Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Tower of Babel? Yes, The Bible is right again! Languages, like all things, come from God.

Languages?  Perhaps only man has a language that can deal with abstract concepts because only man has an eternal element that other organisms do not have.  But even bacteria have languages, as I have mentioned previously...since a commenter who was NOT a troll really wanted to pursue the subject of languages and Babel?   Languages are fairly common among organisms as we are now learning.  Heck, even rats have a language!  Excerpt from Creation Moment:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard."
It was once thought that language was a relatively late development in the evolution of man. Language among the lower animals was dismissed as a fantasy. So when the Bible speaks of the whole creation praising God, these same people said that this was just a figurative expression. Now modern science has shown that many creatures do have a language of their own – language which, we point out, can also be used to praise the Creator.
Norway ratThe human ear can detect sounds between 20 and 20,000 vibrations per second. Many creatures that we once thought were silent are busy communicating in sounds well above this range of frequencies, and we just don't hear them. Scientists have cataloged many of the calls of Norway rats who communicate at 70,000 vibrations per second and conclude that they have the richest vocabulary of calls with specific meanings. Young rat pups screech a distress call that reaches the same volume as a jackhammer, yet we are not able to hear it.
There is an advantage for these small rodents having such a high-pitched language. Even though many predators, like cats, can easily hear these frequencies, the loudest call does not travel far enough to give away the location of the nest.
Language is a gift from our Creator; therefore, it is only fitting that the entire creation has language with which to praise Him!

The table of nations found in the Book of Genesis has been confirmed by studying the records of various cultures of the world.  But on to the main point...

The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics

Secular linguists are puzzled by the existence of twenty or so language families in the world today. The languages within each family (and the people that speak them) have been shown to be genetically related, but few genetic links have been observed between families. This is a problem for secular linguists. If, as they believe, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor, man would at some point have gained the ability to speak. This process of change would actually be superbly dangerous, as they admit. But still, if speech did evolve somewhere, somehow, we would expect to find that all languages are genetically related. They clearly are not. Some have therefore suggested that man evolved speech simultaneously in more than one place. This suggestion is beyond belief, considering the dangers involved in the supposed evolution of speech. So how did the language families come into existence?

The conventional view (A) and Biblical view (B) of language development. In the conventional view, language developed from a single ‘protolanguage’ and diverged into different languages as time progressed. In the Biblical model, man was created with language. This was supernaturally changed at Babel where God ‘confused’ the languages. Scripture does not directly state how many languages arose at Babel
Only Genesis provides a credible explanation. It records how God gave the people new languages to speak. Groups speaking the same language moved away together. The languages they spoke then, have slowly evolved into the six thousand-or-so languages we find today, but the distinctions between the groups of languages are still observable, as we shall see.
Determining whether or not languages share a common ancestor is not easy. A Dutch student learning Hindi might not realize that Hindi is related to Dutch. Yet, both languages have been shown to be part of the Indo-European language family. Steel has previously covered in detail the development of the Indo-European languages, clearly refuting claims that this paralleled biological evolution.1 Apparently, all languages in this family have developed from a ‘parent language’, which no longer exists.
This idea was unknown in the late 18th century, until Sir William Jones suggested that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit had independently ‘sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists’.2 He also suggested that other groups of languages, such as the Celtic and Germanic languages, though quite different, might also be related in the same way. Few question his findings today. Comparative and Historical Linguistics have more or less carried on what Jones began. Two centuries have revealed much, and the findings are encouraging for Creationists, who believe the account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 to be a true, historical account of events.
In this essay we shall be looking at some of the evidence for Babel, and examine two rival theories as well. Before we do that, let us have a brief look at the methods involved.

