Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it isn't. Your claims are faith -claims with not a shred of evidential basis. What all you believers seem to have in common is this faith - based desire to see everything that happens as being obviously 'God' when it has been exhaustively demonstrated that there is no sound evidential or logical reason to suppose any such thing.
So far as I can see not even the first of the 100 proofs got off the ground and all we are getting is faith -based insistence that a total lack of proof is, through Faith, proof.
The evidence is the historical track of primordal man; as I have stated, millions of years existing without a verbal or writen language, then the bible records how God gave Adam conscious self thinking and self speaking life. The history of lanugage took off from Adam and grew, NOT before him. The reason you cannot see this, is because you reject the incredible historical value of the bible, and thus there exist a missing link in your understanding of what I am relating.
The evidence is the historical track of primordal man; as I have stated, millions of years existing without a verbal or writen language, then the bible records how God gave Adam conscious self thinking and self speaking life. The history of lanugage took off from Adam and grew, NOT before him. The reason you cannot see this, is because you reject the incredible historical value of the bible, and thus there exist a missing link in your understanding of what I am relating.
First of all Adam is only one of the persistent myths perpetrated by that ancient book of mythology, the bible...Neither you nor anyone else has solved the question of when language began, but I believe these scientists are getting close...
"We estimate that present-day languages date back to the Middle Stone Age in Africa. Our analysis is consistent with the archaeological evidence suggesting that complex human behavior evolved during the Middle Stone Age in Africa, and does not support the view that language is a recent adaptation that has sparked the dispersal of humans out of Africa. While some of our assumptions require testing and our results rely at present on a single case-study, our analysis constitutes the first estimate of when language evolved that is directly based on linguistic data." New Ideas About the Origin of Language | Psychology Today
Then cite the academic papers that refer to this please. The Bible is not a scientific journal.
You can use and refer to any of my threads on this site, I consider them Academic and accurate. The papers I have written here are a source of true history at its purest.
The evidence is the historical track of primordal man; as I have stated, millions of years existing without a verbal or writen language, then the bible records how God gave Adam conscious self thinking and self speaking life. The history of lanugage took off from Adam and grew, NOT before him. The reason you cannot see this, is because you reject the incredible historical value of the bible, and thus there exist a missing link in your understanding of what I am relating.
I am afraid that your posts have been consistently shown to be very arguable if not misconceived. The claim that humans existed for millions of years without a verbal language (which you adroitly connect with a 'written language' which of course came FAR later) is probably true, but that there was an effective communication language way back in the stone age is highly likely. In fact almost certain. The probability is that it developed - as humans did - over hundreds of thousands of years and is still developing today.
There is not a shred of evidence to postulate a specific 'Adam' event and even less to connect any such milestone in language with the Bible which is of NO value whatsoever in these areas of research.
It only remains to point out that your previous 'Adam' event was in the Mesolithic where you conveniently see the development of farming and the plausible link of that with the origins of civilization as being the Adam event. So how can you possibly argue that up until then the hunter gatherers of the old stone age had no meaningful language? It simply does not make sense that no proper language developed until they started planting corn instead of going out to forage for it.
Your theory does not hang together, does not fit with science, the Bible is proof of nothing in respect of palaeontology and your arguments have only a missing link in respect of your comprehension of the subject.
We understand it well enough to explain it to you but you refuse to listen. There is a link missing there, too.
I am afraid that your posts have been consistently shown to be very arguable if not misconceived. The claim that humans existed for millions of years without a verbal language (which you adroitly connect with a 'written language' which of course came FAR later) is probably true, but that there was an effective communication language way back in the stone age is highly likely. In fact almost certain. The probability is that it developed - as humans did - over hundreds of thousands of years and is still developing today.
There is not a shred of evidence to postulate a specific 'Adam' event and even less to connect any such milestone in language with the Bible which is of NO value whatsoever in these areas of research.
It only remains to point out that your previous 'Adam' event was in the Mesolithic where you conveniently see the development of farming and the plausible link of that with the origins of civilization as being the Adam event. So how can you possibly argue that up until then the hunter gatherers of the old stone age had no meaningful language? It simply does not make sense that no proper language developed until they started planting corn instead of going out to forage for it.
Your theory does not hang together, does not fit with science, the Bible is proof of nothing in respect of palaeontology and your arguments have only a missing link in respect of your comprehension of the subject.
