Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

The premise of pre-5770 speech has no scientific backing whatsoever. Genesis must be saluted - even if this constitutes open blasphemy for yellow blooded ToE religionists.



Origin of language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
The origin of language (known in linguistics as glottogony[1]) is the onset in prehistory of human spoken language. It also represents the acquisition of the human ability to use language. There are a number of theories surrounding the origin of language, but each are speculative. Being located so early in human prehistory, the relevant developments have left no direct historical traces and no comparable processes can be observed today.[2]

The time range under discussion in this context extends from the phylogenetic separation of Homo and Pan some 5 million years ago to the emergence of full behavioral modernity some 50,000 years ago[citation needed].

The evolution of fully modern human language requires the development of the vocal tract used for speech production and the cognitive abilities required to produce linguistic utterances.[citation needed]

The debate surrounds the time line, sequence and order of developments associated with this. It is mostly undisputed that pre-human australopithecines did not have communication systems significantly different from those found in great apes in general, but scholarly opinions vary as to the developments since the appearance of Homo some 2.5 million years ago. Some scholars assume the development of primitive language-like systems (proto-language) as early as Homo habilis, while others place the development of primitive symbolic communication only with Homo erectus (1.8 million years ago) or Homo heidelbergensis (0.6 million years ago) and the development of language proper with Homo sapiens sapiens less than 100,000 years ago.

Contents [hide]
1 Communication, speech and language
2 Biological foundations for human speech
3 Evolutionary timeline
3.1 Primate language
3.2 Early Homo
3.3 Archaic Homo sapiens
3.3.1 Homo heidelbergenis
3.3.2 Homo neanderthalensis
3.4 Homo sapiens
4 Cognitive development and language
4.1 Theory of mind
4.2 Number representation
5 Linguistic structures
5.1 Universal grammar
5.2 Lexical-phonological principle
5.3 Pidgins and creoles
6 Scenarios for language evolution
6.1 Monogenesis
6.2 Gestural theory
6.3 Self-domesticated ape theory
6.4 Synergetic approach
7 History
7.1 In religion and mythology
7.2 Historical experiments
7.3 History of research
8 See also
9 Footnotes
10 References
11 External links

[edit] Communication, speech and language
See also: Animal communication and Animal language
Many scientists make a distinction between speech and language. They believe that language (as a content[disambiguation needed] of communication, and primarily as a cognitive ability to form concepts and communicate them) was developed earlier in human evolution, and speech (one of the forms of communication) was developed much later. The presence of speech (without language) is also possible in some cases of human mental retardation (like Specific Language Impairment) and is also known in the animal kingdom. For instance, talking birds are able to imitate human speech with varying ability. However, this ability to mimic human sounds is very different from the acquisition of syntax. Likewise, the production of speech sounds is not necessary for language use, as evidenced by modern sign languages, which use manual symbols and facial grammar as a basis for language rather than speech. Morse coding system, and the system of the Marine Signal Flags are other forms of communication, but not necessarily language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, if you say humans had speech 50K years ago - we should see further imprints of its development every 100 or 1000 years, as we see from 5770 to today. Is that not what evolution is all about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The claim about the Moon not existing is your claim, just worded differently.
The claim suggests that unless someone documented the existence- it never existed.
You idly dismiss the clear evidence of the larynx, vocal cords etc offhandedly while complaining about Poor Record Keeping from thousands of years ago, long before paper was invented.

I've never seen such an absurd claim- Except the one that says there is no Moon. You're right up there with that- and I'm fairly certain that the Mad Revisionist is joking.

 

QUOTE OF THE DAY "A fool grows without rain."

I never indicated what you say, that someone has to document it to be proven. As I said, aside from names, we have a vacuum of anything which aligns with speech, inclusing wars, kings, rulers, despots, nations, monuments, etc, etc.

Opposing this we have a larynx - as proof of speech, with no transit follow-up graduations, and any speech imprints only pop-up with the genesis dating. Nor do we need writings to verify a name: how about some oral memory recall, as we see in many native peoples who had no writings?