Language classification

The Indo-European language family is not the only language family in the world. There are others, which are more difficult to examine. We have many writings of some European languages, covering more than 2,500 years of development. For many other languages, however, there are no writings at all. That makes the study of their development more complicated.
The traditional way of comparing languages was to compare the history and grammar structures of two languages, while keeping in mind physical and cultural similarities between the tribes. This method was useful in Europe, but it was time-consuming and proved difficult in Africa. Several decades of hard work at the beginning of this century had uncovered only the tip of the iceberg, as far as all languages in Africa were concerned.
A dramatic breakthrough came in the person of Joseph Greenberg in the middle of last century. Greenberg came up with a new method. He collected lists of words from many African languages, and compared them with each other. He noticed clear patterns. Several languages had similar sounding words for similar things, and Greenberg concluded that these languages must therefore be related. His method has become the norm in comparative linguistics.
Greenberg’s method is one of two major ways of classifying languages. Typological classification looks at grammatical structures and classifies languages accordingly. However, there may not be a genetic relationship between languages with a similar typological makeup. Since we are interested in genetic relationship we will now have a brief look at the second method, Genetic Qualification, and consider its findings in relation to our essay question.

Genetic qualification

Core vocabulary
Genetic qualification prefers to use only ‘core vocabulary’, i.e. words which are said to change little over time. The method aims to see how many of these words are similar in different languages, while keeping in mind how words usually change in pronunciation.
The core vocabulary includes, amongst others, words for body parts, numbers, and personal pronouns. When clear patterns of similarities between languages are observed, then those languages are said to be related.
Cognate words
The word ‘patterns’ in the previous paragraph was carefully chosen, because the core vocabulary between related languages is never identical, but similar, or ‘cognate’. Words are cognate when they are shown to be consistent to the pattern of phonetical change that has taken place in the past. For example, the word tahi in Tongan might not look like kai in Hawaiian, even though they both mean ‘sea’. But, if you also compare Tongan tapu to Hawaiian kapu (both meaning ‘forbidden’) and Tongan tanata to Hawaiian kanaka (meaning ‘man’) you begin to see a pattern: Where Tongan has an initial ‘T’ Hawaiian has an initial ‘K’, and one begins to see that the words might be related. They are cognate.3
Common phonetic changes
Deciding which words are cognate and which words are not is never easy. Different scholars have made different judgements when comparing the same lists. There is no general agreement in all cases. There are, however, a few rules to go by, as certain phonetical changes are more likely to occur than others. Stronger sounds, for example, may become weaker.
Equally, words may lose initial or final letters, or merge two consonants into one. These changes are fairly common. The opposites of these examples may also happen, but are less common. Words easily lose sound; they rarely gain it.

Findings after many decades of observation

Comparative linguistics has come a long way since Greenberg began his radical technique. His method has been used extensively across the world, and has led to the systematical genetic categorisation of most languages in the world.4 There is no agreement in detail, but the following groupings, with several variations, are common.5
European and Asian families
The Indo-European family covers most of Europe plus a part of south west Asia. In northern Europe we find the Uralic Family, which includes Finnish and Hungarian. In north-east Asia we find the Chukchi-Kamchatkan family. Central Asia and the rest of northern Asia host the Altaic family, which also contains Turkish. Southern Asia hosts the Sino-Tibetan, Dravidian, Daic and Austroasiatic families. Finally, the Caucasus may host two further families.
Pacific families
The Pacific is host to three or four families. The languages of the Australian Aborigines are usually grouped as one family, as are the languages spoken on mainland Papua. There is no agreement on the treatment of Tasmanian, which is now extinct. The Austronesian family includes languages spoken on Madagascar, the Southern part of the Malaysian Peninsula, the Indonesian Islands, the Philippines, and the Maori languages.
African families
The Afro-Asiatic (Arabic) family is found in North Africa, the Nilo-Saharan languages are spoken in the centre of Africa; the Niger-Kongo family, which includes Swahili, is found in west and east Africa and the Khosian languages are spoken in the south-west of Africa.
American families
The Americas host three major families, with many sub-groupings. The Aleut-Eskimo is found in northern Canada, from the eastern part of Alaska to Greenland. The Na-Dene group is found in north-eastern Canada and Alaska, and also includes some languages spoken in the south west of the United States. Finally, the Amerind family covers the rest of the Americas.
Picture incomplete
In this classification we count some twenty major families. However, this classification is far from complete. Several languages seem unrelated to any other language, and are treated by some as separate families. Moreover, new discoveries are made regularly, which may show two families to be related. This, in turn, may cause two families to merge into one. Ruhlen, for example, found many similarities recently between the isolated language Ket (spoken in Siberia) and some of the Na-Dene languages, which suggests they may be related.6 These discoveries do not surprise all linguists. Some believe that all families ultimately go back to one single language, which came into existence when humans first developed speech. Others argue that human speech developed independently in different places, thus resulting in several language families, while Creationists argue that the Tower of Babel Account in Genesis 11 explains the existence of the variety of families observed today.7 Let us see what evidence there is for or against each side.

