Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

I dare you to start a thread, WHAT IF SPEECH IS EXACTLY 6000 YEARS OLD? You should play devil's advocate - just to enumerate the havoc it creates. I mean, what if genesis is right?

A new claim. But again - its all limited to the genesis dating. No one has any countering evidence. Even that this issue is debated, with such tug of war and spins of inference speech existed pre-6000, is a great merit of genesis.

quote:

---

Sinhala, 6000 years ago
by Asiff Hussein

​

It would seem surprising to many that the origins of the Sinhala language could be traced back to 6,000 years ago. Surprising but true. Linguistic research pioneered by nineteenth century German linguists like Franz Bopp and August Schleicher have made it possible to connect Sinhala words to words occurring in a good many European, Iranian and Indian languages belonging to what is known as the Indo-European family of languages and to trace them to their earliest forms.

​

This science known as comparative linguistics aims at establishing the close relationship that exists between such languages as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Lithuanian, German, French, English, Russian, Persian, Hindi and Sinhala as well as attempting to reconstruct the parent speech of all these related languages which are believed to have shared a common origin in the distant past.

​

The close connection between these languages is not very apparent at first glance due to the sound changes they have been subjected to throughout the centuries before assuming their present forms. However a closer examination will reveal that all these languages go back to a parent language which German scholars prefer to call the Ursprache or 'Early Speech'. This Proto- Indo-European language was evidently spoken in Southern Russia around 4500 - 3500 B.C. before its speakers dispersed to the outlying areas of Europe and Asia, taking with them their language, which with time became broken up into dialects, and ultimately distinct languages. The German Linguist August Schleicher was the first scholar to attempt the reconstruction of this Proto-Indo-European language in his epoch-making work, Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen published in 1861. Schleicher's method was simple. What he did was to gather around him many of the then known extinct and extant Indo-European languages from which he deduced how the oldest forms would have sounded like. These hypothetical reconstructed forms he denoted with an asterix, a practice which continues to this day. Schleicher also went on to publish a fable composed in this hypothetical language entitled Avis Akvasas Ka (The sheep and the horses) which has however been subject to some revision (see box). Julius Pokorny in his comprehensive series entitled Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (1948-1969) has succeeded in reconstructing the Proto-Indo-European or PIE speech with greater accuracy.

---

C14 is not a valid form of dating small margin periods. If I made an error in accounting for your decretionary measuring criteria, it still does not effect the comprehensive design how it was concluded.

quote:

---

As for your post 110: Why on Earth would I want to play Devil's advocate for your absolute tosh. Where would one even start. I'd have to plagiarize you because there isn't another scrap of evidence in the world to support it.

---

You may see a different science when doing so - devil's advocate is a legitimate tool for determining an issue, and acts as a cross-reference affirmation. if you want to know what hot is - you first have to know what cold is.

quote:

---

All someone need do to demolish you whole argument is insist that "Ted" is a 7,000 name and shift the burden of proof on to you.

---

Agreed. And that's all I asked for. What's the problem then?

Do you even agree that 'IF' no speech occured before 6000, this creates a problem for ToE factors? If man is 300K years old, how come he never ADAPTED to speech so long? How come no other life form, even those 3 M years old - never graduated to attain the most vital adaptative tool?This is not a hypothetical question: we have no conclusive evidence of speech, while all deliberations as a counter are perched only with the Genesis 6000 dating. In fact, we have no history per se pre-6000, and all population and mental prowess alligns only with genesis. Freaky?I see someone scared and paranoic of considering genesis may have something threatening. Understandable - I cannot convince any religious believer his belief is not necessarilly correct either!

And there is no archeology of a name dated 6001. I am hardly closing my ears to this science - it verifies everything in the OT, almost every week via relics and manuscipts, and these are often cross-related by other alligning evidence.Perhaps you are dismissing the critical factor of no positive proof, when this is an anomoly if speech prevailed for 1000s of years before genesis' dating. Perhaps you are forgetting all the alledged evidences are vested only on inferrences, with examples which are so flimsy they have nothing to do with speech even if those examples had any credence.That humanity cannot come up with a single name 6000+ is a flagrant and shocking anomoly. There is also no history pre-6000, for the same reason: clay deposits and fossils are not history - wars, nations, kings, cities, religions are history, but these seem to only be seen this side of the 6000, as with human pops and all human mental growth grads. Your premise is made from omissions of the fulcrum, with a focus on exaggerated de-constructionism.

quote:

---

You quote Alan F. Alford at length, and he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a leading scientist.

