Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 86 (492631)
01-01-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
01-01-2009 9:26 AM


An Easy Question
Sure, trust the documents that place a continent the size of Asia and northern Africa betwixt the New World and the Old.
Here is a question for you:
Based on written records, in which year was built Machu Picchu? The answer's all over the Internet”should be an easy one.
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 9:26 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 12:14 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 86 (492681)
01-02-2009 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
01-01-2009 11:59 PM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
hence why the sudden appearance of various types and styles of writting.
As with your previous claims, you will need to provide evidence to support this one.
For now, the evidence all says that the appearance of writing was anything but sudden. Please read the following Wikipedia articles for an understanding of the immense time period over which writing was developed and 'perfected' as it were:
History of Writing 1
History of Writing 2
Pay particularly close attention to the line in the second link that reads: "The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BC are not considered a sudden invention" (HoW2).
Your serve,
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 11:59 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 86 (492683)
01-02-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
01-02-2009 12:14 AM


Re: An Easy Question
until we understand what Incan written language was...
Unfortunately, there is no such thing.
... we may never know
So, the only way to know of anything in the past is to check for it in written records? I'm sorry, but such an approach to the study of the past”human or otherwise”is just downright laughable. Ignoring other possible sources of information yields only answers which are, as a direct result of the methods by which they were reached, wanting.
but i see what you are saying
Which is ...? Frankly, I do not think I was saying much of anything, other than to ask a simple question of you.
So, come on, do you really think there are no ways other than through written records to learn facts of the world? That is the question that was at the heart of my earlier post, and a simply affirmative or negative answer will do.
Thanks,
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 12:14 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 86 (492755)
01-02-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:25 AM


it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3000 BC is the earliest form of writing.
From exactly where did you get this? This line of text does not appear in ANY of the pages to which I linked. Now, I am going to read the source you got this from, but you will still need to provide a link to it for everyone else. And SHAME on you for plagiarizing!

the last 6,000 years is nothing more then the blink of an eye, yet it seems this is where our 'humanity' began
I thought you were of the opinion that humanity begins with writing.
Yet, if I am understanding you right. We have a modern date of about 2000 A.D., humanity began 6000 years ago, and the earliest writing appeared in 3000 B.C. The math looks like this then:
2000 A.D. -6000 yrs = ~4000 B.C. for appearance of 'humanity'
3000 B.C. for appearance of writing.
For a difference of: 1000 years!
So, considering their dissimilar date of appearance”basing this on your dates”, what is it that writing has to do with the quality of being human? And what of societies that to this day have no writing system?
the history of human writing is very new, especially if you take prehistory into consideration or believe that humans have been evolving fom millions of years on this planet
You need to stop confusing new/old with sudden/gradual. Furthermore, if your premise for support of Creationism (the history of human writing is very new) requires that we look at it from a perspective completely opposed to Creationism (humans have been evolving fom millions of years on this planet), I can hardly see how it helps your ends meet.

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 01-03-2009 3:02 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 86 (492809)
01-03-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tanndarr
01-02-2009 5:52 PM


The Real Question
Now now, there is no need to be so harsh. We are all here for to understand one another, and I think that such ends are met better when we do not put one another down no matter how ridiculous are their opinions. Sometimes we can get so in our ways that we do not see where we've erred until someone pushes our nose in it. So, instead of simply telling poor Peg that she has failed, perhaps you could tell her how/where. That is, you would be better to find the source of the miscommunication rather than to jump to playing the blame game.
To start, you state:
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.
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."
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.
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.
Sound like a plan to you? It does to me.
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tanndarr, posted 01-02-2009 5:52 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2009 3:01 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 59 by Peg, posted 01-03-2009 3:47 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 63 by Tanndarr, posted 01-03-2009 8:32 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 86 (492871)
01-03-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
01-03-2009 3:25 AM


