Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[buffalo]

[19] Wieland, C., Towering change, Creation 22(1):22-26, 1999, p. 22.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[20] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 329.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[21] Aitchison, Ref. 6, p. 85.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[22] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 45.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[23] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 103.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[24] Gitt, W., The Wonder of Man, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung E.V., Bielefeld, Germany, p. 101, 1999.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[25] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 34.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[26] Deacon, Ref. 4, pp. 30-31** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[27] Nottebohm, F., Testosterone triggers growth of brain vocal control nuclei in adult female canaries, Brain Research 189:429-436, 1980.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[28] Savage-Rumbaugh, S. and Lewin, R., Ape at the brink, Discover 15(9):90-96,98, 1994.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[29] Skoyles, J.R. and Sagan, D., Up from Dragons, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 217-220, 2002.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[30] Skoyles and Sagan, Ref. 29, pp. 215-216.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[31] Skoyles and Sagan, Ref. 29, p. 214.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[32] Chomsky, N., Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York, p. 139.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[33] Oller, J.W. and Omdahl J.L., ‘Origin of the Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image?’ in J.P. Moreland (Ed), The Creation Hypothesis, p. 255.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[34] Horgan, J., A sign is born, Scientific American 273(6):18-19, 1995.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[35] Ross, P.E., Hard words, Scientific American 264(4):138-147, 1991, p. 146.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[36] Lyons, E. and Thompson, B., In the ‘Image and Likeness of God’, Reason & Revelation [Parts I and II], 22:17-23,25-31, 2002.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[37] Pinker, S., The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind, Penguin, London, p. 1395, 1997.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[38] Oller and Omdahl, Ref. 33, p. 262.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[39] Lieberman, Ref. 14, p. 27.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[40] Elgin, S.H., What is Linguistics? Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 44, 1973.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[41] Thomas, L., On science and uncertainty, Discover 1:59, October 1980.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
%between%

 

[buffalo]

42] Nowak, M.A., Komarova, N.L. and Niyogi, P., Evolution of universal grammar, Science 291:114-118, 2001.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[43] Nowak, M.A. and Krakauer, D.C., ‘The evolution of language,’ Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 96:8028-8033, 1999.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[44] Nowak and Krakauer, Ref. 43, p. 8031.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[45] Simpson, G.G., The biological nature of Man, Science 152:467-477, 1966, p. 477.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[46] Chomsky, N., Language and the Mind, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, pp. 67-68, 1972.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[47] Dunbar, R. Grooming Gossip and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 3 , 1996.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[48] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 41.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[49] Holloway, R.L., Paleoneurological evidence for language origins; in: Harnad, S.R., Horst, D., Steklis, D. and Lancaster, J. (Eds), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 280:330, 1976.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**

 

[Farsight001]

Here is the list:

I see no list of real and authentic sources. I see a PLAGIARIZED and thus illegal copy and paste from another website that references, but has no expertise and clearly does not understand at all, as I ALREADY EXPLAINED, what they’re talking about.

Look at your own lengthy list. Citation one was to provide the quote “No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals”, and then the article goes on to call this wrong. Why? For some reason noticeably devoid of a source. That’s not a source on the evolution of language. The second one talks about speech being central to our concept of intelligence. Again, nothing about the evolution of language. Citation 3 talks about language being unique to humans. Again, nothing about the evolution of language. We’re not off to a good start. And if we continue through the list, we find that a good portion of these “citations” have no document name, which means they cannot be looked up and confirmed (not that they had anything to do with the evolution of language in the first place)

Plus, properly cited, that list is not your sources in the first place. Your sources are Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., the authors of the article, all of whom, as I already explained, have no relevant expertise.

Again - a REAL source please. Your sources are not credible, and their sources say pretty much nothing about the evolution of language, talking rather about how only humans have language, or how language has an effect on society. There is nothing about the evolution of language that isn’t claimed without a source by the authors of that article.

So let me lay this out as straight and as obvious as possible, since you still don’t get it. We need a source directly from (not a citation of a citation)** a relevantly educated** (someone whose formal education is in the development of language) expert (someone active in the relevant community) that argues (argues, not claims)** flat out** (no twisting of words or creative quoting needed, but just a blatant statement)** that language change** (language CHANGE, not development) was a rapid occurrence (rapid as in in a few days as scripture describes)** that caused hundreds** (not two or three) of languages to appear all at the same time.

