Jump to content


Photo

Technology Then---Technlogy Now


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 11 June 2016 - 03:16 PM

This would more refer to the Philology department.
Take a look at ancient Greek, Latin, Celtic, Old-Saxon, Norse language. Their grammar tends to be more complex and the vocabulary more rich.
Martin Heidegger demonstrated this e.g. in "Einfuehrung in die Metaphysik" - Introduction to Metaphysics.
He demonstrates that the word Being had first many different words used for it, which is demonstrated with the various forms of the word (am, are, is - was, were, will be, etc. ) and in German (bin, bist, ist, sind seid) he contrasts to the word Greek word of Physics. The conclusion is that the present Indogermanic languages are a refragmentation of an earlier, far more complex Proto-Indogermanic language who lost many words and nuances of grammar after the people distributed (or did they distribute they had their Logos (Word thinking) confounded as well?).


Yes but in languages which are more complex in one aspect, such as the verbal endings in the likes of Latin which you mentioned will be simpler in other aspects.

There's actually a decent article on it on AUG here https://answersingen...itive-language/

Or any one of these articles from a Google search https://www.google.c...-moKPLU8genhaRQ


I know I'm not supposed to let the links do the talking but I can only post from my phone these days and I'm definitely NOT debating anyway, just an interesting wee side conversation. So hopefully I'll get away with it. :P

The way complexity in language systems work is there is a balancing point between ease of delivery and ease of reception. Each can neither be too complex or too simple otherwise communication breaks down .


I'll bookmark this post so when I eventually get home and to my laptop we can continue talking about it, even if it's through the private message function as no doubt the topic will have shifted dramatically by then.

#22 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 June 2016 - 05:26 AM

Yes but in languages which are more complex in one aspect, such as the verbal endings in the likes of Latin which you mentioned will be simpler in other aspects.
...
The way complexity in language systems work is there is a balancing point between ease of delivery and ease of reception. Each can neither be too complex or too simple otherwise communication breaks down .
 

What I said doesn't dispute that there is an "economics" in language practice. Meaning that people will simplify language and the use thereof, when speaking. That's also a historical process in which language gets simpler from generation to generation. 

 

My point is however that the evidence on ancient languages points to them being more complex in grammar, extensive in vocabulary and nuanced in expressiveness. The trend is that this also degenerates over time. People as a total may have accumulated more knowledge and information over time, but concerning total cognitive ability per person there seems to be a decrease. That includes for instance creative abilities. 

 

Language is not only a medium of communication, but also a way of thinking. To learn it certain cognitive abilities are required, to create it even more. It's a reflection of the logos, which resides in the soul of people. Spoken word transposes more information and knowledge then writing does. Especially, when you have the same amount of letters at your disposal.

 

So what I am saying is that it is a fallacy to believe that people in former times were less able to create sophisticated artifacts. That is, if they really wanted to. What they may have lacked would be capital and a complex division of labor that is required for producing the technology and it's outcomes today. 



#23 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:43 PM

Difference in technology in no way indicates difference in intelligence. Even a stone arrowhead made by lithic reduction using percussion and flaking tools shows a level of intelligence similar to modern us. It takes present day survivalists years of practice to make usable ones, and they are gaining popularity because of advantages they hold over steel broadhead arrows (multiple kills, will not bend, etc).

Pyramids aside, there are Egyptian artifacts no one alive can build today with the tools Egyptologists say they had at their disposal (copper and stone.) For instance, a vase made of igneous rock so symettrical it balances on a bottom the size and shape of a hen's egg. Or how they drilled granite at a rate of .2 (.02?) cm per revolution with copper. It takes us 1000s of revolutions with diamond tipped drills and modern machinery.

Stonehenge. There are no practice Stonehenges. You don't quarry multi-ton blocks 200 miles overland over hilly and craggy terrain because you have a cool idea of what you might do with them.

