how did god communicate before language?

[Shallow1]

This does seem to indicate there was some sort of "language" from the beginning, but that doesn't seem to jive with my understanding of the evolution of the human species (granted, it is limited).

Ok, so were talking evolution vs creation,...hmm,...Im not going to debate that, but knowing what you know of evolution and what I have presented in the bible in reguards to language being created from the begining and then having men scattered and there language confused.

Here is a thought, God confused the language and scattered the men across the earth because they were accomplishing someting that God did not want them to accomplish. According to scripture it is implied they were accomplishing this because they could all speak the same language and had the same understanding.

Now as people "evolved" from diffrent places and cultures as well as there interaction with other people and cultures evolved they have been able to progress and accomplish many things?

Such as ultimatley sky scrapers,cars,computers,tech, medicine, comforts of home, along with nuclear weapons. So the more diffrent "races,cultures and people" have 'evolved" and learn to speak common languages and communicate for a common goal the more "advanced" society and people have become right?

Were is this all leading?

Possibly to an end God describes in Revalations? Why because man has persued his own desire just as they did trying to build the tower of bable? For the own recognition?

Same priciple seems to apply?

So does this mean that what we see as cultural evolution in man is nothing more than man being able to speak a common language that God originally planned, but then had to change when he saw how the nature of man though the fall of Adam had changed and was abused by man?

Just some thoughts...

[MurrayH81]

I'm going to answer from a Biblical point of view, since that represents my understanding of God.

Paul, in the book of Romans, writes that God's Law is written on the hearts of men and women, so in that sense, no actual language is required, I guess.

However, the Old Testament portrays language from the beginning of Creation, so I'm not sure that, Biblically speaking, there was ever a time that men did not have language.

Okay, so why do we have to teach children to speak, read and write?

[headexplode]

Ok, so were talking evolution vs creation,...hmm,...Im not going to debate that, but knowing what you know of evolution and what I have presented in the bible in reguards to language being created from the begining and then having men scattered and there language confused.

Here is a thought, God confused the language and scattered the men across the earth because they were accomplishing someting that God did not want them to accomplish. According to scripture it is implied they were accomplishing this because they could all speak the same language and had the same understanding.

Now as people "evolved" from diffrent places and cultures as well as there interaction with other people and cultures evolved they have been able to progress and accomplish many things?

Such as ultimatley sky scrapers,cars,computers,tech, medicine, comforts of home, along with nuclear weapons. So the more diffrent "races,cultures and people" have 'evolved" and learn to speak common languages and communicate for a common goal the more "advanced" society and people have become right?

Were is this all leading?

Possibly to an end God describes in Revalations? Why because man has persued his own desire just as they did trying to build the tower of bable? For the own recognition?

Same priciple seems to apply?

So does this mean that what we see as cultural evolution in man is nothing more than man being able to speak a common language that God originally planned, but then had to change when he saw how the nature of man though the fall of Adam had changed and was abused by man?

Just some thoughts...

I didn't mean to suggest a "evolution vs. creationism" debate--more of a how language evolved over time as a tool for communication vs. the idea that it was just already there.

[Zguy28]

But there were no humans before Adam, right?

I'm going to take the easy route and let Anglican Theologian John Stott explain it:

I myself believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, as the original couple from whom the human race is descended...But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic "hominid" seem to have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them Homo Erectus. I think you may even call them Homo Sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus...it seems to have included those rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which made man unlike all other creatures and like God the Creator, and on account of which he was given "domination" over the lower creation

From Understanding the Bible by John RW Stott.

[Zguy28]

Okay, so why do we have to teach children to speak, read and write?

I don't really think that's a fair question. Children still have the ability of language, but are taught specific languages. They would probably form their own specific language if left to their own devices.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Okay, so why do we have to teach children to speak, read and write?

Same reason we have to teach them to walk, by your argument should we assume that the first humans couldn't walk? Human development is much different than human ability.

[Shallow1]

I didn't mean to suggest a "evolution vs. creationism" debate--more of a how language evolved over time as a tool for communication vs. the idea that it was just already there.

Sure, well the only historical document I know of that gives a guideline is the Bible and it would indicate that a common language was there from the begining of time and then the dynamic of language changed to multiple languages and now we are moving toward a common language again. With the same results and [paralells, societies creating more advanced strutures and working together for universal goals. (Godly or unGodly...more unGodly as of late)

Makes you wonder about some of the "lost civilizations" that may have existed at the same time line that God scattered the people and changed there language, was this the reason some of these cultures failed? They instantly were unable to communicate effectively with each other or other culters they relied on to carry on the existance they had developed?

Would make sense, lets say the Aztecs who were an advanced but human sacraficial society, that type of society is not how God would have wanted them to "evolve" (out of Gods plan) so when God changed the languages there unGodly societies fell?

