Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 16 of 107 (408071)
06-30-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 10:02 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Thanks.
You're welcome.
IamJoseph writes:
We have no proof of that: can you prove a human with a 'name', date and address prior to Adam? of coz not - no record of such and no indicators. In contrast, we have a very bold, specific 'date', stating the first speech endowed human's emergence - with no controversy of alternate proof. From a scientific POV - the names listed in the 'generations of Adam' are scientifically vindicated: archeology's prime mode of proof is 'names' - which are exclusive to certain periods. One cannot 'select' what they want and disregard what are positive indicators.
Of course I can't show you that level of proof. Evidence of the past doesn't grow on trees. Just as a forensic scientist often cannot say exactly what occurred at a crime scene, archaeologists and anthropologists can't say exactly who was around. But, they can say with a very high level of certainty that there were far more than two humans around 6000 years ago - the evidence tells that much, at least.
Thus, there is good reason to doubt that Genesis, or at least Adam and Eve, are not really the original human beings.
IamJoseph writes:
One must give credence to a text which admits another realm: this is - at least - not disprovable; the mythical factor is thus negated by a self-declared 'no contest' in the text.
Of course it isn't disprovable. It isn't provable either. It is on the same footing with a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.
IamJoseph writes:
I'm afraid that many assertions made are not proven, not even as theories - admitted so by science. We have no proof or evidence of speech being derived by coos and grants. You use the period 200K + years - where are the transitory dots of the thread: have we found evidences of prototype speech 100K ago, more advanced speech 75K and 50K years ago? Nope. Contrastingly, languages are becoming simpler and less complex than the past ancient times.
To discuss the dates of the first humans and the 'transitory dots' will require another thread. I'm sure some exist that touch on this.
However, do you have evidence for your assertion that languages are becoming less complex? And not just the past 50 years or so, but for say...400 years? I would think that modern English is far richer, and able to describe many more things, than the English of that era, and before. Some grammar and words have been lost, and there has been a trend to shorten words, but also to add new ones.
IamJoseph writes:
Secondly, ALL languages appear to have emerged around the same time - absolutely negating any possibility this occured independently and at far differing periods. Writings, which is the most obvious subsequence of speech - also appears to follow the genesis bold and specific dating - an incredible feat of vindicated datings - and also a formidable proof against the 200K year speech assumption!
Care to back this up? An example perhaps?
IamJoseph writes:
In fact, you should not/cannot reject that speech is less than 6000 years old: what's your scientifically verifiable reasoning?
Yes I can reject it to the extent of near certainty. The fields of physics have yielded reliable dating of hominid fossils, many of which are (nearly) certainly older than 6000 years. The more recent of these, that is those at around 120,000 years, such as Skhul V, have a flexed basicranium (though not quite as flexed as later skulls, such as about 50,000 years ago). However, earlier hominids, and indeed most apes, have a straight one. This flexed basicranium has been shown to indicate a longer neck, due to accommodating of the human larynx and supralaryngeal vocal tract. Thus, I am very sure that the earlier men were speaking to one another.
Edited by Doddy, : update

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:29 AM Doddy has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 17 of 107 (408073)
06-30-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 10:30 AM


IamJoseph writes:
I was'nt referring to...mythical heavenly dieties.
Permission to laugh?
IamJoseph writes:
Genesis introduced creationism in a premise which is the only counterpart debated in science forums today.
The reason Genesis is the debated over those other two is because those other religions (ancient Greek and Norse) have very few followers. If America was settled by the Vikings, you would have to present the Vluspá in Kansas schools!

