05 Mar 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe title says 2.8 mil and the inner statement says 28 mil. That is probably a typo. I would go with 2.8. Would love to have been there with a camera to record any language they might have had. And if no language, then fast forward in time to catch the first human words! Trace how languages evolved from day one!
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/28-million-year-old-jawbone-oldest-homo-fossil-ever-discovered
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhousea dot in a link is problematic. just click the link
The title says 2.8 mil and the inner statement says 28 mil. That is probably a typo. I would go with 2.8. Would love to have been there with a camera to record any language they might have had. And if no language, then fast forward in time to catch the first human words! Trace how languages evolved from day one!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouseI found this years ago to be an interesting article, which I would have to
The title says 2.8 mil and the inner statement says 28 mil. That is probably a typo. I would go with 2.8. Would love to have been there with a camera to record any language they might have had. And if no language, then fast forward in time to catch the first human words! Trace how languages evolved from day one!
re-read now.
Who Taught Adam To Speak? by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html
A Sample of the Introduction below:
MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. (1) But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin of speech appeared to him therefore to be insoluble. Apart from revelation, it still is.
Because of the influence of Darwin's theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation of human speech from animal cries. Essentially the two were the same; it was merely a question of the degree of complexity. Following in the steps of earlier social anthropologists, who were arranging the various primitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrating man's supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks, and grimaces of the lowliest "savages" were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)
05 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI agree with that except for the Adam part. The real first 'Adam' was something like 2 or more million years ago, the first homo erectus and so forth. I would think back then the brain would not have been developed enough for speech, but only typical Ape grunts we hear today in the primate forests. So it would have been a million our more years before brains got big enough to allow for speech.
I found this years ago to be an interesting article, which I would have to
re-read now.
[b]Who Taught Adam To Speak? by Arthur Custance
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html
A Sample of the Introduction below:
MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to ...[text shortened]... ech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)[/b]
I would love to have a time machine and video camera to go back and find out just exactly how far back in time you go before there was no language but just grunts and screams as in the primate world of today, which, btw, still carries information but you wouldn't call it a real language. Just a high squeak may say 'enemy in sight' or a sigh meaning this is pleasurable when being groomed, sending simple signals but you would not call that a language.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouse
I would love to have a time machine and video camera to go back and find out just exactly how far back in time you go before there was no language but just grunts and screams as in the primate world of today, which, btw, still carries information but you wouldn't call it a real language. Just a high squeak may say 'enemy in sight' or a sigh meaning this is pleasurable when being groomed, sending simple signals but you would not call that a language.
I understand. You would love to be able to have observed something to confirm your theory. That would then more complete the scientific method.
As it stands you have to take it something which we might call, faith, or something like faith.
If you read the entire article I do recall that some observed facts were seen concerning abandoned, forrest raised children (I think at least one, perhaps more) and the development of speech. I recall some things were scientifically observed.
I plan to re-read the who article.
Its been years.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipScience has moved on an awfully long way since 1957, and this was flawed to
[quote] I would love to have a time machine and video camera to go back and find out just exactly how far back in time you go before there was no language but just grunts and screams as in the primate world of today, which, btw, still carries information but you wouldn't call it a real language. Just a high squeak may say 'enemy in sight' or a sigh meaning t ...[text shortened]... e things were scientifically observed.
I plan to re-read the who article.
Its been years.
start off with.
The opening paragraphs supposedly dismissing an evolutionary origin of language
are woefully flawed and out of date, and thus completely fail to do what they
claim to do. That is they do not in fact do anything to dent an evolutionary
explanation.
If you are interested in this subject I suggest reading something from THIS millennium
written by experts in this field. Not something written by a non-expert who was
trying to prove his religion correct using outdated and inaccurate information over 50
years ago.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipIt's certainly not faith because we have already solid evidence of languages now dead thousands of years but we have been able to translate bit by bit what they were about. You remember perhaps, the Rosetta stone?