Evidence for one single proto language?

‘The ultimate question, is’, says Ruhlen, ‘whether all human languages are genetically related’,8 but the evidence for this is scarce. There are a few words which, he says, are similar in all languages. However, the words he gives in his example do not have the same meaning in every language. The meanings vary from ‘one’ to ‘finger’ and ‘hand’.9 There are similarities between them, but this is not convincing evidence of genetic relationship between language families.
It must be pointed out, though, that we cannot go back too far in time. Core vocabulary is stable, but does change. In some languages this change has been measured for more than 2,000 years. The result shows that 19.5% of the core vocabulary changes every 1,000 years.10 If this is the same for all languages, it means that statistically all words in a language should be replaced within a period of about 10,000 years. That would make any research beyond that period of time impossible. This, in turn, makes it impossible to prove that all language families are ultimately related.

Evidence for the evolution of speech?

Trask shows that humans differ from their ‘closest relatives, the apes’ in that their vocal tracts are much longer and differently shaped, thus making speech possible. However, the shape is also dangerous, as it could lead to choking. ‘The idea is’, says Trask, ‘that speech and language proved to be so beneficial to the species that we became specialised for it even at the cost of losing a number of fellows to death by choking every year.’11 However, Trask remains unsure as to how and when this change occurred.
O’Grady and Dobrovolsky, similarly, despite describing in some detail how the brain processes speech, admit ignorance as to how and when speech developed. ‘We know considerably less about the evolutionary specialisation for non vocal aspects of language … and the interpretation of meaning.’12 Again, there is no evidence to back their view that speech evolved.
It seems clear from their writings that they take the Evolution Theory for granted. Ruhlen admits that ‘scholars supporting monogenesis or the relatability of all languages run the risk of being branded Creationists and of therefore having their work disregarded by colleagues’.9