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:38 AM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 18 of 107 (408081)
06-30-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Doddy
06-30-2007 10:44 AM


quote:
doddy
Of course I can't show you that level of proof. Evidence of the past doesn't grow on trees. Just as a forensic scientist often cannot say exactly what occurred at a crime scene, archaeologists and anthropologists can't say exactly who was around. But, they can say with a very high level of certainty that there were far more than two humans around 6000 years ago - the evidence tells that much, at least.
Genesis does not negate prototypes, but it does specify the advent of speech endowed humans as 6000 years: this is provable by the lack of counter proof: we do NOT have any proof of more than two speech endowed humans!
quote:
Thus, there is good reason to doubt that Genesis, or at least Adam and Eve, are not really the original human beings.
The applicable factor is limited to speech: this is vindicated.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
One must give credence to a text which admits another realm: this is - at least - not disprovable; the mythical factor is thus negated by a self-declared 'no contest' in the text.
Of course it isn't disprovable. It isn't provable either. It is on the same footing with a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.
No sir - because the teapot orbiting the sun does not have any surrounding evidences of a written, dated diarised account of speech endowed beings - and a host of other surrounding indicators. These are evidences which tilt the no proof either way factor.
quote:
To discuss the dates of the first humans and the 'transitory dots' will require another thread. I'm sure some exist that touch on this.
However, do you have evidence for your assertion that languages are becoming less complex? And not just the past 50 years or so, but for say...400 years? I would think that modern English is far richer, and able to describe many more things, than the English of that era, and before.
Of coz! Try reading a 300 year olde english document - you will need a translator and it will take eons to read a single sentence - because it is ensconsed in far richer and more complex factors. Ancient hebrew has self-contained numerals, and caters to more sounds with less alphabets (22); it even cntains an exclusive 'perfect tense' - denoting past/present/future. Language is being simplified, beginning with american english spellings, and followed now by almost digitalised texts abbreviated/simplified modes.
quote:
Secondly, ALL languages appear to have emerged around the same time - absolutely negating any possibility this occured independently and at far differing periods. Writings, which is the most obvious subsequence of speech - also appears to follow the genesis bold and specific dating - an incredible feat of vindicated datings - and also a formidable proof against the 200K year speech assumption!
Care to back this up? An example perhaps?
This is manifest and self-evident in all readings of history - and backed by hard-copy artifacts. All languages are presented as within the 6000 block - from picture writings on granite pyramids, to parchments, manuscripts and scrolls. In fact, there is no *HISTORY* per se prior to the 6000: name us a king, war, nation or country pre-6000?
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
In fact, you should not/cannot reject that speech is less than 6000 years old: what's your scientifically verifiable reasoning?
Yes I can reject it to the extent of near certainty. The fields of physics have yielded reliable dating of hominid fossils, many of which are (nearly) certainly older than 6000 years. The more recent of these, that is those at around 120,000 years, such as Skhul V, have a flexed basicranium (though not quite as flexed as later skulls, such as about 50,000 years ago). However, earlier hominids, and indeed most apes, have a straight one. This flexed basicranium has been shown to indicate a longer neck, due to accommodating of the human larynx and supralaryngeal vocal tract. Thus, I am very sure that the earlier men were speaking to one another.
Genesis correctly posits speech as the factor separating modern humans from all other life forms. Speech is varied from 'communications', brains and skeletal formations, common to all life. The theoretical assumptions of 120K year modern humans are notoriously couched on imaginative assumptions - with an embarrassing disconnect with modern human populations and mental prowess grads - the key factors seen within the last 6000 with modern man. We should have - literally - millions of non-disputive evidences, everywhere on the planet - including transitory grads: these are non-existent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:44 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:41 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 24 by Vacate, posted 07-01-2007 6:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 19 of 107 (408083)
06-30-2007 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Doddy
06-30-2007 10:50 AM


