Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 1 of 86 (492382)
12-30-2008 6:41 PM


In How long has modern man been on this earth? (Thanks for the help) Peg indicates that fully formed writing systems appear at the same time as modern man:
Peg says:
i certainly think that written language is unique to todays humans...i've never been presented with anything different...and as i've already stated, written language has only been around for the last 5,000 odd years... unless you can present anything different on this???
I asked Peg for evidence to support her position and received a long answer about spoken languages. I'd like to ask Peg again to provide evidence that supports the idea that modern man appears simultaneously with written language.
Peg, the difference between written and spoken language is that written languages leave evidence. I've stated that there is a smooth transition from proto-languages through written languages a fact that's easy to infer on observation of the evidence. Pictures turn into ideograms and eventually into written languages, not suddenly but gradually.
Could you please show me the correlation of the appearance of modern man and fully formed writing systems that is consistent with either creation or with survival after the flood. When I look all I see is unrelated writing systems appearing in different areas demonstrating a smooth transition from proto-writing through complex writing systems.
Edited by Tanndarr, : updating link

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 12-30-2008 7:18 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 12-30-2008 7:19 PM Tanndarr has not replied
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-30-2008 7:33 PM Tanndarr has replied
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 5:05 AM Tanndarr has replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 6 of 86 (492393)
12-30-2008 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals
12-30-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Did god draw the cave paintings?
AiG says...
Cave paintings, petroglyphs, and pictograms, which are certainly a form of "written" communication have been dated to at least 35,000 years old. Of course, Peg would probably dispute the dating methods since he/she is such a knowledgeable expert on such matters. The real question is: why in the world would you care what an ignorantophile like Peg thinks?
I like to see the looks on their faces when I point out that they've painted themselves into a corner. Seriously, the history of writing systems is a topic I enjoy and, like all the rest of the evidence, points away from a literal creationist world-view.
Her whole point hangs on the squidgy definition of what actually constitutes writing from proto-writing or whatever. Likewise I could say that modern man developed at the same time as Twitter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-30-2008 7:33 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by bluescat48, posted 12-30-2008 8:31 PM Tanndarr has replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 12-31-2008 10:10 AM Tanndarr has not replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 8 of 86 (492407)
12-30-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by bluescat48
12-30-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Did god draw the cave paintings?
Twitter accepts text-messages from say a cell-phone and posts them via a small plug-in application on the internet. Usually on a blog page.
Twenty-first century cave painting I suppose. Just another form of written language.
Twitter
Edited by Tanndarr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by bluescat48, posted 12-30-2008 8:31 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 20 of 86 (492587)
01-01-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
01-01-2009 5:05 AM