[quote] I would love to have a time machine and video camera to go back and find out just exactly how far back in time you go before there was no language but just grunts and screams as in the primate world of today, which, btw, still carries information but you wouldn't call it a real language. Just a high squeak may say 'enemy in sight' or a sigh meaning t ...[text shortened]... e things were scientifically observed.
I plan to re-read the who article.
Its been years.
It's not conjecture that there was a first language since before mankind there were only grunts, I think you would agree with that. Whether you think it was less than 6000 years ago if you are a young Earther or 2 million years ago as I more or less think, there was a first language.
There is no faith needed about that. Why is it theists INSIST on non-theists having 'faith' in their non-theism?
I go by the ridiculousness curve. The more ridiculous the claim of the religious set, the more I just see ridiculousness. I judge these things by the bullshyte factor. Like people firmly entrenched in the believe there was some kind of world wide flood or that the world is 6000 years old, which isn't even in the bible, just dudes taking the word of other people, having given up the ability to think for themselves and therefore rely on other folks to do their thinking for them.
So answer me this: In your religion, who taught A&E to talk? What was that original language. I assume you figure there was only one language till the tower of babel, which is to me, another ridiculousness area.
Even in the bible, Adam had a first wife. So what was HER language and how many other people were there back then?
I assume you find nothing wrong with that mythology but there had to be a lot more than just A&E in your garden of eden tale.
There is no faith involved in my assumption there was a first language, why would you suggest there would have to be faith in that assumption?
Unless you are like Dasa who firmly believes mankind has been around for trillions of years.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe language was created with Adam and Eve in the beginning so they could talk to God. That is part of the meaning of creating man in the image of God. After the worldwide flood God confounded the language so the would not understand each other and thereby forcing them to scatter over the earth.
The title says 2.8 mil and the inner statement says 28 mil. That is probably a typo. I would go with 2.8. Would love to have been there with a camera to record any language they might have had. And if no language, then fast forward in time to catch the first human words! Trace how languages evolved from day one!
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy did your god need language to communicate with his creation?
The language was created with Adam and Eve in the beginning so they could talk to God. That is part of the meaning of creating man in the image of God. After the worldwide flood God confounded the language so the would not understand each other and thereby forcing them to scatter over the earth.
05 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo in your mythology, A and E taught each other to talk? What about the rest of the crew, you do realize there were more there in your alleged garden besides A&E.
The language was created with Adam and Eve in the beginning so they could talk to God. That is part of the meaning of creating man in the image of God. After the worldwide flood God confounded the language so the would not understand each other and thereby forcing them to scatter over the earth.
So the tower caused them to scatter. So why does the DNA evidence show migrations from Siberia south and so forth? Where is your DNA evidence everyone started at one place? That would stick out like a sore thumb to say nothing of the fact that the diversity of DNA types is far greater than could be accounted for by a handful of people surviving a catastrophe event.
It just didn't happen but you refuse to even do a scientific study of the REAL DNA evidence since that MIGHT (I say might because I doubt it) start you thinking in terms of maybe the whole thing was just made up by men in the first place, people who didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, having nothing to do with ANY kind of deity.
If we all came from under ten people the DNA evidence would stick out like a sore thumb like I said. That is a FACT JACK.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
It's certainly not faith because we have already solid evidence of languages now dead thousands of years but we have been able to translate bit by bit what they were about. You remember perhaps, the Rosetta stone?
It's not conjecture that there was a first language since before mankind there were only grunts, I think you would agree with that. Whether y ...[text shortened]...
Unless you are like Dasa who firmly believes mankind has been around for trillions of years.
It's certainly not faith because we have already solid evidence of languages now dead thousands of years but we have been able to translate bit by bit what they were about. You remember perhaps, the Rosetta stone?
I know about the Rosetta stone. The question is not about whether or not OLD languages existed or not. The question is about HOW man began to talk in the first place.
