E
EndTimes
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
E
EndTimes
Guest
Whatever it was - it’s of no importance with regard to Salvation…
E
EndTimes
Guest
You’re correct. Ultra-Literal? No such beast…
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
N
Noose001
Guest
Communication is a specific trait, riding bikes is not; all specific traits evolve with the species according to evolution. Specific traits are social, biological, physical traits associated with the species and so when a species evolves, the traits also change and communication is one of the major traits in every species.
Again, how was the transition from our ancestral grunts to words with meaning(s) and arranging those words to give meaningful expressions; meaningful expression(s) not to the one expressing but to the other person(s), which means that at any given moment, at least two persons must have had the understanding of those words.
Is research being done? Please stop wasting time, it is hopeless.
N
Noose001
Guest
How? And specifically in the case of our ancestor, from who did they learn?
When? As if evolution knows where to stop because it understands something better will take over.
If there’s a specific trait that is acquired through LEARNING then evolution fails because it proposes traits from mutations and natural selection only.
So a brain capacity and other faculties of speech evolved, now i have to learn a language?! If i don’t learn evolution is wasted. Why don’t you add this aspect to your theory the fact that it understands what lies ahead.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Perfect, i agree but how and from who did our ancestor learn a language? why?
Ability to speak means nothing if you cannot speak.
N
Noose001
Guest
There’s no facial expression or signs for “i ate an orange last week” or “i mate his nephew’s teacher’s son”
Once you get anything from those scholarly articles let me know but what we know is that we learn a language from knowledgeable sources and we can only fall back to a common knowledgeable source and not a common ancestor.
Why does anyone have to study the origin of language if language doesn’t shutter their world view?
There are reasons why language did not just start the way you suppose it started.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Earth year is a man’s concept for the experience of passage of time. Things before man and after man belongs to eternity and not earth years as experienced by man.
Humanity before Adam is debatable.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes… Adam and Eve learned from their Parent - God.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
@Migel2,
The geneaologies, when cross compared with other ancient copies, occasionally show that certain figures are in some ancient biblical texts and not others. So, the total genealogy has almost certainly been truncated where grandsfathers, or even great grandfathers, are sometimes called “fathers.”
Not to mention, that calendars and the idea of “year” changes throughout history. In the pre-flood era, many peoples ages were accounted to decimal years; eg: 900 years would be 90 years old and 0 months. There are comparison passages in the flood account which have similar calendar differences saying things that come out in English translation as 400 days instead of 40 days. The point is that decimal numbers were not invented until after Christ died, and that people understood that if a period was longer than expected that it could refer to a decimal fraction of that time period.
Remember this one thing, bretheren, that to the Lord a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. 2Peter 3:8. Time periods are collective nouns in ancient Greek, and the new testament. To specify something was actually a “day” you had to use an intensifier, like “this very [same] day.” The same is true of other words, such as rock “Petros”, “Petra”, etc. to talk about a specific single rock, you had to use intensifiers like “upon this [very same] rock, I will build my church.” Otherwise, it could be read as any rock you want it to be. The same is true of time periods. They often have different significance in prophecy and history than discreet and well known periods of time.
On the first day there was light … (but remember brothers, with the Lord… )
Stick with Peter, and he’ll guide you around the biggest pitfalls of OT genealogies.
That’s easy to check and find solid evidence to back. The number of years the Israelites were in Egypt is counted by births and fathership. However, no father only has their child on the very last day they live. The usually have them young. So, if you add up the years every father lived in the Genealogy in Egypt it should come out to longer than their stay in Egypt. It doesn’t.
The geneaologies, when cross compared with other ancient copies, occasionally show that certain figures are in some ancient biblical texts and not others. So, the total genealogy has almost certainly been truncated where grandsfathers, or even great grandfathers, are sometimes called “fathers.”
Not to mention, that calendars and the idea of “year” changes throughout history. In the pre-flood era, many peoples ages were accounted to decimal years; eg: 900 years would be 90 years old and 0 months. There are comparison passages in the flood account which have similar calendar differences saying things that come out in English translation as 400 days instead of 40 days. The point is that decimal numbers were not invented until after Christ died, and that people understood that if a period was longer than expected that it could refer to a decimal fraction of that time period.
Remember this one thing, bretheren, that to the Lord a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. 2Peter 3:8. Time periods are collective nouns in ancient Greek, and the new testament. To specify something was actually a “day” you had to use an intensifier, like “this very [same] day.” The same is true of other words, such as rock “Petros”, “Petra”, etc. to talk about a specific single rock, you had to use intensifiers like “upon this [very same] rock, I will build my church.” Otherwise, it could be read as any rock you want it to be. The same is true of time periods. They often have different significance in prophecy and history than discreet and well known periods of time.
On the first day there was light … (but remember brothers, with the Lord… )
Stick with Peter, and he’ll guide you around the biggest pitfalls of OT genealogies.
N
Noose001
Guest
There’s no facial expression for “i ate an orange two weeks ago” and there’re no signs for “my friend’s cousin’s daughter”. See, language has rules; rules about relations and word connectors and time (past present and future) which give further meaning.
There’s absolutely no evidence for what you are saying.
Again;
- Rules require words with meaning(s) and words with meaning(s) require rules.
- Words with meaning(s) require teaching/learning and teaching/learning requires words with meaning(s)
The common knowledgeable source is aka God, not a Neanderthal or its cousin.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Nothing validates e.g., Darwinism… So your intended point never reached first base
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
1.If we get information from the environment, what’s the need of moving from grunts with meaning(s), to sign(s) with the same meaning to words with the same meaning?
If grunts have meaning(s), then it is a language and if signs have meaning(s), it becomes a language- why the shift from one to another and finally to words?
If grunts have meaning(s), then it is a language and if signs have meaning(s), it becomes a language- why the shift from one to another and finally to words?
- Deaf people today don’t develop a language or sign language not that they don’t get information from the environment but because they don’t get to learn a language which they can use to express the information.
This tells you that whereas information is outside the mind, it is a language inside the mind. - A child/person who doesn’t learn a language can not develop one even when they interact with the environment whole their life because of the highlighted part above.
Thanks to an elaborate sign language which has recently been developed. Its development was on the basis of established normal language- a privilege that our ancestor did not have.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Thing is - jan10000 can neither prove nor disprove the origin of languages…
N
Noose001
Guest
Despite that, he doesn’t want to acknowledge the obvious- God.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Trolls need ignoring.
N
Noose001
Guest
To me, it is one of many other evidences against evolution.
IMO, Cosmological arguments are not good arguments for or against God and this is because of my view of God. I view God and creation differently.
E
EndTimes
Guest
No one reads his arguments, do they?
N
Noose001
Guest
I would like to know what he thinks disapproves creation.
- Status