quote:
doddy
The reason Genesis is the debated over those other two is because those other religions (ancient Greek and Norse) have very few followers.
Rather, I think it is because Genesis was introduced to the world by two sources who claimed it as their own - but never followed or understood it for 2000 years before they emerged - and both those religions are mutually exclusive and contradicting of each other in their presentations - and of the OT understandings held before they emerged. The other factor is that both the NT and Quran are not historically vindicated, assuming all history from their own preferred end-point beliefs. This has resulted in anyone rejecting religions as myth instead of historically vindicated - as all in one bag. better, if each scripture be seen on its own merits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:50 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 20 of 107 (408149)
06-30-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 11:29 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Genesis does not negate prototypes, but it does specify the advent of speech endowed humans as 6000 years: this is provable by the lack of counter proof: we do NOT have any proof of more than two speech endowed humans!
You are shifting the burden of proof. A lack of opposing evidence doesn't make your claim correct - an excess of supporting evidence does.
Consider the following analogy. You are leaving your home, and your partner suddenly stops and turns around, thinking the gas was left on. You can't disprove that the gas was on (i.e. prrof the gas was off), but does that automatically mean the gas was on? Lack of counter-proof is not proof- it is a lack.
IamJoseph writes:
No sir - because the teapot orbiting the sun does not have any surrounding evidences of a written, dated diarised account of speech endowed beings - and a host of other surrounding indicators. These are evidences which tilt the no proof either way factor.
Bertrand Russell wrote of it, and we have the date of publication and we know he was a speech-endowed being. Besides, claiming something does not make it so, and something may be so without anyone ever claiming it.
IamJoseph writes:
This is manifest and self-evident in all readings of history - and backed by hard-copy artifacts. All languages are presented as within the 6000 block - from picture writings on granite pyramids, to parchments, manuscripts and scrolls. In fact, there is no *HISTORY* per se prior to the 6000: name us a king, war, nation or country pre-6000?
Consider another analogy (courtesy of Sir Arthur Eddington). Suppose a scientist is studying fish, and uses a net with a two inch diameter to catch fish. After many catches, and analyzing the caught fish, he publishes a paper declaring that there are no fish in the sea smaller than two inches.
Are you doing the same, declaring that nothing existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?
IamJoseph writes:
The theoretical assumptions of 120K year modern humans are notoriously couched on imaginative assumptions - with an embarrassing disconnect with modern human populations and mental prowess grads - the key factors seen within the last 6000 with modern man. We should have - literally - millions of non-disputive evidences, everywhere on the planet - including transitory grads: these are non-existent.
There are likely to be many threads on this forum dealing with such claims as this. Suffice it to say that the majority of organisms leave no trace of their existence after their death, and many of those traces that are left lie undiscovered somewhere on this vast planet. It is actually surprising that we have as much proof as we do. But anyway, this is going off topic.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 12:05 AM Doddy has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 21 of 107 (408160)
07-01-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Doddy
06-30-2007 10:41 PM