Your first comment here is not too relevant to the ORIGIN of human speech.
It's not conjecture that there was a first language since before mankind there were only grunts, I think you would agree with that.
We don't know that. We have no recordings of humans or pre-humans grunting.
You have to consult your latter Heavy Metal musicians to get that.
Ok, seriously. We don't know early humans grunted before they spoke.
Early written languages and the Rossetta stone don't prove that.
Whether you think it was less than 6000 years ago if you are a young Earther or 2 million years ago as I more or less think, there was a first language.
Regardless of the years of time we assume, we don't know that grunts preceded human speech.
There is no faith needed about that. Why is it theists INSIST on non-theists having 'faith' in their non-theism?
You have something like "faith" that early humans looking something like apes or monkeys, grunted instead of talked.
That is why you really wish you could get evidence of that.
Now I do not like to call this attitude "faith" in exactly the same sense as spiritual faith. But for lack of a better word I will borrow it.
I go by the ridiculousness curve. The more ridiculous the claim of the religious set, the more I just see ridiculousness. I judge these things by the bullshyte factor.
And you yearn for a "fast-foward" like video covering millions of years of evolution so that you could really OBSERVE something which conceivably could also be bull ----. That is Monkey like or Ape like half man half hairy animals were grunting around the fire instead of talking.
And please don't blame me if I say they were monkey or ape like because the ARTISTS who do the bidding of wishful thinking evolutionists usually draw something that LOOKS like a monkey or an ape.
I don't know what people would do without all the imaginative art work.
Like people firmly entrenched in the believe there was some kind of world wide flood or that the world is 6000 years old, which isn't even in the bible, just dudes taking the word of other people, having given up the ability to think for themselves and therefore rely on other folks to do their thinking for them.
Well, I am not like some creationists who insist the entire physical globe had to be under water. I would not insist that has to be the only way to understand a big flood that destroyed everyone and their world.
But we do have multiple attestations to SOME kind of flooding event in which few were saved. Something seems to have been left in the collective memory of mankind at least, about a terrible flood.
The issue concerning speech is how did man learn to talk.
I think it is a real Chicken and Egg problem.
Was man HUMAN before he spoke?
Or was man SPEAKING before he became human?
It will take me a couple of days to re-read some of the good points in the article. Admittedly it is dated. More recent study would be interesting to consider.
So answer me this:
When I was fifteen.
Just kidding.
In your religion, who taught A&E to talk? What was that original language. I assume you figure there was only one language till the tower of babel, which is to me, another ridiculousness area.
Even in the bible, Adam had a first wife. So what was HER language and how many other people were there back then?
It does say that multiple languages started at Babel.
Adam had only one wife.
The stuff about Edith is legendary stuff.
What was the first language?
I don't know.
I assume you find nothing wrong with that mythology but there had to be a lot more than just A&E in your garden of eden tale.
Why ?
I believe there was a FIRST Man and a FIRST Woman.
I do not know it scientifically.
I trust the word of God.
At least the word of God told me up front that it is a revelation from God of many things that otherwise mankind would have no other way of knowing.
But I don't KNOW about Adam's speech like we know metal can be changed to gold. Or is that OLD science? Sorry.
Let me try again. I don't KNOW it like I KNOW that ... um ... You CANNOT HAVE MASS WITHOUT THE HIGGS BOSON.
(But don't tell the Catholics)
I have to go for now.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseGod programmed Adam and Eve with the ability to talk. They knew when they were created without having to learn. 😏
So in your mythology, A and E taught each other to talk? What about the rest of the crew, you do realize there were more there in your alleged garden besides A&E.
So the tower caused them to scatter. So why does the DNA evidence show migrations from Siberia south and so forth? Where is your DNA evidence everyone started at one place? That would stick out ...[text shortened]... ten people the DNA evidence would stick out like a sore thumb like I said. That is a FACT JACK.