Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Something from nothing is the religious claim, not the scientific one.

So tell me, was there ever nothing? As the old-er song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and it never will..." (Sound of Music)

 

[YoursTrue]

In science there is no disagreement as to when writing began in the different cultures of the world independently evolving from forms of proto-writing. The archeology evidence is specific and well documented,

Well now, when do you say writing started? Or rather what the scholars you believe say about that?

 

[Valjean]

So tell me, was there ever nothing? As the old-er song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and it never will..." (Sound of Music)

I don't know. Nothingness is hard to get my head around.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well now, when do you say writing started? Or rather what the scholars you believe say about that?

I already provided references that writing evolved from proto-writing over time in different cultures of the world independently over a period of several thousand years including in the America's. There is not one palace and time that writing originated. The oldest complete writing system is in Sumer.

Proto-writing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Proto-writing consists of visible marks communicating limited information.[2] Such systems emerged from earlier traditions of symbol systems in the early Neolithic, as early as the 7th millennium BC in China and southeastern Europe. They used ideographic or early mnemonic symbols or both to represent a limited number of concepts, in contrast to true writing systems, which record the language of the writer.[3]

Paleolithic​

[edit]
Analysis in 2022, led by Bennet Bacon, an amateur archaeologist,[4] showed that lines, dots and "Y"-like symbols on Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings were used to indicate the mating cycle of animals in a lunar calendar. The markings found in over 400 caves across Europe were compared to the mating cycles of the animals with which they were associated, showing a correlation with the month of the year in which the animals depicted in the cave paintings would typically give birth. The markings were 20,000 years old, predating any other equivalent writing systems by 10,000 years.[1][5]

Neolithic​

[edit]
Turtle plastron from Jiahu inscribed with an eye-like symbol[6][7]

Neolithic China​

[edit]
Further information: Neolithic symbols in China
In 2003, turtle shells with carved inscriptions featuring a library of symbols were found in 24 Neolithic graves excavated at Jiahu in the northern Chinese province of Henan. Using radiocarbon dating, the inscriptions have been dated to the 7th millennium BC. According to some archaeologists, the symbols bear a resemblance to the first attested oracle bone inscriptions dating to c. 1200 BC.[8] Others have dismissed this claim as insufficiently substantiated, claiming that simple geometric designs such as those found on the Jiahu shells cannot be linked to early writing.[9]

Neolithic Southeastern Europe​

[edit]
Clay amulet, one of the Tărtăria tablets, dated to c. 5300 BC
The Vinča symbols (6th–5th millennia BC) are an evolution of simple symbols first attested during the 7th millennium BC). Over time, the symbols gradually became more complex, ultimately culminating in the Tărtăria tablets (c. 5300 BC).[10]

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. Nothingness is hard to get my head around.

I think scientists may have a problem with it, too, considering our brains seem to be formed from something...and finite, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

I already provided references that writing evolved from proto-writing over time in different cultures of the world independently over a period of several thousand years including in the America's. There is not one palace and time that writing originated. The oldest complete writing system is in Sumer.

Proto-writing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Proto-writing consists of visible marks communicating limited information.[2] Such systems emerged from earlier traditions of symbol systems in the early Neolithic, as early as the 7th millennium BC in China and southeastern Europe. They used ideographic or early mnemonic symbols or both to represent a limited number of concepts, in contrast to true writing systems, which record the language of the writer.[3]

Paleolithic​

[edit]
Analysis in 2022, led by Bennet Bacon, an amateur archaeologist,[4] showed that lines, dots and "Y"-like symbols on Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings were used to indicate the mating cycle of animals in a lunar calendar. The markings found in over 400 caves across Europe were compared to the mating cycles of the animals with which they were associated, showing a correlation with the month of the year in which the animals depicted in the cave paintings would typically give birth. The markings were 20,000 years old, predating any other equivalent writing systems by 10,000 years.[1][5]

Neolithic​

[edit]
Turtle plastron from Jiahu inscribed with an eye-like symbol[6][7]

Neolithic China​

[edit]
Further information: Neolithic symbols in China
In 2003, turtle shells with carved inscriptions featuring a library of symbols were found in 24 Neolithic graves excavated at Jiahu in the northern Chinese province of Henan. Using radiocarbon dating, the inscriptions have been dated to the 7th millennium BC. According to some archaeologists, the symbols bear a resemblance to the first attested oracle bone inscriptions dating to c. 1200 BC.[8] Others have dismissed this claim as insufficiently substantiated, claiming that simple geometric designs such as those found on the Jiahu shells cannot be linked to early writing.[9]

Neolithic Southeastern Europe​

[edit]
Clay amulet, one of the Tărtăria tablets, dated to c. 5300 BC
The Vinča symbols (6th–5th millennia BC) are an evolution of simple symbols first attested during the 7th millennium BC). Over time, the symbols gradually became more complex, ultimately culminating in the Tărtăria tablets (c. 5300 BC).[10]

Righto. But can you put it briefly when written "language" began (not symbols as in the form, let's say of a bull or whatever) in your opinion of course going by what you believe scientists are saying?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's a product of ongoing reasoned enquiry, and as you know, reasoned enquiry, of which science is one (large) aspect, has enabled the heavy lifting that's created the modern world.

I don't speak merely as an admirer looking on, or as one communicating with you on the net. In 2004 I underwent a successful treatment for throat cancer, so modern medicine is the reason I'm still here. And religion is not.