quote:
doddy
You are shifting the burden of proof. A lack of opposing evidence doesn't make your claim correct - an excess of supporting evidence does.
Equally, it is ubsurd to expect today's science termed proof from an ancient text - without appropriate relative considerations. There are 1000s of statues in the OT, including the world's first scientific cencus, in the millions, with gender and age sub-totals - well before numericals were used this way (Ex); there are thus stats of history and what becomes scientifically proven or not proven as yet. It is for mankind to determine the proof. There is no such thing as science or maths - without historical veracity, nor can these be separated. Eg: Kind david was assumed as myth by scholars till recently - this has now been overturned with the Tel Dan find, which scientifically established David as a 3000 year true historical figure: this shows histrical veracity. Science, maths and history are an aligned factor, and we have to determine these items - I would add correct comprehension to this list.
quote:
Are you doing the same, declaring that nothing existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?
This is a miscomprehension of the texts. The 6000 figure is limited to speech endowed humans only, which the OT calendar is aligned with. It does not refer to life forms and the age of the earth.
quote:
Suffice it to say that the majority of organisms leave no trace of their existence after their death, and many of those traces that are left lie undiscovered somewhere on this vast planet. It is actually surprising that we have as much proof as we do. But anyway, this is going off topic.
The issue here is poor maths. The factor of time does not relate if trans-mutations are on-going. Consider a crystal ball changing colors continuously: this says the phenomenon is observable at all times - in all places. That traces do not exist after its destruction also says two other things: it is very convenient for certain scientific premises; and it is incorrectly termed as an elevation of the specie - it is a perishing of the specie. Only the 'seed' adaptation nominated in Genesis can be termed as an adaptation (elevation and preservement of a specie). It is also correct that 99.9% of all adaptation is verifiably conducted via the seed - including DNA transmissions.
There is really no such thing as evolution - this is a recent term which serves as an intelligent placebo of the un-explained. Darwin's evlution differs from Genesis' evolution by the 'seed' factor ('within-specie' VS 'cross-specie'). From the greek word, 'evolve' - but evolve from what? Better, it be seen as "CREATION; EVOLUTION" - as opposed "CREATION VS EVOLUTION". Evolution is an after the fact phenomenon, operating only after the existence of pre-existing matter - else what will evolution evolutionise? Further, the process of evolution (graduations)cannot start in mid-term, as placed by darwin - all structures of the awesome universal engineerings are 'INTERGRATED' - alluding to an obvious, hovering program which can 'INTERGRATE' all systems.
My point in all this was, Adam cannot be anything other than today's modern man - at least when he emerged as a speech endowed life form, which remains a unique entity today - in our midst: the reason for this is, Genesis negates cross-specie, while Darwin introduced this premise. Only one of these premises is vindicated in our midst. And the time factor is irrelevent because evolution, via both darwin and genesis versions - are on-going phenomenons. The perished specie is not required in this equation - we should see millions of in-transit cross-species. The latter has never occured outside of Darwin's novella.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:41 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Doddy, posted 07-01-2007 1:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 22 of 107 (408174)
07-01-2007 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 12:05 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Equally, it is ubsurd to expect today's science termed proof from an ancient text - without appropriate relative considerations. There are 1000s of statues in the OT, including the world's first scientific cencus, in the millions, with gender and age sub-totals - well before numericals were used this way (Ex); there are thus stats of history and what becomes scientifically proven or not proven as yet. It is for mankind to determine the proof. There is no such thing as science or maths - without historical veracity, nor can these be separated. Eg: Kind david was assumed as myth by scholars till recently - this has now been overturned with the Tel Dan find, which scientifically established David as a 3000 year true historical figure: this shows histrical veracity. Science, maths and history are an aligned factor, and we have to determine these items - I would add correct comprehension to this list.
Simply because some of the Bible has been verified does not make it entirely verified. Indeed, many of the cities and countries mentioned in James Bond novels have been verified, but that hardly makes James a real person.
IamJoseph writes:
This is a miscomprehension of the texts. The 6000 figure is limited to speech endowed humans only, which the OT calendar is aligned with. It does not refer to life forms and the age of the earth.
Sorry. Let me rephrase then.
"Are you doing the same, declaring that no speaking humans existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?"
IamJoseph writes:
The issue here is poor maths. The factor of time does not relate if trans-mutations are on-going. Consider a crystal ball changing colors continuously: this says the phenomenon is observable at all times - in all places. That traces do not exist after its destruction also says two other things: it is very convenient for certain scientific premises; and it is incorrectly termed as an elevation of the specie - it is a perishing of the specie. Only the 'seed' adaptation nominated in Genesis can be termed as an adaptation (elevation and preservement of a specie). It is also correct that 99.9% of all adaptation is verifiably conducted via the seed - including DNA transmissions.
There is really no such thing as evolution - this is a recent term which serves as an intelligent placebo of the un-explained. Darwin's evlution differs from Genesis' evolution by the 'seed' factor ('within-specie' VS 'cross-specie'). From the greek word, 'evolve' - but evolve from what? Better, it be seen as "CREATION; EVOLUTION" - as opposed "CREATION VS EVOLUTION". Evolution is an after the fact phenomenon, operating only after the existence of pre-existing matter - else what will evolution evolutionise? Further, the process of evolution (graduations)cannot start in mid-term, as placed by darwin - all structures of the awesome universal engineerings are 'INTERGRATED' - alluding to an obvious, hovering program which can 'INTERGRATE' all systems.
My point in all this was, Adam cannot be anything other than today's modern man - at least when he emerged as a speech endowed life form, which remains a unique entity today - in our midst: the reason for this is, Genesis negates cross-specie, while Darwin introduced this premise. Only one of these premises is vindicated in our midst. And the time factor is irrelevent because evolution, via both darwin and genesis versions - are on-going phenomenons. The perished specie is not required in this equation - we should see millions of in-transit cross-species. The latter has never occured outside of Darwin's novella.
I won't reply to this, but I urge you to mention this in threads specifically about fossils and/or evolution.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 12:05 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 4:14 AM Doddy has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 23 of 107 (408184)
07-01-2007 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Doddy
07-01-2007 1:36 AM


