Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

There should not be such hysteria about defining speech. I meant it is difficult to do so in a technical mode. If 5000 different life forms were recorded, including mimmicking parrots, dolphins, gorillas - and one was a human - none would have a problem which is human speech. The deliberation here is not coherent or honest, but aimed only at diffusion by scientifically contrived jargonising. One of the things associated with speech are 'WORDS' - but now you are going to propose words by parrots! I'm not going there: being honest is not the same as being scientifically honest these days.And no, I never meant speech is 'one of the earliest things to happen in the universe' in chronological terms. But it did change the universe and it is the only factor which denotes humanity. In similar vein, I did also expand the theory of perception here, that just as humans became humans via speech, with all their works being speech derived - then Genesis is saying the universe was brought into existence by a 'word', which represents an action derived from a thought: 'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THEIR BE LIGHT'. The aspect of 'said' is alligned with speech. No other tools are mentioned, and this becomes a matter of perception when it is seen as all matter, including time, energy, forces, waves, particles, etc - are post-universe factors. What else is left as a possibility? What other factor do we have which is not provable this way - it only becomes possible when we eliminate the tools we propose as applying: they do not if they are not pre-universal factors. The latter is the only premise which bars our every means of determining anything which we are currently not able to fathom: a pre-universe scenario. We have to shut off all universal components!

quote:

---

IAJ writes:
Maybe because this notion simply does not exist!

​

You appear to be actually agreeing with those you are arguing with here.

​

What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.

---

I don't think so.

quote:

---

Reliability of Carbon Dating

​

Bristlecone Pine Trees
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...cardat.html#c2

​

From the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.
Glacier Measurements

​

Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."

​

These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin
Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

---

Also, "Broca's Area" has not relevence to speech datings. What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.

All under 6000:

quote:

---

Civilization - Wikipedia
9 Development of early civilizations
9.1 African and Eurasian civilizations of the "Old World"
9.1.1 Sumer 3500-2334 BC
9.1.2 Indus Valley and the Indian subcontinent 3200-1700 BC
9.1.3 Ancient Egypt 3200-343 BC
9.1.4 Elamite (Iran) (2700-539 BC)
9.1.5 Canaan (2350 BC - 100 AD)
9.1.6 China 2200 BC-present
9.1.7 Greece 2000 BC-present
9.1.8 Vedic civilization 1700 BC - present
9.1.9 Korea c. 900 BC[dubious - discuss] - present
9.1.10 Etruscans and Ancient Rome 900BC-500AD
9.1.11 Persia (Iran)(550 B.C -- 650 A.D)
9.2 American Civilizations of the "New World"
9.2.1 Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC
9.2.2 Olmec (New World) 1200-450 BC
10 Alleged prehistoric civilizations
11 Subsequent Developments of Civilizations
12 Further reading
13 References

---

Of coz, the above, and all that sort of descriptions, are not evidences of speech, but that's there is: theories and specs about anatomy. Civilizations which have no back-up of datings or follow-up continuation. Speech is the most important factor in established humanity's origins - as opposed skeletal finds. Proof of speech is what speech derives - names, dialogues depicting an evidential, historical factor which represents established communites of civilization, as well as specificality recallted of names, kings, wars, events - in an elevating thread of grads. It does not exist. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

To graduate from the current brick wall, the next step is to assume speech is a unique human attribute, a difference in kind than degree, not a result of the given thread of evolution, not prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years, and thus not part of the communication modes of all other life forms: what consequences can be derived from it?

quote:

---

One of the base components of the English grammar is plural inflection.

---

There's also a whole archive of paradigms and impactions applicable, which altogether make the atheist assumption a muted one. The matter of speech and animal communications is a blatant one, but also open to contriving and manipulation - which is 'mostly' but not all, based on wilful manipulation. Thus I did not allow myself to be quagmired in that scam. Other factors such as spontainity, improvisation, new thought, etc, etc are also applicable here. And the notion of superior brains, while these are the mark of humans, is not related to the attribute of speech; nor that other life forms 'speak' [as opposed communicate] in their own respective realms - which implies that they are capable of speech in the future by adaptation.The breakaway between difference of kind instead of degree is nowhere better represented than with human speech. Its manipulation casts a poor image of atheist science. I chose the example of speech because it is a no no nonsense one, removed from the charade of millions of years evidences provided in other instances. IMHO, there is an abject fear and deflection in the responses made to it - and it is, like all fanatical religious doctrines touted by atheists, no different from what they use as their defense. Its just another form of Talibanic neo-atheist, slight of hand casino science.I don't expect success here: many cherished premises would fall by the wayside if it was indisputably established that speech is a unique [that troubling word again!] attribute of humans, not millions of years old, and by subsequence not a result of evolution, adaptation or a graduation of bird and gorilla grants, hisses and coos. i remind again - all I asked as a proof is a human name, a date, place or an attached historical factor alligned to it: there should by millions, all over the place. I'll accept just a ONER.

quote:

---

All speech is response to stimuli.

---

True. But so is everything - including your response to this post, what makes a pineapple a pineapple, and how stars are formed. Its casino science.

quote:

---

What I asked you, and what I don't see you addressing, is: Where do you draw the line? When does response to stimuli become "true" speech in children. How would you tell the difference?