Evidence pointing to Babel

It seems that there is little evidence to support the view that all languages evolved from one or more proto-languages.
We have seen that the history of languages cannot be traced back for more than 10,000 years. We have also seen lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of human speech. It seems that there is little evidence to support the view that all languages evolved from one or more proto-languages. There is, however, another explanation for the existence of the language families in the world today. This explanation is found in Genesis.
We will now examine the evidence supporting the Babel account found in Genesis 11. We will focus in particular on three areas where the findings of historical and comparative linguistics back this account.
Language families
We are unsure how many languages spread out from Babel. The Bible teaches that everyone at Babel spoke the same language; it says ‘the whole world had one language and a common speech’. Clearly not enough time had passed for other fully fetched languages to develop since Noah and his family left the Ark, especially since all the people were in one place—though slightly different dialects might have developed in the period between Noah leaving the Ark and the tower of Babel. In any case, the conclusions reached in this essay that Genesis adequately explains the findings of historical and comparative linguistics would be the same. The exact location of Babel is unknown. It is possible that one of the Ziggurats unearthed in modern Iraq is the remains of the infamous tower. As the number of people alive at the time would not have been great, about a dozen or so languages would probably have been plenty.13 Keeping in mind how languages change, we would expect, as Wieland suggests, to find several distinct language families today.
‘ … it should be possible to group [languages] together into “families” like the Indo-European family of languages. But there should be no links between one “family” and another. That is because, in this model, each distinct language family is the offshoot of an original Babel “stem language” which did not arise by chance from a previous ancestral language.’14
The Babel account suggests that several languages came into existence on that day. It is presented as a miraculous intervention by God. It is unlikely to have been acceleration of normal language changes (i.e. they did speak the same language, but dialects began to form) as people in the same area generally speak the same dialect.
We have already seen that at present about twenty language families are being distinguished, with yet some ‘isolated’ languages unaccounted for. There are indications that further research will reveal that some of these families may be related to each other, resulting in fewer families.7
Clearly distinguishable families however, continue to puzzle secular linguists, who generally believe languages evolved naturally, as these distinctions are not consistent with the expectations their hypotheses demand.
If the percentage of word loss described above is correct, we expect to see many similarities, still, between all languages in each family after only 5,000 years since Babel. However, the absence of any contact between languages in one family, over such a period, could result in greater word loss, so that comparing those languages today would indicate no relation. Also, some languages have a much quicker word loss, for cultural reasons. These languages, therefore, change much quicker.15
The findings of some twenty language families, then, with several ‘isolated’ languages unaccounted for, is consistent with our expectations, as outlined above. Clearly distinguishable families however, continue to puzzle secular linguists, who generally believe languages evolved naturally, as these distinctions are not consistent with the expectations their hypotheses demand.
Timing consistent
Even though he seems convinced that all languages stem from a single Proto Language, Robins talks of a ‘unitary state’ of the Indo-European language family, which is ‘as far as one can at present go by comparative and historical inference’. He adds, ‘Whatever date may be ascribed (and 3,000 BC has been suggested) aeons of linguistic history lie behind it [emphasis mine].’16 However, it seems odd to believe in those ‘aeons of linguistic history’, without any evidence, unless one takes the evolution theory for granted, as he does. The evidence indicates otherwise. We do observe an original language, or at least, traces of it, from which the Indo-European languages have derived. The 3,000 years BC, which Robins mentions, is significant, as such a time span is consistent with the Biblical account.
Moreover, recent findings, as we have seen, suggest that Ket is related to the Na-Dene languages. This suggests that the tribes are related, but that they separated when the American tribes moved from Asia across the Bering Strait into America. Wieland points out that ‘to have such close correlation’s still existing makes little sense if the migrations were as much as 11,000 years ago, as is commonly believed. From the biblical record, they would have been less than some 4,000 years ago’.17 Again, the evidence backs the Genesis account.