To be honest and blatant, the larynx charade is equally desperate of the premise speech existed but was not recorded. I say to the fanatical ToEists:

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.

 

Let me say firstly, I am not debating this subject from a theological premise, but a scientific one based on basic logic, so cease any reference I am rejecting science. I say the proof required has to be absolute for those who see this issue as pivotally important for humanity, or cursory for those who couldn't care less.

Your question, sorry to say, is not worth much merit because we have ZILCH proof of speech pre-5770 - a fact not dented by the larynx premise. While I have already mentioned a host of features which evidence speech, the resorting to a larynx is a desperation which is laughable. I see this kind of frontage commonplace in ToE, and they are accepted much too eagerly and with a vengence syndrome. To me it is proof they have nothing and are manipulating when they resort to such feeble and airy premises - it says what they don't admit.

What is the reason for a larynx proving speech - with no other surrounding imprints demanded? If someone showed you a piece of metal, twisted and made to look like a car's steering wheel - would you accept that as the only proof required for cars existing a million years ago - or would you demand follow-up and surrounding proof as a back up? That's what is happening here. That such insanity is absorbed by such a huge, enlightened sector of humanity, must show how easy it is for a multitude to be corrupted. Take the example of the two biggest religions, Christianity and Islam - each would kill and die for their beliefs. Ahem! But these two contradict each other - and of the same space-time history that make their beliefs - which means at least 1.5 B humans are wrong. See how easy it is to corrupt a multitude? That is what has happened with ToE. :shrug:

 

Boy oh boy. I'm sorry IaJ, you just have to much wrong going on to respond meaningfully. The Lascaux cave art is not a fake. That's a specific claim and you can't support it.

I'm guessing you are confused about the nature of scientific evidence. Go take a science class or read a textbook.

 

your not going to get through with him. come on he thinks scientist are evil liars because when there was no historical evidence for his myth and they call it that he got cranky( his king david comment)

 

i know. I just figured I'd write it anyway.

 

Perfectly expressed.

 

Are names, wars, monuments - not speech imprints but claims of a larynx are? Who's escaping the question again!?

Knock-knock. You have no name 1 minute before 5770: quantify the odds of such a predicament. Then give my regards to broadway.

 

You miss the point. If King David is not a myth, is gives credence that when the world's first alphabetical books say human speech is 5770 years old, it is not something to laugh at. The odds for a writing made 1000's of years ago and declaring this, down to the day and year - and being vindicated - is outside all realms of possibilities. Why employ bogus, selective math?

Call me when you come up with a name pre-5770: a true science and math does not allow any escapism here. You will find me easily converted when you deliver - because my science is not selective.

 

In fact I am science based to the letter. Its no myth you don't have a name pre-5770. Deal with it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you don't have a name pre-5770, because the name existed but no one wrote it down - you MUST conclude there were no names. Trust me - I'm not a solicitor and only engaging you all in correct scence and math. And no matter anyone shows you in a lab vase - there is no escape untill you come with a name for seech endowed humans. Bang head repeatedly on your screen unless this is delivered.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are.

The existence of the functional vocal equipment strong suggests that our ancestors were capable of speech.

Just as the structure of the leg bones strongly suggests that they walked.

There are no records that they walked written down. The records are in the bones.

Your major fallacy is the way you Ignore any strong evidence that contradicts your desired outcome.
You are the one escaping, not just the question, but reality itself.

I pity you, IamJoseph. I cannot imagine what torments you face within that it's necessary for you to try to entertain delusions of grandeur, as those conspiracy theorists that must impress upon others they have secret knowledge no one else can see.

 

The existence of the functional vocal equipment strong suggests that our ancestors were NOT capable of speech.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Putting the right question back on the radar.

Q: What does it mean, if anything, if speech was limited to 5770 years - and it was declared as such 1000's of years ago?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!