quote:
doddy
Simply because some of the Bible has been verified does not make it entirely verified. Indeed, many of the cities and countries mentioned in James Bond novels have been verified, but that hardly makes James a real person.
Coherence is lacking in your analogy: while a novel can insert a fictional person into a true historical setting - there is no connection with the reporting of an ancient report which is vindicated as authentic - specially so if it is the only document which says that. The OT accounts for chunks of ancient history not available elsewhere for 1000s of years after its appearence.
quote:
"Are you doing the same, declaring that no speaking humans existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?"
Writings is an effect of speech, not the reason we cannot prove speech before the 6000 date. We know this from this side of the 6000 setting: writings emerged a few centuries after speech - not so the 120,000 years allocated to alledged speec humans.
Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Doddy, posted 07-01-2007 1:36 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 07-01-2007 7:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 24 of 107 (408191)
07-01-2007 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by IamJoseph
06-30-2007 11:29 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Try reading a 300 year olde english document - you will need a translator and it will take eons to read a single sentence
When I was in grade 9 my whole class was capable of reading a complete novel in a single semester. We all managed to read William Shakespeare, who died in 1616, without eons spent reading a single sentence. I always suspected Canadians to be on a much more advanced level than the rest of the planet.
Try reading a medical journal.
Language is being simplified, beginning with american english spellings, and followed now by almost digitalised texts abbreviated/simplified modes
That is true in some respects. Would you say that the level of language has become more complex in the medical field? Or perhaps the physics field? Did Shakespeare have words like - motherboard, monitor, amplifier, television, or dolbyprologicsurroundsound?
We should have - literally - millions of non-disputive evidences, everywhere on the planet - including transitory grads
Millions, check.
Everywhere, check.
Transitory, check.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 11:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:39 AM Vacate has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 25 of 107 (408195)
07-01-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 4:14 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Coherence is lacking in your analogy: while a novel can insert a fictional person into a true historical setting - there is no connection with the reporting of an ancient report which is vindicated as authentic - specially so if it is the only document which says that. The OT accounts for chunks of ancient history not available elsewhere for 1000s of years after its appearence.
If you insert a fictional character into a true setting, and your work remains and others don't, then you will be an account with parts that can be vindicated by future historians. But by no means do this imply that all the parts not verified are true.
IamJoseph writes:
Writings is an effect of speech, not the reason we cannot prove speech before the 6000 date. We know this from this side of the 6000 setting: writings emerged a few centuries after speech - not so the 120,000 years allocated to alledged speec humans.
Not all. In Papua New Guinea, speech existed for millenia without writing, and only with colonisation was writing introduced.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 4:14 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:50 AM Doddy has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 26 of 107 (408220)
07-01-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Vacate
07-01-2007 6:03 AM


