?

What's the special concern here? Guys like Falwell, Swaggert, and Robertson are all less influential than they once were 20 years ago. There have always been various brands of crackpots and fanatics rising and falling and there always will be. Why not pick on the rise of radical fascist Islamists -- they seem to be doing a lot of actual damage. Are we really under siege from the Left Behind crowd?

Lots of ideas are out there competing -- I don't think "Left Behind" is winning...

[hcap]

What's the special concern here? Guys like Falwell, Swaggert, and Robertson are all less influential than they once were 20 years ago. There have always been various brands of crackpots and fanatics rising and falling and there always will be. Why not pick on the rise of radical fascist Islamists -- they seem to be doing a lot of actual damage. Are we really under siege from the Left Behind crowd?This thread started with 1 crackpot theory. I tried to point out some others that are much wider in popularity than that of the previous and different earth ages theory and the threads' original topic and claim 7,000-Languages.....there they go...

Yeah in the larger world radical Islam is certainly a greater danger. Radical fundamentalist Islam is another literal interpretation of religion

Christianity has matured and accepted the modern world. Falwell et al have less influence than Darby did. But in the age of the tele-vangelical,almost all literal fundies-not mainstream Christianity get their message out there. Left Behinders are solidly in that literal fundie camp and provide another silly leg to stand on. As in the above video. The whole Rapture bit is a major theme in all of it. And a cottage industry. The literal fundie camp is widespread. And competing strongly the battle of ideas.

The modern origins of the literal interpretation fundamentalists. Granted not all are as extreme as mentioned.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/myss.htm

Those Christians who clung to the old belief that every word of the Bible was literally true -- called biblical inerrancy -- came together and formulated their beliefs at a series of revival meetings and Bible study conferences that took place across North America from Ontario to Southern California between 1875 and 1915. These groups agreed on five "fundamentals" of Christian belief that were enumerated in a series of 12 paperback volumes containing scholarly essays on the Bible that appeared between 1910 and 1915, entitled The Fundamentals.

...By definition, fundamentalists also believe in some form of creationism, the doctrine that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, rather than the billions claimed by modern science, and that God created man and woman and all the species outright, rather than by a process of evolution

South beach diet and other fads are part and parcel of everyday life. True or false, fads and tends are minor belief systems bought into generally momentarily and not for soul searching questions of why where or how. I would think more discrimination is needed for life or death religion or science issues

I would not put the NYT( maybe Fox) in the same camp.And I bet the TV audience for the most popular TV tele-vangelicals way way outdraws the readership of the NYT.

Economic systems are not supported by the bible or other religious writings, contrary to what boxcar claims. Capitalism or Marxism can be argued rationally. Religion cannot. Belief is non rational by definition. Which economic system or neither one accepts should be based on some factual info.

I do accept some of Marx's criticisms of free markets but not the Marxist solution.

This thread is very interesting

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73886