...
Do you mean to say that Dr. Simpson, who in his day was a famous professor of
biology and evolution at Harvard University, didn‘t know what he was talking
about? That takes more chutzpah than I have.
Logically, evolution cannot be scientific, because by definition it violates
the definition of science given in science textbooks. It’s not even
historical because it is not based on past observation (though contradicted
by some, e.g. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm ). It is
no more than a religious belief developed over thousands of years, which is
why it is such a hot button subject.
This is all that I plan to say on this subject, which should be off list
anyway.
Concerning proto-Semitic, I don‘t deny that there was such a language. Some
claim that Hebrew itself may have been that proto-Semitic, but I don‘t see
clear evidence beyond philosophic wishful thinking to back it up. Are the
oldest extant clay tablets closer to that original Semitic language, or
copies of copies originally written on leather? Is there any way to tell from
presently available data, or not? I think not.
But there are those who claim to be able to ”reconstruct“ proto-Semitic, but
they do so based on presuppositions that may or may not be correct. They then
make confident statements as to Biblical Hebrew based on their theories which
may be incorrect. What I want is observation, realizing that it may never
come. I prefer to remain without answers to some of these questions based on
observation, than have answers that unknowingly may be wrong because they are
based not on observation. In other words, I‘d rather have fewer answers but
trust the answers I have because they are based on observation, than to have
more answers but not know which ones to trust.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.