We understand it well enough to explain it to you but you refuse to listen. There is a link missing there, too.
Oh one MUST agree that there had to be a first human with consciousness, that cannot be denied, we just disagree on the name of that human, which makes the biblical record deeply valuable, it provides us with that name- Adam! Who denies that there was no first human who had consciousness?- Stand up and explain WHY there was NOT a first human with consciousness? Once that useless effort is agreed on, we understand by common sense, NOT science, that there had to be a first human with consciousness, I accept the biblical explination of that, and consider it the most accurate and reliable. Futhermore, its common sense that a first human with consciousness could be able to verbally express their conscious thoughts, which is WHY I view primordal humans as NOT holding a working consciousness as compared to those after Adam. Makes perfect sense. And it was God who imparted that consciousness, because he is a conscious being, consciousness can only breed consciousness.
Any theory that protends that consciousness can be born from unconscious things simply does not hang together.
Oh one MUST agree that there had to be a first human with consciousness, that cannot be denied, we just disagree on the name of that human, which makes the biblical record deeply valuable, it provides us with that name- Adam! Who denies that there was no first human who had consciousness?- Stand up and explain WHY there was NOT a first human with consciousness? Once that useless effort is agreed on, we understand by common sense, NOT science, that there had to be a first human with consciousness, I accept the biblical explination of that, and consider it the most accurate and reliable. Futhermore, its common sense that a first human with consciousness could be able to verbally express their conscious thoughts, which is WHY I view primordal humans as NOT holding a working consciousness as compared to those after Adam. Makes perfect sense. And it was God who imparted that consciousness, because he is a conscious being, consciousness can only breed consciousness.
Any theory that protends that consciousness can be born from unconscious things simply does not hang together.
YOU accept the bible as truth due to faith. I reject that, as objective scientific inquiry leads to knowledge and innovation, not superstition. The bible is not peer-reviewed, and therefore is not a reliable source of scientific information. In fact, the bible isn't even a good source of morality, given the truly barbaric nature of "god" in the old testament. It is a collection of stories derived from stone/bronze age superstitious, jealous, arrogant, and fearful men.
As for conciousness, it obviously evolved over time, like any other traits we have. In fact I've read some recent works that attributes much of our cognitive development from primitive man to modern man to the increased omega-3 fatty acids in our diet!
As for language, I think it's pretty clear that it evolved over time like any other cultural trait. Language is still evolving as we speak. We can observe these changes over time, and therefore postulate that this is how it originated. Which makes more sense, observable cultural evolution, or that some unobserved, unverifiable bearded guy gave it to the first man?
The evidence is the historical track of primordal man; as I have stated, millions of years existing without a verbal or writen language, then the bible records how God gave Adam conscious self thinking and self speaking life. The history of lanugage took off from Adam and grew, NOT before him. The reason you cannot see this, is because you reject the incredible historical value of the bible, and thus there exist a missing link in your understanding of what I am relating.
Your speculative claims are truly enlightening! I need to know why you make such spectacularly unverifiable claims such as "millions of years existing without a verbal or writen language" or the next wild tale, that "God gave Adam conscious self thinking and self speaking life".
Wow! Given that I have seen many of the so-called "lesser" animals which Christians so love to denigrate, as absolutely communicating, right in my back yard, so to speak, I must protest against your wildly incorrect claims!
Not to mention my own scientific and validated observations out in the wilds (oh, and published as well, but only after that old stick in all your Christian writers' heads: an intense peer-review process that effectively kills off the written claims of the likes of Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort, and their annoying and dishonest ilk...), btw...).
You know: the great laboratory of nature, where you have likely never set foot nor mind, preferring instead to take your intellectual nourishment entirely from the biased thinking of others with a verifiable agenda and an obvious penchant for the relentless denial of facts in evidence.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
You can use and refer to any of my threads on this site, I consider them Academic and accurate. The papers I have written here are a source of true history at its purest.
Oh! My apologies! Please then... provide us with the link to your peer-reviewed publications. I Had No Idea!
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
Oh one MUST agree that there had to be a first human with consciousness, that cannot be denied, we just disagree on the name of that human, which makes the biblical record deeply valuable, it provides us with that name- Adam! Who denies that there was no first human who had consciousness?- Stand up and explain WHY there was NOT a first human with consciousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunned_but_standing_rflmn
You clam it came on rather suddenly, that a hominid-like human precursor that effectively communicated with it's family and peers had, one afternoon, no useful consciousness at all, just a blank stare, but then...