---

The line is: when the said stimuli does not result in human speech.

quote:

---

In the context of this topic - distinguishing the human "kind" - I think you're looking at it backwards.

---

I once read a scientific explanation relating to Genesis' 'kind' categorising methodology [I will try to locate it]. It is transcendent of ToE's speciation in that it points to certain biological commonalities in, for example, all water borne life forms - and the same with all land based life forms - the methodolgy employed in Genesis. The embarrassing feature of it is, these bio strains of commonalities are NOT considered in ToE. While this allows cross-speciation between some or all life forms in one particular group - it negates cross-speciation of life forms outside that 'kind'. This alligns with ToE - but only by default, while opposing ToE - by exposing his error. It also vindicates Genesis in this instance.

quote:

---

'In every situation, there is an external stimulus that guides his response.'' Thought, he said, involves the ability to process information that is not right in front of you.

---

I have already seen your arguements as honest and intelligence based, but somewhat one-channelled. In the quote, I too have always seen that all actions are based on an external factor impacting. IOW, nothing happens by two particles jitterbugging with each other by themselves; H does not meet O and valla we have water here on earth, and which is critical for life, and life just happened to welcome water and flourish. This is pie in the sky sci-fi than sci.Instead, I see a hovering factor, by virtue of all the universe structures being 'intergrated' - and an intergration negates any premise of randomity. A stray key found on Mars can legitimately be deemed a random occurence - but not so if it exclusively alligns with a lock also found on Mars: there is an intergration here which negates any randomity.That we cannot identify or prove this mysterious hovering factor which allows/controls intergration of all things, does not mean there is'nt one, cannot be one, it is myth and illogical, unscientific, or that an unsound premise be adopted instead. I see its antithesis as fitting those conclusions. There is equally, if not more so, nil proof otherwise. And such logic has nothing whatsoever to do with theology or beliefs - its logic with no alternatives, and not diminished wherever that arrow may incline.

quote:

---

The questions is: When precisely does a child's "non-speech" become speech. How do you distinguish? What is the moment when the sounds coming out of a child's mouth begin to be "speech"?

---

Its like learning to walk. In both cases there is a unique inherent wiring which makes this happen once triggered. It does not happen indiscriminately or by the input of the parent or the child absolutely. A hovering factor impacts here - there is intergration.

quote:

---

(Isn't it ironic that your posts probably wouldn't pass the test for "speech"?)

---

I think whoever did not select the human kind from a list of all other life forms as possessing a unique factor would fail the test. Logic, science and maths is preemtively based on honesty.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

---

Which Joseph Goebbels - the one which said work will set you free?I prefer:'MAN SHALT NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE'.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

All language isn't a response to stimuli. Lot's of language is creative. Being creative is what makes it language as opposed to a response to stimuli.

---

Good insight there. Ironically, the stimuli does not bump the same result in other life forms but one. It means either the stimuli is very selective - or that it is in turn bumped by an impacting factor, rendering it a conduit at best.Stimuli have different meanings, based upon its application. For sure, stimuli does not denote a random bump - else it would have no impact per se. A stroke of lightning can be termed as a stimuli - but it won't necessailly beget speech. Here we see, one must look past the conduit - and the result affirms only a hovering control factor applies. This is true even when their own premise is countenanced: that the stimuli creates variances to allign with the object it impacts - signifies its control factor!

Its not my knowledge - I saw it in genesis. For sure, it need not require the condoning of everything else you don't accept.However, I will say one thing: the issue of speech and of the categorising of life forms by 'kinds' based on vegetation, water, air, land - and speech, as declared in genesis - has greater significance than first imagined. It is epochial, and the reason deliberated by so many forums and scientific papers today.

The provision of classifying life forms by order of their existentialism and primal design [in water or in the air], is transcendent of the sub-set imprints of their skelatal and biological imprints.Consider if you were witness to a new planet emerging with all its different life forms, what would strike you first: that some are strictly air borne and some ocean borne - or whether some had protruding jaws and others had shorter legs. This is the vista of Genesis, and it constitutes correct taxamony. It does not render the ToE subset divisions wrong. This is also the reason humans constitute a difference in kind, uneffected by the sub-set allocations but despite it, and the error in ToE.Regardless, I do not have to find too many scientists too fearful - or worse, to condone the blatant - only a few good men will suffice, and there is no problem here either. I see Genesis as a deceptively simple but brilliant observation here.

Stimulus = singular
Stimuli = pluralJonSpellcheck in instant reponse forums too - nahhhhhhh!

quote:

---

Correct, both are viable methods of organizing life.

---

You are making it superfluous, so I cannot agree. While the ToE has its merit, it does not apply in the transcendent premise. Thus I analogised witnessing a planet and life form emerging. If you were darwin and witnessing the scenario from inception, you'd record in your diary first as per Genesis, then later on would you look closer and record that some land based and air borne life forms have marked subtle variances. Genesis is correct - without any denting from ToE.The ToE variances is a never ending process, and further breakdowns of differences can be found the more life forms are scrutinised more closely. One kind of poodle is different from another 10 other kinds of poddles, ensuring a never ending treshold of variations across the life form menus. It does not effect Genesis at all, both are not right - as the first level of categorising.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.