​

So, do you agree that the phrase that I've highlighted in bold is a lie?

---

Strong words, but Alford was not my, but lyx's link. I merely responded to items in that link, as a negation of it.

quote:

---

Incidentally, here's a bit you left out:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Most scientists now believe that Homo sapiens had speech from its very beginning. Studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggest that, since speech is widespread today, it must have developed from a genetic mutation in 'mitochondrial Eve' (mtDNA Eve), nearly 200,000 years ago.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I did not leave it out, but rather that has no credence or applicability. It says if modern humans have speech, they must have hed it 300K years ago. It offers no proof, while all proof opposes this premise.

quote:

---

Chomsky holds the view that our species is hard-wired for language, meaning that if you find a fossilized homo-sapiens, it is a creature that had language. He just couldn't see how natural selection could bring it about, but then his understanding of natural selection is limited, because he can't understand how a wing could evolve either.

---

I have read chompy admitting that speech poses a great difficulty for ToE. If NS cannot allign with speech emergence, then there is no other factor which could. Clearly, speech, if not prevalent before 6000, does negate both adaptation and NS. It is one reason why many neo scientists are desperate to show speech as ancient, and all we have is spins and deconstructurism - when we should have prevasive, concrete proof outside of a science lab. We have absolute zilch - a shocking anomoly.

quote:

---

Gould, the other scientist you misunderstand, thought that language ability probably evolved as a by-product effect of other things that were selected for. Both scientists (and the accountant/pseudo-scientist you quoted) think that our ancestors have had speech for tens of thousands of years, minimum, as do all sane people who've examined the question.

---

So its a by-product now? And only of one species? And only seen within the 6000 block? I remind you, animals and birds are older [adaptation is baed on time periods], and possess greater audio dexterity than humans.What is your view 'if' speech does not date for 10s of 1000s of years, and is in fact less than 6000 - would this impact on ToE for you?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Your getting hysterical. You accused me of lieing and my link was not of a scientist by any imagination:

quote:

---

Are you deliberately lying, Joseph, or are you suffering from severe schizophrenia, as your consistently bizarre (and "inconnected") English suggests.

​

You quote Alan F. Alford at length, and he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a leading scientist.

---

But I quoted also Chompsky? I did not refer to the other link - the link from inx sounded like the same author, but those names do not have any meaning to me, as I have never heard of them - it was what they said which mattered. Thus there was no lie - only your focusing on the irrelevent in hysterical mode.

So what is your reasoning we have not a single name recallable from 6001 years - just a co-incidence with genesis? No kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000, just alledged fossil imprints for 100s of 1000s of years?

quote:

---

Neither did you quote Chomsky. You quoted an accountant talking about him

---

So? It was an article which contained that quotation, if your inference is the accountant is also lieing? You seem to not like chompside, because you don't agree with his other theories. But he is the world expert in speech history, which I acknowledge even though I don't appreciate him far more than you do. Let the message be more important than the messenger here.

quote:

---

I dare you to start a thread, WHAT IF SPEECH IS EXACTLY 6000 YEARS OLD? You should play devil's advocate - just to enumerate the havoc it creates. I mean, what if genesis is right?

---

No takers. Obviously, this is a scary proposition for some.

quote:

---

The message that speech may have arrived via genetic drift or as a by-product of selection for other advantageous characteristics, rather than having been selected for itself? It's unlikely, but what makes you think that that would be a problem for evolutionary biology?