Language design and change
‘All languages are something of a ruin’; a quote Crowley attributes to Dutch linguist van der Tuuk. ‘What he meant, was that as a result of changes having taken place, some “residual” forms are often left to suggest what the original state of affairs might have been.’18 Crowley carries on to share how languages can change from sophisticated to simpler versions, and from simpler to more complex systems. He distinguishes between, ‘isolating’, ‘agglutinating’ and ‘inflecting’ languages and shows how languages change in circular patterns.
Isolating languages, he says, are those where every word has only one meaning, i.e. no endings. They tend to become agglutinating when free form grammatical markers, i.e. prepositions, are phonologically reduced to endings or suffixes. Agglutinating languages thus look ‘as if the bits of the language were simply “glued” together to make up larger words’.19 Subsequent morphological reduction make the original grammatical markers unrecognizable, but the endings remain functional. The language has become an inflecting language, in which ‘there are many morphemes included within a single word, but the boundaries between one morpheme and another are not clear.’19 Finally, morphological reduction makes the language lose its ‘cases’ and the language returns to being an isolating language.
In the case of Greek, this change can be seen very clearly in history. Classical Greek was a highly inflected language; it used five cases, as well as Active, Middle and Passive voice. Koine Greek was almost reduced to four cases, and the Middle voice was used rather inconsistently. Modern Greek distinguishes only three cases, but many endings have disappeared. It is a good example of van der Tuuk’s Ruin, as it is slowly becoming an isolated language.
Crowley’s model shows that languages can change from inflecting languages, with ‘endings’, to isolating languages. These may appear to be easier in structure, but are in fact equally complex, as the lack of subtle nuances, which the endings and prefixes often provide, leads to ambiguity.
Crowley does show that isolating languages can change further and pick up complicated case systems after they have lost them. However, this model cannot be used to explain the origin of highly sophisticated language systems like Sanskrit and Greek. History shows that when a language changes, it tends to become more user-friendly. It likes to be flexible. When it has rid itself of cases, it is free to make them up again. However, as these changes are spontaneous, unplanned, and often unnoticed, it seems impossible that a language as sophisticated and regular as the Indo-European ‘parent’ was made up from a simpler form. Language change, as Crowley’s model shows, would be unlikely to produce consistent endings for the whole of the Inflecting Language.20
Steel1 has shown how modern Indo-European languages have reduced the number of noun inflections for different case, gender and number; and different verbs inflection for tense, voice, number and person. He also showed how English has also lost 65–85% of the Old English vocabulary, and many Classical Latin words have also been lost from its descendants, the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.).
Steel1 also pointed out that most of the changes were not random, but the result of intelligence. For example: forming compound words by joining simple words and derivations by adding prefixes and suffixes, modification of meaning, and borrowing words from other languages including calques (a borrowed compound word where each component is translated and then joined). There are also unconscious but definitely non-random changes such as systematic sound shifts, for example those described by Grimm’s Law (which relates many Germanic words to Latin and Greek words).
The fact remains that the Greek/Sanskrit parent was utterly consistent, and highly sophisticated. If chance, then, did not make this Proto Language, where did it get its consistency from? The only credible explanation is found in Genesis 11. It suggests a Designer. In Babel one of the groups was given the sophisticated, and utterly consistent, Proto Indo-European language. Sadly, as people in a fallen world began to use this language, it slowly began to lose some its consistency, as grammatical mistakes became fashionable. Today, some 5,000 years later, some of the languages which descended from it, still have some traces left of the original case system. Some have completely rid themselves of it, and have become isolating languages, while others have made up entirely new case systems, but less consistent and less sophisticated than the original.
The observation of language structure and language change, therefore, is also more consistent with the account of the Tower of Babel than rival theories.


