|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
In How long has modern man been on this earth? (Thanks for the help) Peg indicates that fully formed writing systems appear at the same time as modern man:
Peg says: i certainly think that written language is unique to todays humans...i've never been presented with anything different...and as i've already stated, written language has only been around for the last 5,000 odd years... unless you can present anything different on this??? I asked Peg for evidence to support her position and received a long answer about spoken languages. I'd like to ask Peg again to provide evidence that supports the idea that modern man appears simultaneously with written language. Peg, the difference between written and spoken language is that written languages leave evidence. I've stated that there is a smooth transition from proto-languages through written languages a fact that's easy to infer on observation of the evidence. Pictures turn into ideograms and eventually into written languages, not suddenly but gradually. Could you please show me the correlation of the appearance of modern man and fully formed writing systems that is consistent with either creation or with survival after the flood. When I look all I see is unrelated writing systems appearing in different areas demonstrating a smooth transition from proto-writing through complex writing systems. Edited by Tanndarr, : updating link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Tanndarr.
Tanndarr writes: okay I could use help changing how the link looks Do it like this: [url=link address] How long has modern man been on this earth?[/url] and it looks like this:
How long has modern man been on this earth? I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Peg has defined "modern man" as "those organisms which are biologically identical to currently living humans and possess written language."
By that definition, as soon as a homo sapiens group develops a written language, writing and "modern man" simultaneously appear. The problem is that written language has nothing to do with biology - her basic definition of "modern man" is flawed and based completely on her preconceived conclusion. So far as I know, no reasonable (or accepted) definition for "species" would allow for the magical, sudden classification of a new species when language (written or otherwise) is developed. Of course, as was also pointed out in that thread, Peg's assertion that written language is only about 5000 years old is also false. The fact is that none of the biological, genetic, fossil, or archeological evidence is consistent with the sudden appearance of modern man as is claimed in the Biblical account. Organisms biologically identical to "modern man" have been shown to have existed long before written language. Organisms very closely related to "modern man" at the morphological and genetic levels have been shown to have existed long before that. Her assertion is preposterous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 172 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Cave paintings, petroglyphs, and pictograms, which are certainly a form of "written" communication have been dated to at least 35,000 years old. Of course, Peg would probably dispute the dating methods since he/she is such a knowledgeable expert on such matters. The real question is: why in the world would you care what an ignorantophile like Peg thinks?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
AiG says...
I like to see the looks on their faces when I point out that they've painted themselves into a corner. Seriously, the history of writing systems is a topic I enjoy and, like all the rest of the evidence, points away from a literal creationist world-view.Cave paintings, petroglyphs, and pictograms, which are certainly a form of "written" communication have been dated to at least 35,000 years old. Of course, Peg would probably dispute the dating methods since he/she is such a knowledgeable expert on such matters. The real question is: why in the world would you care what an ignorantophile like Peg thinks? Her whole point hangs on the squidgy definition of what actually constitutes writing from proto-writing or whatever. Likewise I could say that modern man developed at the same time as Twitter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Twitter?
Pardon me for being ignorant, but what the F@#K is Twitter & what does it have to do with language? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanndarr Member (Idle past 5204 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Twitter accepts text-messages from say a cell-phone and posts them via a small plug-in application on the internet. Usually on a blog page.
Twenty-first century cave painting I suppose. Just another form of written language.
Twitter Edited by Tanndarr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I like to see the looks on their faces when I point out that they've painted themselves into a corner. It will never happen. Creationists/fudamentalists either do not have the decency to admit they are wrong, or they do not have the intelligence to realise they are wrong, or will never accept any evidence you present because Satan has you fooled, any excuse really except that ther divine fairytale book has a mistake or two in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Tanndarr,
Tandarr writes: Could you please show me the correlation of the appearance of modern man and fully formed writing systems that is consistent with either creation or with survival after the flood. When I look all I see is unrelated writing systems appearing in different areas demonstrating a smooth transition from proto-writing through complex writing systems. im basing this is on hard archeological evidence... i'm basing it on the written language which includes the use of symbols and pictures to communicate abstract thought...ie, 'this land was purchased by so and so' OR 'the king has decreed the following set of laws' etc etc etc the earliest known writings are known to come from the Mesopotamia region and the strongest finds have been in Syrian finds such as Babylonia/Assyria dating back around 3,000BCE which places them at the time after the flood. this is in tune with the bibles account that people were all situated in this region of the earth before spreading abroad. What can account for the seemingly 'unrelated' written languages appearing in different places is that, after the languages were confused at Babel (Babylon) then the people spread out and had to develop their own forms of writing for these new languages. a few external links you may be interested in. History of WritingHistory of writing - Wikipedia HISTORY OF WRITING
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
you're right
i dont trust carbon dating...not one little bit As this subject is not about the accuracy or 'inaccuracy' of carbon dating though, i wont be going into it... nor do i need to be an expert to be skeptical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
i dont trust carbon dating...not one little bit Hmmm, now would this be because 1) You are an expert in the field of dating methods, and have concluded on the back of much research that carbon dating is fundementally flawed; 2) You have been told by many scientists working in the field of dating methods that carbon dating is highly untrustworthy; or 3) Your creationist mentors have filled your head with suspicion as carbon dating produces dates incongruous to their/your own particular bizarre belief system? Thought so...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
So, I'm curious, since you "don't trust carbon dating" why are you so confident of the 3000 BC date for writing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4951 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
they used calendars
actually they invented calendars and recorded their history using dates...this is how we know when certain kings came to power, how long they ruled for, who they invaded and conquered etc carbon dating a written record is not necessary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
How ironic, the carbon dating of written records is one of the many checks on the accuracy of carbon dating.
Don't do that Dave.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024