Re: The Real Question
those who cannot read or write can still speak a language and can 'learn' to read and write it
Except, of course, those humans who speak only languages that have no written form. In learning to write their language, how would they proceed? You say they are still human if they can learn to read and write [their language]. So, what if they cannot learn to read and write their language because their language has no writing system? Does this mean they are not human because of their inability to learn to read and write their language?
one animal that has anything remotely similar to human language and writing
Why can't you stop at language? No other animal possesses the ability to language in the way humans do by combining symbols in a rule governed manner to create infinite meaning. Stopping at language makes your position at least semi-defensible, but leaping into writing as a requirement makes your position absolutely silly.
So far, you've moved the goal posts at least once, from 'writing' to 'capability of writing'. Now, the latter is ridiculously vague. There is no reason to assume that simply because humans did not have writing 8kya that they were somehow incapable of it. They likely did not have need for writing. As the articles to which I linked explain, the development of writing is closely linked to the development of complex economic, government, and social structures.
Furthermore, depending your definition on 'capability of writing' still has all the problems indicated by Rahvin in the previous post - that it excludes children younger than 4 or 5, the mentally disabled, etc. from being considered human.
Would you care to address these issues?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Plurals and duals and all those thing...s
Edited by Jon, : A and O are such similar sounding letters... yet they spell completely different words.

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 01-03-2009 3:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 2:55 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 3:23 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 86 (492874)
01-03-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peg
01-03-2009 3:30 AM


Re: Exact Year
if i was a jew ..., i'd grab my old testament
You really are ignorant, aren't you? And just what does the Jewish 'new testament' look like?
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 01-03-2009 3:30 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 86 (492884)
01-03-2009 5:31 PM


Topic to Topic
We can take that discussion over to the other thread. For this thread, however, I think we should stick with the majority (unanimous?) linguistic understanding that only humans have been observed with language in any useful and communicative capacity.
quote:
Wikipedia: Language
Although other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these are known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language.
If you want to challenge this view point, this is not the thread.
Jon

You've been Gremled!

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 86 (492949)
01-04-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
01-04-2009 3:23 AM


Re: The Real Question
Careful in your use of the terms 'language' and 'writing'; you are swapping them around as if they are co-referential. I've made bold my use of the terms in hopes of helping you to sort out their differences.
Peg writes:
...a nation of humans had no language themselves
Do you realize how ridiculously laughable such a hypothetical scenario is? One thing about hypotheticals is that they should at least be plausible. But an entire nation of language-less humans? Just not plausible.
Nothing I have said about human ability in writing is applicable to human ability in language.
Language is an inbuilt ability in our brains making us unique to all other animals.
Yes, but writing is not.
As for:
quote:
An ASPM variant arose about 5800 years ago, coincident with the spread of agriculture, cities and the first record of written language. (Gazzaniga)
Humans underwent numerous changes as a result of domestication and increasing population density. The finding of one silly gene that was altered is hardly remarkable. Now, if your source could demonstrate that said gene was somehow responsible for humans developing things such as controlled agriculture, hierarchical society, and writing, then it would be something. Yet, your source even points out that such a causal link cannot be demonstrated:
quote:
What we don’t know is if the genetic changes caused the cultural changes or were synergistic[xxiii], and even if they did, what exactly is going on in those big brains and how is it happening? (Gazzaniga)
...the humans of around 5,800 years ago were the first to use agriculture, build cities and write.
Even if we are to accept such a date, what does that have to do with your claims that 'ability to write' is somehow a necessity for being human?
This is what i said pages ago but it seems most of you disagree. If its saying something other then that, could someone spell it out to me in laymans terms.
You are right. That is precisely what the article is saying. However, if your only intent was to ask whether or not humans 5.8kya were the first to come upon agriculture, city-building, and writing, then the short answer is: no. The long answer is that the article is flat-out wrong (which we might expect from a neuroscientist trying to dig his hand into the anthropology cookie jar); these events occurred at different times, specifically for the reason that each one caused the other: domestication caused higher society, and higher society caused writing. Domestication, a process requiring long spans of time, began as early as 9000 B.C. (Wiki: Domestication). The earliest 'civilization' appeared around 6000 B.C. (Wiki: Sumer, Ubaid Period, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age). Writing is only about as recent as 4000 B.C. (Wiki: History of Writing).
I hope that was in simple-enough terms. If you have any problems with any of the dates or information given, please simply point out where and the discussion can proceed from there.
Jon
[ABE]It appears everyone got to this much before I did. Oh well, I hope my reply can still be of some usefulness anyway.[/ABE]
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 3:23 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 86 (492978)
01-04-2009 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peg
01-04-2009 5:41 PM


Re: The Real Question
And seeing it all happened in the last 5,800 yrs its still very plausible that we were a unique creation
Huh? Why?
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 01-04-2009 5:41 PM Peg has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 86 (493188)
01-06-2009 11:25 PM


As if we couldn't go any further off topic! Jeesh; keep this up, and your membership will be at 5.
Jon

You've been Gremled!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024