The facts we observe today are consistent with the Tower of Babel account in Genesis 11, but this does not prove the correctness of the account. Since the history of languages cannot be reconstructed beyond 10,000 years, evidence for (and against) alternative views is limited.
However, if we take an objective look at the facts at our disposal we cannot but draw the conclusion that the Bible account has far more going for it than the alternatives, for which there is little, if any, evidence. We therefore wholeheartedly believe that the findings of historical and comparative linguistics have served indeed to affirm the Tower of Babel account recorded in Genesis 11, beyond reasonable doubt. As always, Scripture cannot be ‘proven to be right’ by man’s findings. We believe Scripture is right, as it originates from an infallible God. However, where man’s findings are objectively interpreted, they usually affirm the accounts in Scripture, rather than deny them. This paper has applied the findings of historical and comparative linguistics to the Genesis account, and found that the facts to our disposal are affirmative indeed.
Believing this account, however, requires believing in God, and the denial of the evolution theory, which suggests that all animals, humans, and even human language, arose by chance. For many, this might prove too big a price to pay, despite the evidence.


  1. Steel, A.K., The development of languages is nothing like biological evolutionJournal of Creation 14(2):31–40, 2000. Return to text.
  2. Cited in: Crowley, T., An Introduction to Historical Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 24, 1992. Return to text.
  3. Crowley, Ref. 2, pp. 91ff. Return to text.
  4. Certain languages, like Basque, seem to have little in common with other languages. They are either not classified, or treated as a separate language familyReturn to text.
  5. Ruhlen, M., A guide to the World’s Languages, Edward Arnold, London, 1987. Return to text.
  6. Ruhlen, M., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences95:13994–13996, 1998, as cited in: Wieland, C., Siberian Links for AmerindiansCreation21(3):9, 1999. Return to text.
  7. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, pp. 257ff. Return to text.
  8. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, p. 260. Return to text.
  9. Ruhlen, Ref. 5, p. 261. Return to text.
  10. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 169. Return to text.
  11. Trask, R.L., Language, the Basics, Routledge, London, p. 18, 1999. Return to text.
  12. O’Grady, M. and Dobrovolsky, M., Contemporary Linguistics, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 10, 1989. Return to text.
  13. Wieland, C., Towering changeCreation 22(1):22–26, citing p. 26, 1999. Return to text.
  14. Wieland, Ref. 13, p. 26. Return to text.
  15. Crowley, Ref. 2, pp. 155f. Return to text.
  16. Robins, R.H., General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey, Longmans, London, p. 229. Return to text.
  17. Wieland, C., Siberian links for AmerindiansCreation 21(3):9, 1999. Return to text.
  18. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 122. Return to text.
  19. Crowley, Ref. 2, p. 135. Return to text.
  20. It could possibly make such patterns for an agglutinating language, but not for an inflecting language, as the phonological reduction would not be consistent.Return to text.

Chinese Characters and Genesis

Here are seven modern Chinese Characters that show that the ancient Chinese knew the Gospel message found in the book of Genesis. In the book Oracle Bones Speak by Ethel Nelson, Richard Broadberry and Dr Ginger Tong Chock, hundreds more are revealed.
Find out:
  • Do the mysterious ancient Chinese characters have a biblical meaning that has been largely lost?
  • What was the meaning of the 4,000-year-old Border Sacrifice that the Chinese emperors observed annually?
  • Who was Shangdi (上帝), worshipped in the Border Sacrifice?
Painstaking analysis of the most ancient forms of Chinese writing, written on pieces of bone, reveals the original thoughts and beliefs of their inventors.
Using many examples, the authors show that the inventor(s) of the original Chinese characters knew and believed the account of creation as well as the promise of the Saviour to come. Shangdi, worshipped at the Border Sacrifice, was the Triune God more fully revealed in the Bible.
Following are some examples that clearly survive in the modern forms of the characters, but the connection with Genesis is even clearer when the most ancient records of Chinese writing are checked.
There are also many more examples found in Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn’t Solve and Oracle Bones Speak.
The more you study (while avoiding the propaganda) the more you realize that creation by God is the only logical and intelligent position and any other concept is merely pagan superstition dressed up in modern clothes...


Anonymous said...

"a commenter who was NOT a troll"

Funny how it's the people who keep YOU from changing the subject are now the trolls. Just another day in up-is-down world.

radar said...

No, I actually had a commenter who wanted to have an honest discussion and that was a refreshing change.

For instance, I made a post on the idea of how we handle homosexual acts and those who do them and trolls poured out a mass of unrelated questions and statements.

I make my statements in posts and commenters who are too lazy to research what I have already posted are not worth a lot of my time. Especially when they change the questions. For example, one troll instisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES. Since I am quite sure the Flood produced the polystrates, then they were produced around 4300 years ago.

By the way, the C-14 present in fossils in ALL layers and even in diamonds should clue Darwinists in to the idea that their myth will soon be exposed. Now paleontologists are looking for and finding actual remains, not just fossils, and that includes dinosaurs...even DNA.

