Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

And you cannot prove there is something called nature.

Are you actually claiming that speech is only 6,000 years old?Is that really what you are saying?

Absolutely, with all rebuttals considered. Nor is this because there was no writings.This does not apply to any prototypes of the human species, but actual speech endowed humans only being applicable. C14 datings, cave scratchings, alledged imprints of mass burials & agriculture, colored beads, etc do not apply or impact: they display no alligning population and mental prowess graduations. Eg. Re. claims the Australian Aboriginals are 60,000 years old - why is their population not in the trillions?Its very simple to disprove me:Just give a 'NAME' of anyone older than 6000?A name is an irrefutable proof of speech, and needs no writing: it can be recalled, as with traditional songs, recipies and myths. But no name = no speech Endowed humans; and no history per se pre-6000.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You are posting absolute, uninformed nonsense.All we need to do is compare human skeletal morphology, particularly the hyoid bone and brain size.There is no sudden change at 6,000 years. The change in the hyoid happened more like 300,000 years ago. Brain size was getting pretty decent by then also.Or is this your way of trying to claim the earth is only 6,000 years old?Here is a link that may shed some light: How the Hyoid Bone Changed History

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And there are a host of scientists who disagree. Nor is this acceptable proof. If speech was prevalent 300K years ago - its evidencing would hardly be confusing or doubtful: there would be millions of transit evidences in all parts of the planet - as opposed to a co-incidental factor of one bone, alledged or supposed to be the cause of speech via de-construction under a microscope.For such a vital issue, such evidence is ridiculous.

Let's see the evidence.And don't bother with creationist websites -- when it comes to science they lie (they have to).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Applicable factors which refute your claim by leading scientists. ToE does not apply, and in fact, speech is the most negeting factor of the ToE premises of adaptation and survival of the species:

quote:

---

It is highly significant that Chomsky, the leading world expert in the science of linguistics, cannot see how the human language acquisition system could possibly have evolved by natural selection.

---

quote:

---

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/human_origins/article3.html
Language Barriers

​

Many scientists believe that language is the key to mankind's great leap forward, since it uniquely enables us to communicate and transfer ideas and experiences from one generation to the next. Until recently, this leap forward was associated with the behavioural changes which swept Europe around 40,000 years ago. Then, in 1983, there came the shocking discovery of the 60,000-year-old Neandertal hyoid bone which proved that Neandertal could talk.

​

The origin of human language capability remains a controversial subject and raises more questions than answers.

​

The pioneering work of Noam Chomsky has shown that newborn babies inherit genetically an innate and highly advanced language structure. According to Chomsky's widely-acclaimed theory of universal grammar, the child is able to subconsciously flick a few simple switches in order to comprehend and speak the language of its parents, wherever in the world it happens to be born. It is highly significant that Chomsky, the leading world expert in the science of linguistics, cannot see how the human language acquisition system could possibly have evolved by natural selection.

​

One of the foremost evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges the difficulties with the evolution of language by effectively admitting that it was a freak or chance development:

​

The universals of language are so different from anything else in nature, and so quirky in their structure, that origin as a side consequence of the brain's enhanced capacity, rather than as a simple advance in continuity from ancestral grunts and gestures, seems indicated. (emphasis added)

​

Why did man acquire such a sophisticated language capability? According to Darwinian theory, a few simple grunts would have sufficed for everyday existence, and yet here we are today with more than 26 alphabet sounds and an average vocabulary of 25,000 words.

​

Moreover, speech capability was not such an easy or obvious target for natural selection. The human ability to talk resides in both the shape and structure of the mouth and throat, as well as in the brain. In adult humans the larynx (voicebox) is situated much lower than in other mammals and the epiglottis (the flap of cartilage at the root of the tongue) is incapable of reaching the top of the roof of the mouth. Thus we cannot breathe and swallow at the same time and are uniquely at risk from choking. This unique combination of features can have only one purpose - to make human speech possible. In all other respects it is an evolutionary disadvantage. Apart from the risk of choking, it causes our teeth to become crowded, so that, prior to the advent of antibiotics, septic impacted molars would often have proved fatal. Just as it is difficult to reverse-engineer the development of the brain and its language acquisition capability, so it is also difficult to reverse engineer the development of speech capability.

---

quote:

---

As a result of the conclusive dating of contemporary Neandertal and Homo sapiens remains, a new theory has emerged suggesting that both must have stemmed from an earlier 'archaic' Homo sapiens. Several fossils have been found, supposedly of this archaic species, which combine different aspects of primitive erectus and modern human anatomy. It is commonly cited in the popular press that these archaics emerged around 300,000 years ago. But it turns out that this is pure supposition based on a small sample size, preconceptions and guesswork.

