Godless Linguistics

University of Ediacara Bizarre Theories Collection ^ | 1997-12-17 | Christopher Heiny

[Junior]

Bump.

[Lurking Libertarian]

LOLOL!

[gfactor]

Obviously, the first language must have a designer: God.

And obviously the first language just popped up, it didn't develop slowly. And the reason new words come up is because god isn't perfect and didn't make a good enough language at first. "word is born".

Linguistics paints a picture of languages increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is FALSIFIED.

Isn't increasing entropy => more complex languages, ie, exactly the opposite? oh well.

[Dimensio]

>>Sorry. The word "woodpecker" is simply far to complex to develop
>>naturaly, as has been PROVED to you many times before.
>>Learn the model, Lingui-babbler. Instead of showwing you're own
>>ingorance.

>>Besides, no one has shown yet how a complete language could come from
>> a dead gaggle of GRUNTS.

I must say, this is a perfect parody of 'karl' who constantly harps on about "Evo-babblers" never being able to prove that we all came from a "dead puddle of GUE!" (even after being told several thousand times that the correct spelling is "goo" and that evolution makes no such claims).

Rather amusing. Not a logical argument (it's simply argument by ridicule), but it is an effective and accurate satire of many evolution debates I've seen on USENET.

[jmc813]

Imagine the grief this author must have gone through as a kid with a name like that?

[tortoise]

But the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is FALSIFIED.

This kind of grotesque misunderstanding and misuse of thermodynamics by creationists is really irritating. It is almost like this person is being intentionally stupid. First, higher system complexity generally equals higher entropy (though this isn't even a direct relationship), all other things being equal, so the author doesn't even understand the terms. Second, total entropy increases in any CLOSED system. Note that this is why increased complexity in organisms on earth does not violate the same rule; huge amounts of energy are expended (from the sun, etc) to create relatively tiny decreases in entropy and fortunately we have lots of energy to waste. Even the act of constructing concepts within your brain (an entropy reducing function) actually generates 10^8 more entropy than is reduced when you take everything into account. The only way the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ever "violated" is when people confuse an open system with a closed one.

[John H K]

This kind of grotesque misunderstanding and misuse of thermodynamics by creationists is really irritating. It is almost like this person is being intentionally stupid.

BINGO! It's a parody of stupid creationist arguments written by an evolutionist.

[Dimensio]

BINGO! It's a parody of stupid creationist arguments written by an evolutionist.

And if you've ever read talk.origins you would know that the parody arguments are based on the arguments of real posters there. The "Dead gaggle of GRUNTS" line was satirizing a loon named "karl" (who used some distorted images of woodpecker anatomy to "prove" creationism somehow) and the line about Splifford was parodying a proponent of Catastrophism named Ted.

[FormerLib]

Clearly, language is the result of intelligent design. ;-)

[BMCDA]

AKA medved here on FR.

[BMCDA]

AKA medved here on FR.

[Gumlegs]

Clearly, language is the result of intelligent design.

Well, that rules out English as a language. I cannot believe anyone who understands English could consider it "intelligently designed."

[BMCDA]

D'oh! I hate double posts!

[Tauzero]

Damn those godless, cunning linguists.

[Tribune7]

Are you making the case that the development of language is analogious to the development of genetic code?

[LuvItOrLeaveIt]

Bump

[John H K]

I read talk.origins quite a bit but haven't in the last year or so. I'm familiar with Ted, though.

Just interesting that someone seemed to have been fished in. Though, if the explanatory material had been removed, and the e-mails presented here as an article, I'm fairly convinced you would have fished in some creationists who would have agreed with it.

[Dimensio]

I read talk.origins quite a bit but haven't in the last year or so. I'm familiar with Ted, though.

I only lurk around every now and then -- I've not enough scientific knowledge or background to provide much in terms of support, but the creationist arguments tend to be so bad that even I can tear them apart from a logic aspect.
karl has been MIA for some time, dunno about Ted. Ed Conrad is back, as is John McCoy (aka Nameless) who is championing Ron Wyatt's chariot wheels.

[Gumlegs]

If you want to know about Ted, use the search function. Type in "from: medved." You'll find thousands of posts ... seven or eight of them different.