Nothing short of all of that in one document would ever be considered a proper source for your claim - and I don’t mean just by me.

 

[Lui]

So let me lay this out as straight and as obvious as possible, since you still don’t get it. We need a source directly from (not a citation of a citation)** a relevantly educated** (someone whose formal education is in the development of language) expert (someone active in the relevant community) that argues (argues, not claims)** flat out** (no twisting of words or creative quoting needed, but just a blatant statement)** that language change** (language CHANGE, not development) was a rapid occurrence (rapid as in in a few days as scripture describes)** that caused hundreds** (not two or three) of languages to appear all at the same time.

You’re asking David Copperfield to prove that his magic tricks are real magic and not just illusions and tricks. Since the world is actually 4.5 billion years old and languages developed over the course of hundreds of thousands of years and were never one language ever, a YEC who tries to sell the story of the tower of Babel as the historical origin of languages will never be able to provide the evidence to prove the claims made because there is no evidence. He has to use tricks of distraction of the real truth because his claims are built on sand.

 

[buffalo]

I see no list of real and authentic sources. I see a PLAGIARIZED and thus illegal copy and paste from another website that references, but has no expertise and clearly does not understand at all, as I ALREADY EXPLAINED, what they’re talking about.

Look at your own lengthy list. Citation one was to provide the quote “No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals”, and then the article goes on to call this wrong. Why? For some reason noticeably devoid of a source. That’s not a source on the evolution of language. The second one talks about speech being central to our concept of intelligence. Again, nothing about the evolution of language. Citation 3 talks about language being unique to humans. Again, nothing about the evolution of language. We’re not off to a good start. And if we continue through the list, we find that a good portion of these “citations” have no document name, which means they cannot be looked up and confirmed (not that they had anything to do with the evolution of language in the first place)

Plus, properly cited, that list is not your sources in the first place. Your sources are Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D., the authors of the article, all of whom, as I already explained, have no relevant expertise.

Again - a REAL source please. Your sources are not credible, and their sources say pretty much nothing about the evolution of language, talking rather about how only humans have language, or how language has an effect on society. There is nothing about the evolution of language that isn’t claimed without a source by the authors of that article.

So let me lay this out as straight and as obvious as possible, since you still don’t get it. We need a source directly from (not a citation of a citation)** a relevantly educated** (someone whose formal education is in the development of language) expert (someone active in the relevant community) that argues (argues, not claims)** flat out** (no twisting of words or creative quoting needed, but just a blatant statement)** that language change** (language CHANGE, not development) was a rapid occurrence (rapid as in in a few days as scripture describes)** that caused hundreds** (not two or three) of languages to appear all at the same time.

Nothing short of all of that in one document would ever be considered a proper source for your claim - and I don’t mean just by me.

A typical tactic - can’t deal with the paper so disparage the authors. Not qualified, not educated, geesh… Perhaps you only accept evidence from an indoctrinated (educated) source.

Evolution of language is an assumption for there is no evidence to support it. If there was you would have posted it. What is left is the same old same old… the evolution of language must have happened. :banghead:

Babel is history. Deal with it.

 

[Lui]

Babel is history. Deal with it.

No, it’s a myth. Deal with it.

 

[rossum]

Babel is history. Deal with it.

Was there a ziggurat at Babylon? Yes. That ziggurat is not a myth.

Did all human languages originate is a particular event at Babylon? No. That story is a myth. We have written records in different languages that are older than the ziggurat at Babylon: Chinese, Egyptian and Sumerian to name but three.

rossum

 

[Lui]

Did all human languages originate is a particular event at Babylon? No. That story is a myth.

That’s what I meant when I wrote Babel is a myth:thumbsup:

 

[Farsight001]

A typical tactic - can’t deal with the paper so disparage the authors. Not qualified, not educated, geesh… Perhaps you only accept evidence from an indoctrinated (educated) source.