---

C14 does not impact:

quote:

---

... our control of fine chronology is inadequate for periods prior to the finite limits of radiocarbon dating (c. 35,000 years BP) and from there back through most of the Middle Pleistocene.

​

A further seminar in 1992 also focused on the question of the transition from archaic to modern. One of the papers presented included the following comment:

​

The timescale of this transition lies beyond the dating range of C14 and therefore has necessitated the employment of a battery of new dating techniques.

---

Homo sapiens do not impact:

quote:

---

The contemporary history of Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains bafflingly obscure... so little do we know about the approach to one of the great turning points of our global history.

​

Meanwhile, Roger Lewin, writing in 1984, stated:

​

The origin of fully modern humans denoted by the subspecies name Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains one of the great puzzles of palaeoanthropology.

---

IMHO, the lack of a 'NAME', and the lack of periodical, graduating imprints, puts PAID to these spins, positied as factual and good science. We know for example, the words PYRAMID, WHEEL, CAR, could not have been possible pre-6000, because these items did not exist. This says, there is no reason not to recall a name pre-6000. We are left only with fossil imprints, which can only cater to grunts and coos; while we know language did not evolve that way, but appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state. The above links acknowledge this.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Your links do nothing to show that language developed just 6,000 years ago.But they do show that you have absolutely no grasp of science, nor of history.And they have shown me that discussing these matters with you is a total waste of time.

An excellent example of repeatability building confidence in a conclusion. Labs world wide have achieved the exact same result.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

About your source:

quote:

---

Alford published the fruits of his initial research in 1996, when he self-published his first book, Gods of the New Millennium, that generally supported Sitchin's hypothesis that Earth had been visited in the past by a race of people from a planet (called Nibiru or Marduk) in this solar system as yet undetected by astronomers. These extraterrestrials, the Anunnaki, came to Earth some 445,000 years ago. They enslaved humans, whom they put to work mining gold. They then became the source of human civilization. The year after Gods of the New Millennium appeared, Hodder and Stoughton republished it and gave Alford a three-book contract to write sequels, which they hoped would tap the same support given to Sitchin.

---

Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsSo, you agree with this nutter, Alan Alford, on human origins, do you? And this is the kind of junk that you call science, is it? This is supposed to back up your fantasies about language, is it?

IamJoseph,nothing can be proven absolute.

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

quote:

---

Your links do nothing to show that language developed just 6,000 years ago.

---

They have nothing to do with genesis - that is an independent science research conclusion. What it does is dismisses the antithetical premises about speech origins, and by default negate the notion of speech prevailings 100s of 1000s of years. You also have Chompanski, the world's leading scientist, dismissing that speech could be the result of ToE. Your now in selective denial.Notwithstanding that all of the above related to a most ubsurd premise that a soft bone accounts for ape-man talking. I say even proving their desperate spin [acknowledged as such in the link] has no connection with the subject, and all pointers point to my premise. The stand out factor is not that we dont have proof of speech for 100s of 1000s of years - but that all imprints of this factor become deathly silent and vacant - exactly at the 6000 point. I don't ask you for a 'NAME' going back 100K or 50K or even 10K years: 6001 will do, and just ONE single example of such: what's the problem - a freak co-incidence?

quote:

---

But they do show that you have absolutely no grasp of science, nor of history.

​

And they have shown me that discussing these matters with you is a total waste of time.

---

You never mentioned which part of history my grasp is deficient with? - and my science has prevailed with regard to speech - by the most clever atheist [anti-genesis] scientists in the world. I would say you are hard to please, and maintaining a talabanic disposision here.When proof and reasoning do not suit - they deem it a waste of time - instead of admitting they were wrong or that they should do some more research of both sides of the coin.

Science works on probabilities. And this has no meaning if not correctly applied to the advent of speech: it is a resounding improbability [I say an impossibility], that we do not have speech proof not just beyond 6000, but at every 200 year period, in transitory grads of evolution, the past 300K years - in ALL sectors of the planet. Lets not get confused.

I surely do not support it - because I see no imprints of life outside this planet. There are no ETs - which has nothing to do with genesis, but is my observation from the maths conclusions. I quoted leading scientists only, and referred it to speech origins. Your post is deflecting and inconnected with me.

You should be in panic trying to come with a name 6001 yrs old. Just a ONER. There is ubsurd denial here of a terrible truth in our midst - but the losers prefer a cherish lie. Its not science when there is a blind rejection - nor does the term 'bible' apply to all scriptures. Differentiating is a fulcrum requirement in science.