quote:
vacate
That is true in some respects. Would you say that the level of language has become more complex in the medical field? Or perhaps the physics field? Did Shakespeare have words like - motherboard, monitor, amplifier, television, or dolbyprologicsurroundsound?
The simplification or streamlining is not related to medical technical terms, but to grammar, spelling and phonations. the word 'scuds' (missile) became commonplace only recently, with the Iraq war. But the older the language, the more complex, which contradicts the notion language started with grunts and coos. The hebrew OT is a complex work, representing the epitomy of grammar, taking the shortest route wordage, and this can require a math-like deciphering process, overturning past translations after deliberation. There is no past writing thread exemplying such literature, making it a msytery how it emerged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Vacate, posted 07-01-2007 6:03 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Vacate, posted 07-01-2007 10:23 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 11:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 07-01-2007 5:25 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 27 of 107 (408222)
07-01-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doddy
07-01-2007 7:09 AM


quote:
If you insert a fictional character into a true setting, and your work remains and others don't, then you will be an account with parts that can be vindicated by future historians. But by no means do this imply that all the parts not verified are true.
The operative factor here is, the mark of veracity is gauged by the vindicated - and all provable factors are vindicated in the OT. This is not dismissable when the factors relate to an ancient time, nor is this seen elsewhere. This is no document with more provables than the OT.
quote:
Not all. In Papua New Guinea, speech existed for millenia without writing, and only with colonisation was writing introduced.
NG does not have an original writings, this is true - but this does not impact that writings closely followed speech. Also, the millenia is inside the 6000 - not of a period when speech for 120k years is vindicated. This also applies to the alledged australian aboriginals being 60k years old, as per cave markings: their population and mental prowess grads do not sustain that period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 07-01-2007 7:09 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 10:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 28 of 107 (408224)
07-01-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 9:50 AM


Usual Junk Assertions
IAmJoseph writes:
This is no document with more provables than the OT.
You keep saying this across several threads. OK I posit one, Euclid's elements is a document with more 'provables' than the OT.
This also applies to the alledged australian aboriginals being 60k years old, as per cave markings: their population and mental prowess grads do not sustain that period.
Their 'mental prowess?' Does your lack of understanding of history, science and the NT require you to be a racist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by IamJoseph, posted 07-02-2007 12:13 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 29 of 107 (408229)
07-01-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 9:39 AM


IamJoseph writes:
The simplification or streamlining is not related to medical technical terms, but to grammar, spelling and phonations.
Why is it not related to medical/technical terms? They are also part of the language. I don't think its fair to say that language is becoming simplified, and then say that portions of the language are not applicable for analysis. What else should we exclude?
the word 'scuds' (missile) became commonplace only recently
Before that it was called "R-11" (or back a bit further to the V-2?), so I suppose that scud is showing an increase in complexity?
But the older the language, the more complex
Excluding, of course, technical, medical, scientific, and any assortment of modern words that would contradict the theory. How did they manage to convey such complex subjects without the words to support it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 107 (408238)
07-01-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by IamJoseph
07-01-2007 9:39 AM


Complexity of Language
IamJoseph writes:
The simplification or streamlining is not related to medical technical terms, but to grammar, spelling and phonations. the word 'scuds' (missile) became commonplace only recently, with the Iraq war. But the older the language, the more complex, which contradicts the notion language started with grunts and coos. The hebrew OT is a complex work, representing the epitomy of grammar, taking the shortest route wordage, and this can require a math-like deciphering process, overturning past translations after deliberation. There is no past writing thread exemplying such literature, making it a msytery how it emerged.
I find it strange that one can assert that the English language, which currently contains over one million words and which is easily at least four times as much as the nearest contender, is somehow more 'primitive' than any other, either now or in the past.
As for epitomizing grammar (or being the most complex in not), exemplifying literature, or providing more concise definitions of concepts than other languages, let history, or for that matter the present, be the judge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 9:39 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024