There’s a reason it’s a typical tactic - it’s a valid one. If a person has no education in a subject, then they are not an expert on a subject, and thus their word is not to be trusted. Would you let me perform open heart surgery on you? No? why not? I swear I know what I’m doing even though I’m not a doctor. So why not? I’ll tell you why - I don’t have the education to possibly know what I’m doing. I can think I do all I want, but I don’t. Likewise with your sources. You expect us to take them at their word? Why? Are they experts? No.

Evolution of language is an assumption for there is no evidence to support it. If there was you would have posted it. What is left is the same old same old… the evolution of language must have happened. :banghead:

I already told you I have it. I’m waiting for you to present your valid sources first, since you made the claim first, it is first your turn.

How are you not getting this? I AM NOT FALLING FOR YOUR GAME. Put up or shut up. You have nothing to stand on, you know you have nothing to stand on, and so you turn it around and demand I provide. But that’s not how it works. You first. Or you could admit you’re spreading deception and misinformation around and we saw right through you. That would work too, and really, it’s your only option since there is no evidence of your claim. And please, take note of the word evidence, which is vastly different from the copious claims by various people you have provided.

 

[hecd2]

Evolution of language is an assumption for there is no evidence to support it. If there was you would have posted it. What is left is the same old same old… the evolution of language must have happened. :banghead:

Babel is history. Deal with it.

C’mon buddy that must be one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said. Stop banging your head and think about it - the evolution of language, ie the fact that languages constantly change, and that one language gives rise to a family of descendants, that other languages die out and that others are hybrids of more than one parent is an indisputable fact. We know that Latin gave rise to the Romance languages (French, Italian, Castilian Spanish, Potuguese, Catalan, Romanian and many more). The Anglo-Frisian branch of Western Germanic gave rise to Old English and Old Frisian, and susbsequently these evolved into modern Frisian, modern English and modern Scots. English is an interesting example in that a huge shift occured in the middle ages between old English and middle English, which changed substantial parts of the grammar and vocabulary and overlaid the Germanic base with substantial Romance vocabulary via French (or actually Norman French). Modern English continues to evolve into different forms - the language of Shakespeare is not the language of today, nor is it the same as the literally hundreds of English forms and dialects that have sprung up around the world.

As others have pointed out, what we know about the evolution of languages belies a single major event, and the story is historical only in the sense that the rest of Genesis is historical (ie not at all).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

42] Nowak, M.A., Komarova, N.L. and Niyogi, P., Evolution of universal grammar, Science 291:114-118, 2001.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[43] Nowak, M.A. and Krakauer, D.C., ‘The evolution of language,’ Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 96:8028-8033, 1999.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[44] Nowak and Krakauer, Ref. 43, p. 8031.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[45] Simpson, G.G., The biological nature of Man, Science 152:467-477, 1966, p. 477.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[46] Chomsky, N., Language and the Mind, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, pp. 67-68, 1972.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[47] Dunbar, R. Grooming Gossip and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 3 , 1996.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[48] Deacon, Ref. 4, p. 41.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**
[49] Holloway, R.L., Paleoneurological evidence for language origins; in: Harnad, S.R., Horst, D., Steklis, D. and Lancaster, J. (Eds), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 280:330, 1976.** [RETURN TO TEXT]**

What do you think those sources and the other 41 you listed (well apart from Wieland and Duursma) say about the evolution of language and the historicity of the Babel myth? How do you think the authors in those references deal with these issues and why do you think they support your case? Think about it - that is a pretty powerful reference list of linguists and history of language specialists (well, apart from Wieland and Duursma) and other people working in allied fields. Do you honestly think that those references support the notion that a) language does not evolve and b) that all the major language groups appeared at once at a Tower of Babel event? Have you actually read any of the references in that list - I’m sure I’ve pointed out to you before that it’s bad form to reference papers that you haven’t read. If they do not support your position, then why on earth do you post them and refer to them as your sources?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Evolution of language is an assumption for there is no evidence to support it.

A must read: Harnessed: *How Language and Music Mimicked Nature and Transformed Ape to Man *by Mark Changizi. changizi.wordpress.com/book-harnessed/

I just bought the book.

 

[grannymh]

Lui, listen to yourself. Have you not heard the evolution fairytales? And if you do not believe them you are anti-science, etc… This cuts both ways.

