- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Apr 13
3 edits
Linquist, Ancient Language Translator, Bible Expositor Arthur Custance on "Who Taught Adam To Speak?"
Scientifically documented and rather interesting to me.
http://209.240.156.133/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html
First two paragraphs
MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. (1) But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin of speech appeared to him therefore to be insoluble. Apart from revelation, it still is.
Because of the influence of Darwin's theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation of human speech from animal cries. Essentially the two were the same; it was merely a question of the degree of complexity. Following in the steps of earlier social anthropologists, who were arranging the various primitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrating man's supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks, and grimaces of the lowliest "savages" were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipBut the discovery from time to time of "wild" or feral children without
Linquist, Ancient Language Translator, Bible Expositor Arthur Custance on [b]"Who Taught Adam To Speak?"
Scientifically documented and rather interesting to me.
http://209.240.156.133/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html
First two paragraphs
MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from anima ...[text shortened]... e all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)[/b]
speech, showed clearly that it results only where there has been social contact.
Moreover such contact must be with speaking individuals, for it was further
discovered that someone else has to start the process off for each one of us.
Company alone does not create communication by speech. Without the spark
from one party already the possessor of the faculty, there is no conversation
Is false.
Look up idioglossia; babies instinctively want to talk and although rare can
sometimes develop a real language between themselves.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59It was God who started it off by speaking to Adam and Eve. However, he had already made them with the ability to understand and speak back. That is not true of a monkey. They will never be able to speak back no matter how much you talk to them.
[i]But the discovery from time to time of "wild" or feral children without
speech, showed clearly that it results only where there has been social contact.
Moreover such contact must be with speaking individuals, for it was further
discovered that someone else has to start the process off for each one of us.
Company alone does not create communica ...[text shortened]... ely want to talk and although rare can
sometimes develop a real language between themselves.
22 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNot true. They can communicate just fine with sign language, having been taught that language they do pretty well considering the size of their brains. I guess it is one of your built in precepts that humans are so superior to apes there is no comparison. Sorry to dis-illusion you but apes have gotten as high as 80 on non-verbal IQ tests. There are a lot of humans who can't score that high on ANY IQ test.
It was God who started it off by speaking to Adam and Eve. However, he had already made them with the ability to understand and speak back. That is not true of a monkey. They will never be able to speak back no matter how much you talk to them.
As far as speaking goes, their larynx is not designed for it. They do pretty well in spite of that.
Detailed analysis of Neandertal throats shows they would have trouble speaking also. But as far as you are concerned, they are totally human. Kindly explain THAT one.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Apr 13
6 edits
Is false.
Look up idioglossia; babies instinctively want to talk and although rare can
sometimes develop a real language between themselves.
I didn't see how this negates the paragraph you say it does.
It is not disputed that babies want to talk.
They are probably imitating the communication they see in older humans between themselves.
The point was that an already speaking (probably adult) would start the learning process off.
I think you're agreeing with the paragraph wolfgang.
http://209.240.156.133/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobOnce again not denying ash in ice; however, how deep the ice has as much to
Volcanic ash Kelly can only come from a volcanic eruption. There's a fragmentation process which happens to the magma as it is blown into the sky due to the intense heat and pressure's involved. The magma turns into very small grains of glass. So when volcanic ash is found in ice core samples it has to have come from a volcanic eruption.
As for your ...[text shortened]... nd hundreds of metres deep within an ice shelf and time not be involved. How did it get there?
do with how the ice got there, and that does not always relate to time. If you
have lived where weather causes snow and ice you'll know that both can come
in large amounts in short periods of time it isn't always a constant rate. What
the ash itself can tell you jumps back into the discussions we have had in the
past as well on your dating methods, so what makes this a problematic is
suggesting you can look at it and know how much time has passed to cause
what we see to occur.
Kelly
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOh, so you think God used sign language instead of a spoken language with Adam and Eve? Brilliant! You should submit that as a scientific theory for you would be a sure nominee to get a Nobel Prize in Science and Religion.
Not true. They can communicate just fine with sign language, having been taught that language they do pretty well considering the size of their brains. I guess it is one of your built in precepts that humans are so superior to apes there is no comparison. Sorry to dis-illusion you but apes have gotten as high as 80 on non-verbal IQ tests. There are a lot of ...[text shortened]... peaking also. But as far as you are concerned, they are totally human. Kindly explain THAT one.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThose doing the analyzis are stupid.
Not true. They can communicate just fine with sign language, having been taught that language they do pretty well considering the size of their brains. I guess it is one of your built in precepts that humans are so superior to apes there is no comparison. Sorry to dis-illusion you but apes have gotten as high as 80 on non-verbal IQ tests. There are a lot of ...[text shortened]... peaking also. But as far as you are concerned, they are totally human. Kindly explain THAT one.
22 Apr 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThe whole point of studying ice core data is to see what years have thicker layers. Of course ice buildup varies year to year but the record of thin V thick is left in the core. How could it be otherwise?
Once again not denying ash in ice; however, how deep the ice has as much to
do with how the ice got there, and that does not always relate to time. If you
have lived where weather causes snow and ice you'll know that both can come
in large amounts in short periods of time it isn't always a constant rate. What
the ash itself can tell you jumps back into ...[text shortened]... ng you can look at it and know how much time has passed to cause
what we see to occur.
Kelly
You have a year where you get 1 mm of ice then a year with 2 mm of ice, those thicknesses do not go away or change, it is 1 mm now and 1 mm 10,000 years from now since water is incompressible mostly and certainly at the pressures encountered by a mile or two of ice.
Of course there is a lot of force on the bottom of a two mile column of ice but at those pressures, admittedly great, are not even CLOSE to where just that pressure would make much of a difference in the layer thicknesses.