The ark could easily have been built. I am not certain that this is exclusively what is being debated. The understanding of astronomy, calendars, weight, leverage, geology, and science in general was understood at an extraordinary level. Our modern structures require yearly maintenance at a minimum. The pyramids have stood for thousands with none, withstanding earthquakes that have leveled Cairo. The how is the mystery. The fact that they could be and were constructed is not.

Are there any findings of tools that indicate lesser intelligence in our species? Even the oldowan stones found near Lake Turkana is beyond what any primate has devised. I don't want to derail this into an evolution vs creation thread. Please ignore this and continue with the discussion—I am following with high interest.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:54 AM

One of the things that the alleged atheists/ evolutionists contingent seems to ignor is their own argument that inelligence is not needed to accomplish incredible complexity--just a bunch of small mistakes (mutations). The ark was built one board at a time--like evo's claim the plants and animals were. So, why is it so "unbelievable" that Noha's Ark could have been a sea worthy ship built the same way evo's  claim  the plants and animals did?

 

Evo's don't believe their own theory! :)

 



#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 June 2017 - 09:21 PM

One of the things that the alleged atheists/ evolutionists contingent seems to ignor is their own argument that inelligence is not needed to accomplish incredible complexity--just a bunch of small mistakes (mutations).

That is true of only a minority of evolutionists.  Most of us believe evolution to be a process guided by God.

 

The ark was built one board at a time--like evo's claim the plants and animals were. So, why is it so "unbelievable" that Noha's Ark could have been a sea worthy ship built the same way evo's  claim  the plants and animals did?

Reference my post # 15.  The point of that picture was that this "ark" is allegedly seaworthy.  Notice, it's really a steel barge with a wooden ark-like structure on top.

 

The problem is hull flexure.  In wood ships, the bending and twisting caused by waves opens up the seams.  Modern wood ships with lengths much more than 300 ft (90 meters) required steel reinforcements and near constant pumping to keep them afloat.

 

  I was on a steel ship about the size of the ark.  The USNS Range Sentinel.

100320505.jpg

 

To give you a scale, the four antennas along the right front of the ship are 30 feet long and stand on a 4 foot pedestal.  One day, coming out of a storm at about 3 knots... barely making way to keep the bow pointed into the waves...  we took green water over the bridge.  The golf-ball on the front dish antenna was destroyed and the bow was cracked just forward of my cabin .... below the main deck just a little forward of the golf ball also on the right side of the ship.

 

The moral is, if a single wave can crack the bow of a steel ship, what would it do to a wood ship?

 

Getting back toward the OP ..... absence of technology doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence or ingenuity.  Paraphrasing Newton ... we stand tall because we stand on the shoulders of giants.



#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2017 - 11:25 AM

Claiming God was innvilved in evolution changes the flavor of evolution. From vanila to Choclate. The human mind body configuration is the most complllex
mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

An intelligent being created the theory of evo. The minute any intelligence is input into evo it is not the evo that Darwing wrote of.

The polint I was making is that evo is assumed to be true. Therefore no matter how complex somethig evo circumvented the odds and accomplished the task. It just did!



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 June 2017 - 05:59 PM

Claiming God was innvilved in evolution changes the flavor of evolution. From vanila to Choclate. The human mind body configuration is the most complllex
mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

An intelligent being created the theory of evo. The minute any intelligence is input into evo it is not the evo that Darwing wrote of.

The fact remains that most evolutionists are not atheists.  Also, IIRC, Darwin did make at least one reference to a creator in his book.

 

The polint I was making is that evo is assumed to be true.

Yes, and creationists assume the Bible to be (literally) true.  I see no difference.

 

 

 



#28 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:50 PM

Please give me an example when you as an intelligent being used evolution to do anything. What have you caused to evolve?
 



#29 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:45 PM

I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

not surprising seeing as the north sea is iceburg country.

OTOH, there are men like thor heyerdahl that have braved 5,000 mile treks on nothing more than 9 balsawood logs lashed together and a sail.

or captain blye, their dingy was barely seaworthy and was always on the verge of floundering, but he got his men home.

