3, 7, 12 and 40

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Well there are a number of serious theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

Goddiddit not being one of them.

What do you believe ? Or is this just " I don't have to believe anything. I just get by pointing to a pile of theories over yonder." ?

Originally posted by sonship
What do you believe ? Or is this just " I don't have to believe anything. I just get by pointing to a pile of theories over yonder." ?

I don't have a belief in the origin of language.
I have not studied it nor have any great motivation to do so.

I can say "I don't know" but as pointed out other people have ideas.

You are afraid of not knowing so put everything down to a god.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

So you have no opinion. But if someone does what is the first thing you do to ascertain that person's view ?

I bet it would be to first scan through to see if they are a Theist or not. And if a theist, you lazily adopt the skeptic's position.

Well if and ever you do decide to contemplate the issue, add this to your source discussions. Include some of these thoughts in your musings over the problem.

PART VI

WHO TAUGHT ADAM TO SPEAK?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Origin of Speech: Two Accounts
Sounds of Speech: Signs, Symbols, Words
So Who Did Speak First?
...

INTRODUCTION

MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. (1) But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin of speech appeared to him therefore to be insoluble. Apart from revelation, it still is.
Because of the influence of Darwin's theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation of human speech from animal cries. Essentially the two were the same; it was merely a question of the degree of complexity. Following in the steps of earlier social anthropologists, who were arranging the various primitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrating man's supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks, and grimaces of the lowliest "savages" were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex. (2)

http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume2/Part_VI/WhoTaughtAdamtoSpeak.html

Didn't know where to put this interesting article touching on a new discovery of the applicability of a three centuries old math formula to the most recent physics -

Of course, there has always been a strong relationship between physics and math, in that mathematics provides the language to describe and conduct the work of physics. But it is worth stopping now and again to ponder just how amazing it is that mathematics, a product of human thought whose rules are derived independently of any experience, can describe so neatly and precisely the physical world, a phenomenon that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Eugene Winger called, in a 1959 lecture, the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences," which he characterized as "a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

Read it -

Science
Scientists look into hydrogen atom, find old recipe for pi

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1111/Scientists-look-into-hydrogen-atom-find-old-recipe-for-pi

Originally posted by sonship
So you have no opinion. But if someone does what is the first thing you do to ascertain that person's view ? I bet it would be to first scan through to see if they are a Theist or not. And if a theist, you lazily adopt the skeptic's position.

You would lose that bet.

I know that contrary to the evidence on this forum, theists in the real world
have opinions as valid as atheists. In fact most people whose opinion I value
have religious views unknown to me. It's fools I don't listen to, atheist or theist.

But there is one lady whose opinion I value and I do go to for advice. .....
and she happens to be a Priest.

Originally posted by sonship
MANY YEARS ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition of speech. But he added with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human.

RUBBISH

Asserting that Man is only Man with speech.
and
asserting that only humans can speak.

Both wrong and without any foundation.