POOFITY-BANG-BANG!!!
...it suddenly did? How childish and nonsensical, not to mention unsupportable. Hey; if dolphins were communicating by ultra-sound chirps and squeaks under water millions of years before the first upright man, and chimps and their evolutionary precursors were signing their way into some levels of interpersonal communication, your silly idea that God then instantly created an Adam and Eve team, and only they had consciousness?
Wow! Next, some of you guys will then claim it all only happened after the Great Noahtic Fludd myth!
That's just stupendousy wrong and short-sighted!
(For an unbridled and very humorous read, go to this idiotic site and enjoy scrolling around to what Christians think about all of this stuff:
Once that useless effort is agreed on, we understand by common sense, NOT science, that there had to be a first human with consciousness, I accept the biblical explination of that, and consider it the most accurate and reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Why of course you do! It's "Convenient" if not purely illogical. Only YOU accept it, btw, not those of learning, logic and scientific accumen. But surely... let's not stop there, because then you go on further with your assumptive common sense conclusions....
Futhermore, its common sense that a first human with consciousness could be able to verbally express their conscious thoughts, which is WHY I view primordal humans as NOT holding a working consciousness as compared to those after Adam.Makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
And it was God who imparted that consciousness, because he is a conscious being, consciousness can only breed consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
... # 2
Any theory that protends that consciousness can be born from unconscious things simply does not hang together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
hmmm. "Protends".. Maybe I just don't fully understand the meaning & depth of this word: it's all new to m... "Protends"… Sounds interesting indeed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dba07
YOU accept the bible as truth due to faith. I reject that, as objective scientific inquiry leads to knowledge and innovation, not superstition. The bible is not peer-reviewed, and therefore is not a reliable source of scientific information. In fact, the bible isn't even a good source of morality, given the truly barbaric nature of "god" in the old testament. It is a collection of stories derived from stone/bronze age superstitious, jealous, arrogant, and fearful men.
As for conciousness, it obviously evolved over time, like any other traits we have. In fact I've read some recent works that attributes much of our cognitive development from primitive man to modern man to the increased omega-3 fatty acids in our diet!
As for language, I think it's pretty clear that it evolved over time like any other cultural trait. Language is still evolving as we speak. We can observe these changes over time, and therefore postulate that this is how it originated.
√ Which makes more sense, observable cultural evolution, or that some unobserved, unverifiable bearded guy gave it to the first man?
Well, careful who you ask that last highlighted question of, dba07. You might just get an answer that will make you want to step out of the room for a moment to re-evaluate and then re-establish your sanity....
This particular poster is historically noted and documented for his illogical, unsupported and convenient conclusions. Not to mention his bizarre initial hypotheses, which are his alone.
You can use and refer to any of my threads on this site, I consider them Academic and accurate. The papers I have written here are a source of true history at its purest.
YOU accept the bible as truth due to faith. I reject that, as objective scientific inquiry leads to knowledge and innovation, not superstition. The bible is not peer-reviewed, and therefore is not a reliable source of scientific information. In fact, the bible isn't even a good source of morality, given the truly barbaric nature of "god" in the old testament. It is a collection of stories derived from stone/bronze age superstitious, jealous, arrogant, and fearful men.
As for conciousness, it obviously evolved over time, like any other traits we have. In fact I've read some recent works that attributes much of our cognitive development from primitive man to modern man to the increased omega-3 fatty acids in our diet!
As for language, I think it's pretty clear that it evolved over time like any other cultural trait. Language is still evolving as we speak. We can observe these changes over time, and therefore postulate that this is how it originated. Which makes more sense, observable cultural evolution, or that some unobserved, unverifiable bearded guy gave it to the first man?
I do not accept the bible due to faith, I have no faith; and I understand that about myself. I accept the bible based on its historical facts, its knowledge and innovation; faith has nothing to do with my observation of it. Scientific information was born and birthed from the same spirit that inspiried the bible to be written- know your history! And yes, it was written by men, just as " All" the things you believe in were written by men; so because it was written by humans, you cannot use that to dismiss its relevance, or conversely I can use that same reasoning to dismiss all things you believe in.
And just for notation, God has no beard and God is not human, we simply don't know exactly what God looks like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Careful what you ask!