Just a thought,......ok,.....

[headexplode]

I'm going to take the easy route and let Anglican Theologian John Stott explain it:

From Understanding the Bible by John RW Stott.

This is very interesting to me. I have heard of christians believing in evolution, but I never put the two together. That there may have been "humans" before Adam seems to directly contradict the creation story that I've read. I am no expert, thoughI have read Genesis all the way through.

[headexplode]

Sure, well the only historical document I know of that gives a guideline is the Bible and it would indicate that a common language was there from the begining of time and then the dynamic of language changed to multiple languages and now we are moving toward a common language again. With the same results and [paralells, societies creating more advanced strutures and working together for universal goals. (Godly or unGodly...more unGodly as of late)

Makes you wonder about some of the "lost civilizations" that may have existed at the same time line that God scattered the people and changed there language, was this the reason some of these cultures failed? They instantly were unable to communicate effectively with each other or other culters they relied on to carry on the existance they had developed?

Would make sense, lets say the Aztecs who were an advanced but human sacraficial society, that type of society is not how God would have wanted them to "evolve" (out of Gods plan) so when God changed the languages there unGodly societies fell?

Just a thought,......ok,.....

I don't have any specific texts to quote you, other than John Zerzan, but he has a very defined idealogical agenda and it is hard not to be suspicious of his works. I've read things in passing in anthropological texts and other historical readings that have lead me to believe that "language" as we know it today was not immediately present, but has evolved over many thousands of years, though the whens and the wheres have slipped my mind. I guess I should get back to the library.

[Zguy28]

This is very interesting to me. I have heard of christians believing in evolution, but I never put the two together. That there may have been "humans" before Adam seems to directly contradict the creation story that I've read. I am no expert, thoughI have read Genesis all the way through.

Some do believe in evolution, such as Dr. Frances Collins, but others do not such as Dr. Hugh Ross. Its shame that evolution and creation are so narrowly defined in our culture.

The only type of evolution that should be discounted outright by Christians is random evolution, as this is in contradiction to the Scripture. While not a believer in purposed evolution, I personally find it interesting how those who do hold to it, believe that it has moved in what appears to be unexplainable leaps and bounds. Interesting stuff.

[alexey]

God created language. He had to, to be able to communicate with Adam. Remember Adam gave all the animals names. Therefore language was always here since the beginning.

If God created language then that language would probably already have names for animals...

[alexey]

This is very interesting to me. I have heard of christians believing in evolution, but I never put the two together. That there may have been "humans" before Adam seems to directly contradict the creation story that I've read. I am no expert, thoughI have read Genesis all the way through.

From what I understand the "conflict" between Christianity and Evolution is pretty much an American thing... It's one of those "made in USA" controversies I think a big reason for that is economics. Promoting ignorance and waging a pseudo-scientific disinformation campaign of such gigantic proportions is expensive, not many others can engage in something like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

[techboy]

If God created language then that language would probably already have names for animals...

And yet, apparently it didn't.

[alexey]

And yet, apparently it didn't.

Maybe he was giving them names like Bob, Lucy, etc :laugh:

[Giants13]

I think I know the answer.........................

There is no such thing as god. Maybe the Easter Bunny, but definitely no god!

[techboy]

There is no such thing as god. Maybe the Easter Bunny, but definitely no god!

Thanks for clearing that up for us. You've saved us all a lot of time...

[Levi1]

Some do believe in evolution, such as Dr. Frances Collins, but others do not such as Dr. Hugh Ross. Its shame that evolution and creation are so narrowly defined in our culture.

The only type of evolution that should be discounted outright by Christians is random evolution, as this is in contradiction to the Scripture. While not a believer in purposed evolution, I personally find it interesting how those who do hold to it, believe that it has moved in what appears to be unexplainable leaps and bounds. Interesting stuff.

Just to be clear ( I've no intention of getting involved in an actual creation vs. evolution debate) there is no such thing as "random evolution"--this is a common misunderstanding (especially amongst those in the 'anti-evolution' crowd). Evolution is decidely "unrandom", that is why traits are described as having been 'selected for'. You may say that mutations are random, but the accumulation of beneficial traits (mutations) is, by definition, not random. This is a rather important point.

[Levi1]

And it certainly is not a Christian vs. evolution thing--millions, if not billions, of Christians understand evolution and do not see it as a threat to their faith-based beliefs. The Catholic church among them...the anti-evolution crowd is particular to America.

[PeterMP]

Just to be clear ( I've no intention of getting involved in an actual creation vs. evolution debate) there is no such thing as "random evolution"--this is a common misunderstanding (especially amongst those in the 'anti-evolution' crowd). Evolution is decidely "unrandom", that is why traits are described as having been 'selected for'. You may say that mutations are random, but the accumulation of beneficial traits (mutations) is, by definition, not random. This is a rather important point.