Pope Benedict XVI

…The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.”

Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: **“What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.” **

Monod does not dispute this. His thesis is that the entire ensemble of nature has arisen out of errors and dissonances. He cannot help but say himself that such a conception is in fact absurd. But, according to him, the scientific method demands that a question not be permitted to which the answer would have to be God. One can only say that a method of this sort is pathetic. God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence…"

I’ve been looking for the referencve to Jacques Monod. Please, what is the citation for the above? Do you have any other quotes which refer to Jacques Monod? Thank you.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Are you saying that you’re further along in your journey with Christ than those of us who haven’t abandoned our God-given powers of reason? When did Christ tell you that the age of the world has anything to do with why He died on the cross?

PS: Could you click the Quote button to quote another poster. That way we can see who you’re quoting and click the link to get back to their post. Thanks.

I did not say I am closer to Christ than anyone. I did say that I am growing in my faith, which is what we should all be trying to do.

I’ve tried to explain that my change of mind regarding Genesis came about through the exercise of my God-given powers of reason- not the abandonment of them. This is because I’ve reached the conclusions I have by following Church teaching. Reject Church teaching even for the most “reasonable” of reasons, is the height of unreasonableness.

Why should we set “science” as the ultimate standard when it comes to the origins of the world and man?

“Science” tells us that people don’t rise from the dead. “Science” tells us that bread and wine do not become flesh and blood. Why do seeming conflicts between “science” and the Gospel according to John, come down on the side of John, but ones between “science” and Genesis, are won by “science”?

The Church teaches among other things:
-Polygenism is heresy.
-God made Eve from Adam’s side.
-Through Adam, original sin entered the world and has been transmitted to all of his descendants (save Our Blessed Mother and Our Lord Jesus Christ)
-God made a covenant with Noah which remains in effect for all time.

Are those unreasonable positions that abandon reason?

An understanding of the origins of the world and mankind have a great deal to do with why Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross. If Genesis is a myth, then Christ died for a myth. There is no reason for Christ’s death if not for Adam’s sin.

When did Jesus tell me these things?

As I’ve pointed out, He speaks through His Church. My though process has been led and formed by Church teaching. Jesus also spoke directly, to the men of His time on earth when he told them if they could not believe what Moses wrote they could not believe Him.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Why should we set “science” as the ultimate standard when it comes to the origins of the world and man?

Dan, scientists’ observations are about the natural world we live in, which includes the the history of our origins. Science uses the natural world to make those observations. You don’t speak on behalf of all Catholics. I happen to agree with Father George Coyne in this video that can be seen online here:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8293161#post8293161. I don’t personally know outside the Internet a single person that doesn’t accept evolution. That goes for non-religious and religious alike. Every child that is in 6th grade takes a biology course whether they are in a Catholic school or public school. Let me just say that by 9th grade they are taking physics courses. I live in a very affluent area where parents spend tons of money on educating their children. School bonds are high $ and a major priority for all adults. The future depends on educated people. I’d like to also stress that the topic is about SCIENCE not religion. Thank you.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dan, scientists’ observations are about the natural world we live in, which includes the the history of our origins. Science uses the natural world to make those observations. You don’t speak on behalf of all Catholics. I happen to agree with Father George Coyne in this video that can be seen online here:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8293161#post8293161. I don’t personally know outside the Internet a single person that doesn’t accept evolution. That goes for non-religious and religious alike. Every child that is in 6th grade takes a biology course whether they are in a Catholic school or public school. Let me just say that by 9th grade they are taking physics courses. I live in a very affluent area where parents spend tons of money on educating their children. School bonds are high $ and a major priority for all adults. The future depends on educated people. I’d like to also stress that the topic is about SCIENCE not religion. Thank you.

Who made the world?

God.

Who made you?

God.

Who made the first man?

God.

Who came to die as atonement for the sins of that first man and all mankind?

God.

You see, it most definitely is a topic about religion.