Also, a natural source for life itself has proved to be impossible. So why do Darwinists still exist? Censorship, propaganda and brainwashing...anyone who strays from the party line faces loss of career. It really reminds me of Stalinist Russia.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

You know, lying in general is bad form, but lying about a commenter when the body is not yet even cold is pretty low. Let's look at the conversation:

You said:
For example, one troll instisted I could not show or produce polystrates thrust through several layers and, after I did, he changed it to polystrates stretching through different DATES.

But my very first statement regarding polystrates in the post we're discussing ( was:
Which is simply regurgitation of the original claim and does not answer an issue that has been brought up a number of times on this very blog in the last few years - namely that polystrate trees going through layers is not a big deal unless you show that those layers represent long ages.

You'll notice that the above doesn't claim you can't show polystrates going through layers, and specifically states that layers aren't the issue - ages are.

In that same thread, Anonymos said:
Do you have an example where the polystrate represents layers that do represent a passage of millions of years? All the examples so far just indicate an example of rapid submersion, which is unremarkable.

All you have EVER replied to this line of questioning with is some variation of "SEE??? There are lots of LAYERS!!!!ELEBENTY!!!"

I'd say I'm surprised that a Christian could be so dishonest when facts are so easy to check, but I'm not. Not really.

radar said...

I consider people like you to be evil and your lies are part of the evil you spread, Mouse. Not just wrong, not just deceptive, but evil. You are among those who deliberately lead people to Hell. I am certainly not Jesus and you are not a Pharisee, but Jesus saved wrathful words for Satan, demons and leaders of men who led o9thers to Hell. So Darwinists who teach others to believe in that claptrap are evil and not worth much time other than to identify. Scientists, teachers and writers who spread Darwinist BS are a menace to society. It is pretty obvious the US has been going downhill ever since a President who actually believed such idiocy, Wilson, began pushing Eugenics and segregation and encouraging the teaching of Darwinism in classrooms.

You know quite well that any tree that spans dozens of layers of sediment could not have stood there for many layers of soil horizons. It would have to be buried in a flood, and the rocks and coal deposits all show water burial when inspected, with the exception of some top layers that were made shortly after the Flood and of course the Igneous Provinces that are associated with volcanic activity DURING the Flood.

But you would rather die that admit the truth.

radar said...

I will say, though, that it is pretty humorous to watch you trip over your own words. Rapid burial? True..ALL the sedimentary rocks preserved all those fossils precisely because of the rapid burial of said fossils during the Noahic Flood, the only possible way billions of tons of sediments could trap millions, perhaps billions of fossils (depending on how you define the word) rapidly and, in most cases, in nice flat layers like a cake.

You even speak the truth by mistake sometimes while trying out another lie.

Since Darwinist cannot explain a beginning to existence, or of information, or of life, or of energy, then why should anyone pay attention to what they say about anything else?

radar said...

Rapid submersion was the exact wording, which is actually even more rich! Ah, the gift that keeps on giving is the Darwinist troll...

radar said...

«« The theory of evolution... presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutionary transformations... perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1859 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted.
Presently, nature appears to be more steady, more firm and more refractory to changes than we thought... The world supposed by transformation is a phantasmagoric, surrealistic world...
Personally I believe this phantasmagoria has existed before the calm and stable reality that we now observe in the nature. »»

Jean Rostand,
1972, quoted in J. Garrido: "Evolution and Molecular Biology," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 10 (1973): 168.
More quotes at

Thank you, Jean!

Anonymos said...

Radar, you were just caught lying red-handed, and the evidence is there for all to see, simply by looking at your statements in the second comment in this thread and then going to the link that Anton Q. Mouse presented to see what was actually said. You can not reasonably claim ignorance of the facts at hand, since you took part in the conversation just a couple of days ago.

