Ok. I get the maths. Re serious, thanks for the advice, and I could have taken your modpoint one as a joke, but not the one about Adam and Eve and language. There are people like that, You know. I could have considered whether such flat earth people would be on the internet, and the answer would probably be generally no, but then that is not necessarily so, so in conclusion I ask rhetorically: how many levels of logic should I consider before I make my comment, or before I decide my comment. I do take things seriously, but that is in the end how I am built, and by now, I am not worried about it any more, especially because without it, you get no facts and no development.
I'm ok You're ok.
Wrong. You tell me for exampe the "Mod" point that 1+1=3, and all I have to do is to ask why or how and walk away until you tell me the answer. If you walk away then all I have wasted is that word. If you don't we may have an intelligent discussion. So Why or how regarding all that you said.
Well, to understand it better, you will benefit from reading it again, and meanwhile, pay attention. You are not the only person that should be listened to.
ok. Something is broken along the way from transmitter to receiver. But are you sure that your dry wit is not so dry as to be indigestible by 67%water -man. Man uses water for everything, and maybe any man's water can not dissolve your wit. Thank god or thank christ I didn't have another ginormous religious argument on my hands, because they do very often come out very much like your initial words. - the world is still flat to some of them.
Don't forget the S and the T and similar sounds; they are much higher up in the frequencies than the sounds made by the vocal cords, that's why the claim reaches up to 4K or 40000Hz.
Don't you know that Eve was African, and she was not just one woman nor even many women, but both many women and men, who are represented by one female skeleton, called Eve, which according to all related branches of science is much older than the measly 6000 years that your fellows try to claim. If anybody in their group comes up with 6000 years for Eve they would laugh, or call out mumbo jumbo, or superstition, or try to convince you of the richness and accuracy of the combinations of the various dating techniques or stop discussing it with you alltogether; in fact I was in two minds myself whether to waste my time on it. Seriously, you need to toss away Adam and Eve as a theory, because you know that detail and what goes with it so much more poorly than what all the Science knows about it all; in fact it is even not claimed as knowledge but as faith, which by the definition of the word accepts that it is not KNOWN as truth but still pretended to be truth. I know that 1+1=2, and many other facts that I can prove, and because science shows every step of its conclusions in a logical empirical step by step fashion, I believe in science in general, although their theories, their possible next step, may at times not agree with me. You also know that 1+1=2, and many other facts that you could somehow prove, but at some point you break the chain of provable fact, and simply leap onto something unproven, which, further to that, is in so many ways in contradiction of all the rest that Science has found out.
Did you know that Adam means man. When the old Hebrews handed down their story of how they all came to be, of course they had to present in their story the first father (and mother). So they just called him "man". And, much later, as the language changed, or not, the word for man had become used as name. You need no bible for that logic, it's just a story that belongs to a people.
Just my feeling while I read the article, so can an expert please help; Why isn't that ear pitching for the purpose of living in the environment rather than speech, so that speech could freely have come then or much later. Check the chimpanzees; how is their ear pitching. If like ours, then surely the timing of language theory has had no change by this find.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I get the maths. Re serious, thanks for the advice, and I could have taken your modpoint one as a joke, but not the one about Adam and Eve and language. There are people like that, You know. I could have considered whether such flat earth people would be on the internet, and the answer would probably be generally no, but then that is not necessarily so, so in conclusion I ask rhetorically: how many levels of logic should I consider before I make my comment, or before I decide my comment. I do take things seriously, but that is in the end how I am built, and by now, I am not worried about it any more, especially because without it, you get no facts and no development. I'm ok You're ok.
Wrong. You tell me for exampe the "Mod" point that 1+1=3, and all I have to do is to ask why or how and walk away until you tell me the answer. If you walk away then all I have wasted is that word. If you don't we may have an intelligent discussion. So Why or how regarding all that you said.
Well, to understand it better, you will benefit from reading it again, and meanwhile, pay attention. You are not the only person that should be listened to.
ok. Something is broken along the way from transmitter to receiver. But are you sure that your dry wit is not so dry as to be indigestible by 67%water -man. Man uses water for everything, and maybe any man's water can not dissolve your wit. Thank god or thank christ I didn't have another ginormous religious argument on my hands, because they do very often come out very much like your initial words. - the world is still flat to some of them.
Sure, but check the chimp. Can we actually hear 20kHz higher than them , because if no, then forget the frequency as an early reason for language.
Don't forget the S and the T and similar sounds; they are much higher up in the frequencies than the sounds made by the vocal cords, that's why the claim reaches up to 4K or 40000Hz.
Don't you know that Eve was African, and she was not just one woman nor even many women, but both many women and men, who are represented by one female skeleton, called Eve, which according to all related branches of science is much older than the measly 6000 years that your fellows try to claim. If anybody in their group comes up with 6000 years for Eve they would laugh, or call out mumbo jumbo, or superstition, or try to convince you of the richness and accuracy of the combinations of the various dating techniques or stop discussing it with you alltogether; in fact I was in two minds myself whether to waste my time on it. Seriously, you need to toss away Adam and Eve as a theory, because you know that detail and what goes with it so much more poorly than what all the Science knows about it all; in fact it is even not claimed as knowledge but as faith, which by the definition of the word accepts that it is not KNOWN as truth but still pretended to be truth. I know that 1+1=2, and many other facts that I can prove, and because science shows every step of its conclusions in a logical empirical step by step fashion, I believe in science in general, although their theories, their possible next step, may at times not agree with me. You also know that 1+1=2, and many other facts that you could somehow prove, but at some point you break the chain of provable fact, and simply leap onto something unproven, which, further to that, is in so many ways in contradiction of all the rest that Science has found out. Did you know that Adam means man. When the old Hebrews handed down their story of how they all came to be, of course they had to present in their story the first father (and mother). So they just called him "man". And, much later, as the language changed, or not, the word for man had become used as name. You need no bible for that logic, it's just a story that belongs to a people.
Just my feeling while I read the article, so can an expert please help; Why isn't that ear pitching for the purpose of living in the environment rather than speech, so that speech could freely have come then or much later. Check the chimpanzees; how is their ear pitching. If like ours, then surely the timing of language theory has had no change by this find.