Reasoned enquiry stresses maximizing objectivity. Religion stresses maximizing subjectivity ─ you're required to learn about a particular version of an imaginary world and then impose that view on the reality around you. That works fine for lots of people, but it doesn't work for me.

I am happy that you were helped by doctors and scientific advances medically. We will see, as I believe, about religion and what will happen in the future.

 

[Valjean]

Only in the semse tjat we accept it all as science or what is. Nobody, not even someone as brilliant as Einstein and other great minds cannot begin to definitively explain it.

But Einstein did explain. His theories of relativity are explanations.
It's what science does. It proposes and tests explanations.

You said: "Consider with all the thousands of years of human history and the science we have learned, we still have no clue how life actually came to be here on Planet Earth or what dynamic originated life. We have only hypothesis impossible to test."
We do have hypotheses, and they're hardly impossible to test. That which is impossible to test is outside the purview of science.

You might find it interesting to look into the latest research in abiogenesis. We have some pretty promising leads into origins, and a great deal of understanding of mechanisms. Many mechanisms and stages are observable and pretty easily demonstrated. We've actually created replicating proto-life forms in vitro.

Chemistry!

 

[YoursTrue]

But Einstein did explain. His theories of relativity are explanations.
It's what science does. It proposes and tests explanations.

You said: "Consider with all the thousands of years of human history and the science we have learned, we still have no clue how life actually came to be here on Planet Earth or what dynamic originated life. We have only hypothesis impossible to test."
We do have hypotheses, and they're hardly impossible to test. That which is impossible to test is outside the purview of science.

You might find it interesting to look into the latest research in abiogenesis. We have some pretty promising leads into origins, and a great deal of understanding of mechanisms. Many mechanisms and stages are observable and pretty easily demonstrated. We've actually created replicating proto-life forms in vitro.

Chemistry!

Amazing, absolutely amazing at some of these answers. Hey, take care as some ponder over things like was there ever nothing, and how did something come from nothing if there ever was nothing...and yes, I take vaccines and x-rays sometimes.

 

[Valjean]

I still strongly believe that we Earthlings are likely in technological/scientific infancy compared to all the science/technology there is to know. Consider for instance that beings from other planets have been checking us out. Imagine the technology we have that we can only imagine. Imagine the science they know that we have no clue. And if there is indeed an intelligent Higher Power that created it all, imagine what that Higher Power knows compared to anything he/it created.

It's so mind boggling it is pretty impossible to wrap your mind around it.

Consider with all the thousands of years of human history and the science we have learned, we still have no clue how life actually came to be here on Planet Earth or what dynamic originated life. We have only hypothesis impossible to test.

Mind boggling indeed -- but beware falling into a Personal Incredulity morass. "Goddidit!" might assuage one's astonishment, but it's simplistic, unevidenced, and explains nothing.

As I said before. We do have some good, well-founded hypotheses on how life appeared on our pale blue globe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mind boggling indeed -- but beware falling into a Personal Incredulity morass. "Goddidit!" might assuage one's astonishment, but it's simplistic, unevidenced, and explains nothing.

As I said before. We do have some good, well-founded hypotheses on how life appeared on our pale blue globe.

It took me time to understand that there is a God that exists and who is 'the' Creator. I don't expect anyone to figure what I say is true unless they see it for themselves. Be that as it may, scientists are not close to understanding abiogenesis. They may try to understand it and it's not quite like figuring how something comes from nothing, nevertheless they are not close to understanding the origin of life on earth. Scientifically and logically.

 

[Valjean]

Amazing, absolutely amazing at some of these answers. Hey, take care as some ponder over things like was there ever nothing, and how did something come from nothing if there ever was nothing...and yes, I take vaccines and x-rays sometimes.

I don't ponder over "was there ever nothing" questions, myself.
Nothingness is not a working, scientific hypothesis. I mostly hear of nothingness in religious contexts, with God "speaking things into existence," ex nihilo.

 

[Valjean]

It took me time to understand that there is a God that exists and who is 'the' Creator. I don't expect anyone to figure what I say is true unless they see it for themselves. Be that as it may, scientists are not close to understanding abiogenesis. They may try to understand it and it's not quite like figuring how something comes from nothing, nevertheless they are not close to understanding the origin of life on earth. Scientifically and logically.

To be perfectly frank, YT, I don't think you have much familiarity with the field of research.
Yet, as always, you're strongly opinionated.

 

[Valjean]

What I mean is that we could say that whales are "mammalian fish" in the same way we say that sharks are cartilaginous fish.... Both are equally arbitrary and subjective ... We call sharks fish and whales non fish for cultural reasons. Not for empirical/scientific reasons

I believe biology and the scientific revolution have completely reoriented our cultural perspective on things. Whales as mammals is pretty well part of popular understanding.

Sharks as fish? Pick a bony fish and trace it's cladogram back. You'll find sharks in the lineage. Sharks are fish both popularly and biologically.
Whales? Follow a whale's cladogram and you'll find yourself on dry land pretty quickly.

 

[blü 2]

I am happy that you were helped by doctors and scientific advances medically. We will see, as I believe, about religion and what will happen in the future.

Or we'll cease to be alive, to be aware, to know, and become the past.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So tell me, was there ever nothing? As the old-er song goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and it never will..." (Sound of Music)

Quite possible, otherwise let us know how your 'God' came around to be. Not all that a song writer/poet writes is true.

The king of Urdu poetry, Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, wrote:
"Hum ko maloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, dil ke khush karne ko Ghalib khayal achha hai"
(I know the reality of heaven, but O Ghalib, it is a good idea to please the heart)