#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 June 2017 - 11:40 PM

 

I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

not surprising seeing as the north sea is iceburg country

Actually, the flow of water in the North Sea tends to keep iceburgs farther out to the open ocean.  But, if you think icebergs are the reason, we can change that from a "North Sea winter storm" to a major tropical hurricane. 

 

OTOH, there are men like thor heyerdahl that have braved 5,000 mile treks on nothing more than 9 balsawood logs lashed together and a sail.

or captain blye, their dingy was barely seaworthy and was always on the verge of floundering, but he got his men home.

 The Kon-Tiki was only about 14m (45 ft) long and made of logs of that length.  The HMS Bounty dingy was probably about the same size, or smaller.   Kon-Tiki sailed some 97 days and Bligh only 43.

 

There is no comparison of the hull flexure of such short boats with that of the 450 foot long ark over more than a year at sea.



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 June 2017 - 11:43 PM

Please give me an example when you as an intelligent being used evolution to do anything. What have you caused to evolve?

Pretty much anything I've designed and built.

 

I don't understand the relevance of the question.



#32 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:41 AM

You can not do anything without using your intelligence. Evo suposedly functions without iontelligent input.



#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 June 2017 - 07:42 PM

You can not do anything without using your intelligence. Evo suposedly functions without iontelligent input.

As has already been pointed out, the majority of those who accept evolution disagree with you.



#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2017 - 10:12 PM

I understand that. And they are welcome to "believe" anything there foolsh imaginative minds wish. However, Darwinian evo does not "allow" intelligent input. You are talking about ID. You can believe anything you want is true. But up is up and they are going to be opposites no matter what you tell yourself.

As Shakespeare so aptly said, "A rose by anyother name would smell the same." Though a building may result from brick upon brick placement and as a result a skyraper emerges after millions of small steps (gradualism) the process had guidance from an intelligent being or beings and that's not the same as the building assembling itself or changing from one type of building to another! I would like you to demonstrate one building in the alleged 13.5 billion year history of the universe that built itself by randome time and chance! I am sorry to have to tell you but the Emperoe has not clothes on!



#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 June 2017 - 02:23 PM

Yes Piasan, where are the missing transitional buildings? The buildings are still missing, what about intermediates for cathedrals and houses? The only way to stop is to quit, so quit preaching false evo! Where are the primordial bricks?

 

A rose by any other name is called an evolutionary cock and bull story, my lad, the only way to stop is to quit making excuses for the Darwinian imagination employed by evo adherents.

 

;) :P



#36 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 June 2017 - 12:11 AM

Yes Piasan, where are the missing transitional buildings? The buildings are still missing, what about intermediates for cathedrals and houses? The only way to stop is to quit, so quit preaching false evo! Where are the primordial bricks?

You're comparing apples and bricks.

 

Much, if not most, of mankind has led a nomadic lifestyle for most of history.  Nomadic peoples don't have a need for brick structures.  In many other regions buildings are made of various biodegradable materials.  There are remaining stone structures in places like Greenland and various mud-brick remains around the world.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "false evo."  If you mean theistic evolution is not evolution, you are mistaken.



#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 June 2017 - 02:24 AM

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

:snapoutofit: 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)



#38 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 10:40 AM

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

:snapoutofit: 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)

A good comic knows its audience and the medium though...



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 June 2017 - 11:01 PM

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

:snapoutofit: 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)

Oh, a bit of sarcasm?

 

Nice one.

 

Sometimes subtle humor is lost in a forum like this were we don't have body language and tone to provide clues.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 June 2017 - 03:07 AM

Yeah just a bit of fun, but I wasn't poking fun at Mike, I was just using his example to then parody an absurd version of a creationist, who takes things to a silly level. That kind of mischief I get a kick out of. :D (pretending to be a crackpot cracks me up)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users