---

Evolution is based on periodical, transit developments - and no such imprints exist. There are no graduating elevations of speech [else we would have a name; but speech occured suddenly and in an already advanced state]; no graduating populations and mental prowess stages.And why should humans, the last and most recent life form, beat millions of older species with this most powerful of all adaptive traits? Whu is it that we can only nominate a name, the true and only evidence of speech, only inside the 6000 circle, but never seen precisely and exactly outside the 6000 year point and only within it - what happened to the previous million years of evolution?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This seems to be beyond a joke, and Wiki is already busy responding to an array of legal actions - it allows proven dis-history of Arabia to pass as history, and uses eronous reportings as its back-up. Here we find this report, which would normally be the talk of the scientific towns, to be included as an historical item. This one seems like hellenist myth of dieties bashing their heads for supremecy. Besides, why harken to one desperate claim, when it is surrounded by a vaccum - do you really believe this? Sorry, I don't, and say so boldly.We know, aside from no evidence by any bona fide source, it is also in contradiction of other far more reliable writings: Babel, as a city and civilisation, is well recorded in the OT, and later in prophetic writings [book of kings, ezekiel, mordecai, esther, etc]as being well under 6000, as is the Noah flood report [Hamurabi].

quote:

---

Eridu in myth
In the Sumerian king list, Eridu is named as the city of the first kings. The kinglist continues:

​

In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alalngar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridu fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.
The king list gave particularly long rules to the kings who ruled before a flood occurred, and shows how the centre of power progressively moved from the south to the north of the country.

​

Adapa U-an, elsewhere called the first man, was a half-god, half-man culture hero, called by the title Abgallu (Ab=water, Gal=Great, Lu=Man) of Eridu. He was considered to have brought civilisation to the city from Dilmun (probably Bahrain), and he served Alulim.Babylonian texts also talk of the creation of Eridu by the god Marduk as the first city, "the holy city, the dwelling of their [the other gods] delight".

​

It can very well be that Eridu is linked to the Annunaki.

​

Some modern researchers[citation needed] following David Rohl, have conjectured that Eridu, to the south of Ur, was the original Babel and site of the Tower of Babel

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Evolution is based on periodical, transit developments - and no such imprints exist.

​

================
That sentence means nothing. You're going to have to learn to speak English properly if you want to discuss complex subjects.

---

It means a lot. Would you accept that Martians have been living on earth, then they became today's humans, with no transit point evidence? If you accept ToE, there is a gradual elevation, adaptation and emergence of species, communities, populations, and in the case of humans, also imprints of mental prowess grads: first the wheel, then the pulley, then cars and planes.So of course, one needs some evidence how, when and where the thread exists. If you have alledged imprints of agriculture 200K years ago - why does it mean nothing to ask for imprints of graduation every 1000 years - as with the writings in the OT - which gives a specific thread of history, with names, addresses and datings which can be verified?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your "no kings, wars, nations, cities, wheels, dieties, populations - nothingness pre-6000" is either a lie or evidence that you are delusional. I deal with archaeological sites and I have evidence from my own work of a lot of things "pre-6000" -- and my colleagues around the world have a lot more such evidence. For you to claim that it does not exist says a lot more about you than it does archaeological evidence. If you are trying to convince others of your views you are in fact doing the opposite.

​

A serious question: Why are you making such vacuous claims? Are you witnessing, and getting spiritual points for presenting your religious views to non-believers?

---

While I respect archeology and those who study it, you cannot hold that as a stick to beat out any pointers of logic which counters what is claimed in today's neo science sectors. We also saw professional archeologists who, only 20 years ago, boldly declared King David and Solomon as mythical figures: they have never recovered from shame following the tel dan find. Nor did we need the dan find to show those archeologists as idiots, and worse [biased] - because there was already sufficient evidence and cross-nation evidence, and 100s of relics which was acceptable evidence [as opposed proof] not to make those rash statements.Now when it comes to speech, this is perhaps one of the most pivotal factors for humanity - second only to the emergence of life itself; speech is the only factor which seperates humans from all other life forms. Darwin was clearly wrong by dividing species only by skeletal and biological imprints; genesis was clearly correct in seperating humans as a seperate species [aka 'kind'/Gen], by virture of their speech. Clearly, no life form as 'ADAPTED' and there has not been 'SPECIATION' with regards speech endowed life form grads: the winning point rests with genesis.And speech is marked by the factor of a NAME - not colored beads and cave scratchings. It appears only the factor which amounts to non-confusional proof is shied away from - and only that which is an academic, lab de-constructed report is available. And woe unto any who make critical challenges. Fprtunately, my proffession is not archeology - which means I cannot be blackmailed in negating any career moves for asking for more evidence and challenging bogus claims. My pursuit is truth, and if this is elusive, than truthfullness will do.