Science, when properly understood does not conflict with the Catholic Faith, it aids in our understanding of it. The problem is that, “science” isn’t a unified body of work speaking with one voice. Some of it is in error. Some of it is purposely misleading. Some of it is just plain bunk. “Science” has been used to justify all kinds of things from slavery, to genocide, to abortion, to contraception, to cloning. So just because someone slaps the label “science” on an idea does not automatically mean that it is a good one.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

“I don’t know a single person who doesn’t believe in evolution” is again an argument based on the popularity of an idea and not on its merits.

As my mother used to ask me- Just because all your friends are going to jump of a bridge, does that mean you will too?

Many people don’t know people who think marriage is a sacred and lifelong bond.

Many people don’t know people who think contraception is a grave evil.

Many people don’t know people who think dressing modestly is important.

Many people don’t know people who really believe in all that heaven, hell, sin and grace…stuff.

Well, in a lot cases they do know people, they just don’t realize it- because as Catholics we often need to do a better job of having the faith and courage to live out our faith and share the Gospel even if it makes us look weird or backward or uncool in the eyes of the world.

Pax.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Why should we set “science” as the ultimate standard when it comes to the origins of the world and man?

“Science” tells us that people don’t rise from the dead.

You don’t need science to know that. People knew already 2000 years ago that people don’t rise from the dead. It’s a miracle when it happens.

“Science” tells us that bread and wine do not become flesh and blood.

Of course, but science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world. Transubstantiation is not a scientific question. I am afraid you are confused.

Why do seeming conflicts between “science” and the Gospel according to John, come down on the side of John, but ones between “science” and Genesis, are won by “science”?

I assume when you say “the Gospel according to John” you mean the supernatural events recorded there. Science is incompetent on supernatural events, because it does not deal with them. On the other hand, science deals with the natural world, and creation, a central topic of Genesis, is about the development of our natural world, a topic on which science has a lot of hard evidence to offer. Again, you are confused.

An understanding of the origins of the world and mankind have a great deal to do with why Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross. If Genesis is a myth, then Christ died for a myth. There is no reason for Christ’s death if not for Adam’s sin.

The theological concept of original sin is not dependent on one single first couple.

As for the origin of the world: Science can say a lot about the age of the universe and the Earth, and about physical and biological evolution, but it cannot say anything about a supernatural origin of the world. That is, again, outside the domain of science.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve tried to explain that my change of mind regarding Genesis came about through the exercise of my God-given powers of reason- not the abandonment of them. This is because I’ve reached the conclusions I have by following Church teaching. Reject Church teaching even for the most “reasonable” of reasons, is the height of unreasonableness.

Nobody here rejects Church teaching. As for our God-given powers of reason, we should also use them to perform good science. And Catholic scientists, including myself, agree with their non-Catholic and non-believing colleagues on the evidence. And the evidence leads to an over 4 billion years old Earth and to physical and biological evolution.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Nobody here rejects Church teaching. As for our God-given powers of reason, we should also use them to perform good science. And Catholic scientists, including myself, agree with their non-Catholic and non-believing colleagues on the evidence. And the evidence leads to an over 4 billion years old Earth and to physical and biological evolution.

I wouldn’t be so quick as to say nobody here rejects Church teaching. Many people on the boards, aren’t even Catholic, and make no bones about their disagreement with Church teaching. Many others are Catholics who freely admit they reject certain Church teachings.

You say the Eucharist is a supernatural event so you rely on religion, but creation was a natural event so you rely on science. There are a few issues with this:

-the Eucharist is a supernatural event. It is also a natural event. The bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What you eat and drink is not bread and wine. It’s not bread and wine that symbolizes flesh and blood. It’s not bread and wine that you believe is flesh and blood. It IS flesh and blood.

-How exactly do you know the creation of the universe wasn’t a supernatural event? In which case, by your own reasoning on the Eucharist you would disregard all the observed evidence that points to the contrary of the reality. God made the universe. God made the natural laws of the universe. He is not bound by them, He is their master.

The Church clearly teaches that sin entered the world through the first Man.

The Church clearly teaches that all men and women are descended from one original man and one original woman- Adam and Eve.

The Church clearly teaches that Noah existed, and that God made a covenant with him that remains in effect for all mankind.

The Church clearly teaches that God made Eve from Adam’s side.

If you don’t reject Church teaching and you believe in evolution, how do you reconcile those teachings with your evolutionary beliefs?

Pax and God Bless.