Hard archeological evidence
Peg writes...
im basing this is on hard archeological evidence... i'm basing it on the written language which includes the use of symbols and pictures to communicate abstract thought...ie, 'this land was purchased by so and so' OR 'the king has decreed the following set of laws' etc etc etc
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a distinction between hard archeology and the written language or talking about the hard archeology of written language. The study of ancient writings is paleography, which is one part of the topic we're discussing. As for the transition from pictures to symbols that convey abstract thought, my studies show there is no hard line between the two, just a continuous increase in sophisticated drawings. Your position that God created Adam with the ability to write where that ability did not exist does not mesh well with the evidence we see. I'm asking you to explain why we should see what we see instead of caveman drawings suddenly ending at about the same date Noah started his diary.
the earliest known writings are known to come from the Mesopotamia region and the strongest finds have been in Syrian finds such as Babylonia/Assyria dating back around 3,000BCE which places them at the time after the flood.
Yeah, I thought the Flood was about 4,600 years ago..which would make 3,000 BCE pre-flood wouldn't it? If you'd read your link you'd also note we have a pretty convincing progression of Sumerian writings that flow smoothly from a pre-writing tally-based form of record keeping (about 4,000 BCE) through fully developed cuneiform. Looks like we need to move your flood back a while.
this is in tune with the bibles account that people were all situated in this region of the earth before spreading abroad.
Huh? Care to explain the logic behind this statement. We see several writing methods evolve simultaneously at different times in different places from their local proto-writing methods. We do not see their proto-writing stopped to be replaced by a new God given writing system; nor do we see all systems developing from a single master system distributed by the wandering nations after Babel (post flood right? That does push your date up some doesn't it?)...or maybe you do see this somewhere. If so, you haven't pointed it out to me.
What can account for the seemingly 'unrelated' written languages appearing in different places is that, after the languages were confused at Babel (Babylon) then the people spread out and had to develop their own forms of writing for these new languages.
Er...but you said that writing was fully developed before Babel didn't you? Are you telling us that everyone at Babel forgot how to write and after they'd wandered they developed written languages all on their own? Paleographers study not only how to read ancient writings but also the relationship between writing systems. Here's a hint: not all writing systems are unrelated, and many times you'll find different writing systems used with the same language.
As for your links, could you please reference something a little more advanced that actually supports your assertions rather than says the same things I've said all along. I'm asking you to explain exactly what we should see if what you are saying is true and I'm asking you to show a correlation between writing systems and the appearance of modern man...without simply defining modern man as someone who can write.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 5:05 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 11:59 PM Tanndarr has replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 51 of 86 (492775)
01-02-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
01-01-2009 11:59 PM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
Tanndarr writes:
We see several writing methods evolve simultaneously at different times in different places from their local proto-writing methods. We do not see their proto-writing stopped to be replaced by a new God given writing system; nor do we see all systems developing from a single master system distributed by the wandering nations after Babel
yes thats right
we do see that because when the languages became confused, each group went off in their own direction and formulated their own writing systems
hence why the sudden appearance of various types and styles of writting.
Everyone else does a great job of ripping you apart before I got home from work to see this. I'm not going to address your non-answer in any way other than to say: Great job of failing Peg. You've failed to support your assertion that modern humans arose at the same time as written language when repeatedly asked to do so. I wasn't asking for bible stories and quotes, I was asking you to point to evidence that supported your position.
You fail. You lose. Your position is false. You are telling stories that ignore the plain evidence in front of your face. Can I make it any more clear to you? If you look simply at your own assertions you can see the contradictions in them which no amount of hand-waving at outside evidence will ever fix. Your own arguments are poorly formed and inconsistent, until you fix those you shouldn't try to argue it with others.
For everyone else: thank you for all the other excellent posts. I'm really an amateur at this stuff. I've lurked at EvC for a long time and have learned a lot from all of you. If it's possible I'd still like to focus this topic on the correlation (or lack thereof) between the appearance of modern man and writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 11:59 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 01-03-2009 2:25 AM Tanndarr has replied

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 63 of 86 (492841)
01-03-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jon
01-03-2009 2:25 AM


Re: The Real Question
Thanks for the response Jon. I wasn't intending to be harsh with Peg, merely venting a little frustration. I've found I don't have the limitless patience that so many of you have...which is one good reason I tend to lurk here instead of actively participate.
Anyway...to the point:
The miscommunication here is that Peg's very definition of 'modern humans' is, as Rahvin pointed out (Message 4): "those organisms which are biologically identical to currently living humans and possess written language."
Exactly so, but I have asked Peg to show that there is a real relationship between the two by showing evidence. For example:
1: Describe a pattern of language and human development we should expect to see if her assertion is true (make some predictions).
2: Show evidence that this is indeed what is seen and explain the correlation between the two.
You ask Peg to prove that two separate items - modern humans & writing - arose at the same time. Peg finds this impossible, since her definitions/understandings do not have these items as separate. She does not state their co-arrival on Earth as an assertion to be backed, but as a simple definition in which, as in all definitions, each and every part is necessary for a complete definition. Accepting her definition, she cannot see how there is anything to prove. You should be trying to show how her definition is not acceptable, not how her timetables are wrong.
As mentioned above, I can define that modern man did not come about until the invention of e-mail or any other random technology if I'm allowed to make my own definitions. Unfortunately her own definitions aren't internally consistent and are not in line with the evidence I've seen. I'm asking her to show a correlation between what she says and what I see. I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for evidence.
So, let's start off anew on a different foot. We will ask Peg to show why writing is a necessary piece of the definition of "humanness". We will point to the fact that humans exist the world over who only speak languages with no written forms. We will show how ancient cultures, such as the Inca, were very functional and operable human societies sans writing. Once these steps have been walked through, we can move to the timetables.
Okay, that works for me, although I'd like to stick with the concept of modern man since that's the term we started with. Perhaps she can also explain why writing is the defining aspect and not other technologies such as fire, agriculture or bronze working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jon, posted 01-03-2009 2:25 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024