I don't want to get into a debate either, and I do believe in evolution, but I do question your logic. You've correctly stated that the current scientific knowledge says that mutations occur randomly and that these mutations drive evolution. So how can a non-random process be driven by a random process. At best, this would be a decrease in entropy (random having low order and nonrandom having high order) and therefore probably thermodynamically unfavorable. I can't think of anyway you could say that the cell is putting energy in to drive evolution beyond making random mutations. Am I missing something?

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is no such thing as god. Maybe the Easter Bunny, but definitely no god!

Such brilliant insight, I can't believe I've never heard this before tell me more, tell me more. How do you know such things of this calibur? You must have thoroughly researched all religion and all the aspects of science because I cannot imagine that you would have said this profound statement without any evidence to substantiate it, so please enlighten us.

[Levi1]

I don't want to get into a debate either, and I do believe in evolution, but I do question your logic. You've correctly stated that the current scientific knowledge says that mutations occur randomly and that these mutations drive evolution. So how can a non-random process be driven by a random process. At best, this would be a decrease in entropy (random having low order and nonrandom having high order) and therefore probably thermodynamically unfavorable. I can't think of anyway you could say that the cell is putting energy in to drive evolution beyond making random mutations. Am I missing something?

I think the mistake is in thinking of the mutations as "driving" evolution. It is the selection of only beneficial traits that 'drives' evolution. Good point though, and I can dig out some books in a few hours if you respond ( I have to go out now), but I'll check back later. Cheers...

[PeterMP]

I think the mistake is in thinking of the mutations as "driving" evolution. It is the selection of only beneficial traits that 'drives' evolution. Good point though, and I can dig out some books in a few hours if you respond ( I have to go out now), but I'll check back later. Cheers...

So something in selection provides energy? Certainly, the ability of the organism to produce more energy is part of its long term survival and therefore would be evolutionarily advantageous. So just dealling w/ that one aspect:

A random process results in a mutation that allows the organism to produce more energy (or for that matter to do the normal amount of "work" while using less energy) would be evolutionarily favorable. No that doesn't do it.

Selection is a pressure, but not energy and therefore can't supply energy. Unless something is putting energy in to cause the selection, but where is that energy coming from. You are really talking about directed evolution at that point (which is fine w/ me, but essentially impossible to disprove). I will think about it tonight, but unless I am missing something from a strict thermodynamic sense evolution must be an energetic neutral of favorable process, which almost certainly assures that in a strict sense it is random. The random mutations could be energetically favorable (organisms put a great deal of energy to over come entropy to faithfully reproduce their DNA. Any relaxation of that, which would increase entropy and could be energetically favorable), but I know of no mechanism by which that energy is captured.

There is nothing inheriently wrong w/ it being a random process. Sometimes random processes are AT LEAST as good as any other way to achieve a goal. If you are playing "go fish" and selecting the first card, a random selection is as likely to produce a positive result as any "organized system" would.

[PeterMP]

Let me extend my Go Fish analogy. Let's say we are playing a Go Fish tournament. You lose you go out, but if you win you stay in. However there is a catch, cards ALWAYS must be chosen at random. You cannot chose a card because you know that it is not the right card. I have a random process (selection of the cards) ,which is similar to mutations, driving a selective process (i.e. the loser is out). Somebody will win my tournament. But if I started over w/ the same participants the person that won the tournament is no more likely to win the tournament again as anybody else (e.g. if you were placing odds; you would place them randomly or equally).

Evolution isn't quite the same because of genetic variation some organisms will be better suited to survive the selection than others (i.e. if I could start the "evolution" game over w/ the same pressure the organism that won the first time would actually be more likely to be win again then some of its competitors and if I knew what the selection was and the proper information about the starting organisms I could actually produce reasonable odds). But genetic variation itself is the result of random mutations, and I can start w/ a population of genetically identical organisms and have evolution occur (through random mutations) so I don't think genetic variation is really that important for this discussion.

[Tarhog]

'Give me a SIGN' language.

[skinsfan51]

Adam and Eve were created with a form of language that they understood between each other and with God.

The translation of the Bible from copy to copy and language is fascinating. I'd encourage you to study it. What we have today is completely accurate only in the King James Version, which is the only translation based completely on the Textus Receptus Greek text. (Which is the most accurate Greek text.)

For rincewind: Retarded people, young children, and the like all go to heaven if they die. They are not able to exercise faith in order to believe and God is not unjust to send them to Hell for rejecting Him. But most of you reading this won't have that excuse. You know better and reject.