So do Biblical literalists who reject evolution also think all existing languages were created by God as well?

I'm sure a creationist would say that it's impossible for French to have evolved from Latin because the first person who began speaking French would not be understood by the Latin-speakers around him, and therefore not be adapted to his environment and could not have attracted a mate.

Or maybe they would point to the lack of missing-link languages between Latin and French. Also, the French language is so grammatical it simply couldn't have arisen by chance.

The Tower of Babel was not a mechanism through which various languages "evolved"; if the Biblical interpretation is to be believed, the incident at Babel was *the* root cause of the languages being made to split apart from each other. It would be ridiculous to think that such relatively modern languages such as English and French did not come from one common link, just as such languages as Mandarin Chinese and Japanese could not have come from anywhere but another big branch of languages; the Tower of Babel simply was the place where the one language that people up to that time were all using, became fractured, and divided the people, thus ending their tower project. Bible believers point to the fact that linguists generally agree that the hundreds of languages the world has ever known are all traceable back to one of either three or four overarching branches of ancient language with no distinguishable link or similarity between those main branches. .

Of course..by using the terminology "magic," one would ask, are you really looking for an honest answer, or are you more in the market to argue?

First, I am NOT a biblical literalist. Quite the opposite, my belief is that the bible tells us WHY, not HOW things happened.

Second,I assume that you want a real answer to this question, not that you are just trying to light a fire. (If I'm wrong, stop reading now)

Even to literalists, the Tower of Babel only explains the roots of the language families; that is, why are Germanic languages (e.g., English, Dutch) different from Romance languages (e.g., French, Spanish). It does not explain how all languages came into existence. Most thinking fundamentalists (oxymoron? I'll let you decide) accept that things do change (even evolve) over time. But this change is G-d's will, not only the result from adaptations to the environment.

I highly doubt that even the most fundamentalist would think that languages don't change over time. But I'm sure there are people out there who firmly believe that Elizabethan English and Modern English (language, not band) existed at the same time.

As a person who has studied the Bible and does not believe in evolution, I believe that God DID NOT create ALL existing languages. The Bible account does not indicate what languages were developed at that time. It only indicates that the languages were "confused".

Over time, languages evolve on their own. As you mentioned the Anglo-Saxon derivatives are a factor. Even English itself has evloved over time - for instance: It has evloved from Elizabethian to what we know of it today and it continues to evolve with the usage of slang and other factors. Then there are people who create their own languages for fun (ie pig latin, kling-on, etc).

In the long run I Doubt the "evolution" of language is hardly controversial, we all use language to communicate with one another and there are no boundaries any more thanks to a wonderful thing called "translation"

No, "Biblical literalists" doesn't deny evolution in that aspect, nor do they deny microevolution. They only deny evolution that a fish learns to breathe air, learns to walk, becomes a dog, becomes a monkey, and then becomes a larger monkey. And now that larger monkey (aka men) becomes pigs...

"Biblical literalists" also believe God press the button for the Big Bang, and created all these animals who can evolution in the cellular level (aka mutate), because, statistically (calculations done by other scientists), it cannot be a mere coincidence. Yes, "Biblical literalists" believe in mutants. In fact, every person on Earth is a mutant, because, if not, you would be the exact combination of your mom and dad.

"Biblical literalists" also believes that dinosaurs still exists... So I don't really agree with them.

In linguistics there are different language families. Linguists have not found a single root for all languages.

Of course, language evolves. It has changed in my lifetime. I see the evidence of it.

You evolutionists really need to lighten up. Can you just go with, "Hey both of Evolution and Intelligent design are theories." Neither has been proven in a laboratory and both require a "faith" to believe in them. Personally I think it takes much more faith to believe that all the incredible life that exists on this planet is an accident.

Why are you so agitated by the idea of everything being created by God? If none what I believe is real, why do you spend so much time and energy trying to confront what I believe. Really, all of these discussions on Answers have been started by Evolutionists.

I settle for the validity of evolution and evolutionary biology for the exact same causes that only about one hundred% of all nicely knowledgeable theists do, because there is an overpowering volume of tangible, verifiable evidence that would nicely be examined and learn by using all and sundry on earth that has the necessary coaching.

And why do young-Earthers claim the world was created long after the Proto-Indo-European language was speading?

it's called a story to help people make sense of things. Remember that the stories of the bible were for simple-minded folk. There was no idea of what evolution was. It just amazes me that people still take the stuff literally.

Majestra, You're not getting it at all. Bible-huggers don't need and don't believe in logic. If it's in the book, that's good enough. A few superstitious guys, a couple of thousand years ago know more than all the rest of humanity put together. Now, that's religious logic. Nothing more needed.