You may think that people who disagree with you are "evil" (and I can assure you that we only seek reasonable, fact-based dialogue, which is hindered by your bewildering predilection towards dishonesty of all stripes), but you should be careful which path you choose. Jesus never saw the need to lie. Perhaps you've forgotten the Commandments. You've most certainly lost sight of Proverbs 6:16-19.

What do your fellow Christians make of your problem with lying?

Don't you understand how utterly foolish it is of you to surrender the moral high ground, especially when you aim to be an ambassador of a supposedly superior morality?

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Wait a minute...

Radar gets caught blatantly lying, and somehow that means I'm evil?

That's... precious.

radar said...

I didn't what are you talking about, trolls?

radar said...

You are accusing me of lying and I didn't lie. Typical behavior of some past commenters. Put up or shut up.

radar said...

That's what I thought. I did NOT lie. I said I had posted evidence and information on polystrates that extend through several layers and I have. I even put one of several links that I could have given the guy showing a few cases of polystrates extending through many layers. There is a post in which I had a tree that extend through about 90 feet of coal deposits. You can research or you can give up, whatever. The fact remains that I did say it and I did prove it. The commenter then came back with (hilarious) a statement that the examples were covered by rapid submersion!!! That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Polystrates are all over the place. Global flood.

Anonymos said...

"That's what I thought. I did NOT lie."

You draw this conclusion based on the fact that nobody responded to your previous comment in 25 minutes? Your brazenness truly knows no bounds.

Your lie is of course explained in this comment. Kinda hard to miss in this comment thread, it even has sections in bold.

Your lie is that you claimed that you had provided what was asked and then the commenters supposedly changed their minds, when just the opposite is true: you failed to come up with what was asked from the beginning (as Anton Q. Mouse explained in detail) and no commenter changed their mind about what was asked. We merely insisted that you answer the question that would actually make your claims about polystrate fossils worthwhile.

What you have provided so far doesn't confirm a global flood nor does it falsify an old Earth, so you in essence have NOTHING on this issue.

Ask Tas Walker. Ask John Sarfati.

"There is a post in which I had a tree that extend through about 90 feet of coal deposits."

And if those coal deposits don't exhibit a significant difference in age from the bottom to the top of these layers, then we can all just agree that they were submerged rapidly. It doesn't confirm or falsify either side. That's what you completely fail to understand.

So not only do you have no actual case here, you've willingly chosen to concede the moral high ground by lying needlessly and not repenting for it, which is truly un-Christian behavior.

Would your family or your local parish condone your behavior?

I think you have some soul-searching to do.

radar said...

You can pretend all you like. You are lying about me when you say I am lying. I do not have to do any soul-searching.

I provided one link, but there are over a dozen posts I have done on various aspects of polystrate fossils and those posts show the idiocy of Darwinism and the fallacy of uniformitarianism.

You lie because you are a liar, it is natural for you so you are comfortable with it. That is a big problem and maybe YOU should do soul-searching.

If polystrates indicate rapid submersion and they are found all over the globe in rock layers everywhere, then you have inadvertently supported the Flood model. Congratulations!

Anonymos said...

Radar, your lie was clearly demonstrated and is there for all your readers to see. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

I challenge other Christian readers to join this discussion and voice their opinion as to whether Radar blatantly lied in the 2nd comment of this comment thread, as clearly explained in the 3rd comment. Would anybody care to defend him?

At this point, both with regard to the demonstrated lie and the polystrate discussion, I have to conclude that Radar is one of the most obtuse and/or one of the most dishonest specimens I've ever encountered on the Internet. It doesn't really matter which one he is, he is not scoring any points for YEC or Christianity with his ridiculous behavior and is inadvertently demonstrating the lack of evidence for YEC.

Since local floods are an unremarkable aspect of geology, acknowledging their existence is not "creationist" or "supporting the Flood model". We all simply agree that the polystrates were submerged rapidly. Big deal. YECs then simply add the (unprovable) "global" modifier when a local flood can accomplish exactly the same thing.