Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

I don’t know much about other religions. Raised a Christian, i have believed what ‘Christianity’ teaches most of my life but i have recently started shifting to Panentheism+Pantheism views. The irony is, these new ideas came from the bible + science. I don’t look down on any religion nowadays, i find so much to e offered in almost all religions.
I find Budhism to be fascinating and i’m still learning more about these ancient beliefs.

 

[whatistrue]

I’ll be kicked out for questioning my lecturers

Doesn’t sound like it’s a very good school then to me.

 

[Gigantals]

Welcome to the secular-run World. Where if you go against the masses, you’re punished. It’s considerably worse in the US though, people have actually been kicked out not because they were YEC, but because they were Christians in the ‘wrong class’. And in order to understand why they were kicked out; they researched this topic, and ended up supporting it anyway.

 

[whatistrue]

Can you explain how something as complex as human language appeared at some point?

Because it didn’t just “appear” fully formed, it developed over time. Kind of like lungs and livers. That is what evolution is all about.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m normally quite good at English. Use to do well in school, anyway. Had some stuff published once. But I do seem to have difficulty in getting a few things across to you.

I’m not interested in arguing definitions. I don’t want to discuss macroevevolution or ‘Darwinism’ or the age of the planet or any similar subject.

I just want you to nail your colours to the mast and tell us what processes you think are responsible for us being here. Plus the rest of the biosphere. Just a simple explanation. God can be involved if you like. You can define your own definitions. You can express yourself as you feel the need.

It can’t be that difficult, surely.

Fancy yourself a wordsmith, eh? Well, “smith” a few words for what you mean by “scientific” so we can move on.

Why do you keep dodging a comprehensive reply to my post with meaningless banter? I scanned your posts and much of what I see is just a cheerleader bleating out, “Rah, rah, Rossum”, and “Boo, boo, Buffalo”. Step up, become a player. Of course, if one tires of cheerleading but is not quite ready to take the field, they could just try-out for the marching band. They can take the field for a bit but just to entertain, never moving the ball.

So, either reply or flee, Fred. Last chance.

Here you go, Fred. Same proposition:

What is your definition of “scientific”?

Can a non-scientific theory have as much or more explanatory power to its juxtaposed scientific theory?

Do you agree:

• that all scientific hypotheses and theories are not facts.
• that science may only appeal to natural causes to explain observable effects.
• that effects that have no natural cause will never be explained by science.
• that nevertheless, science must put forward possible natural explanations as explanatory of observed events, even if those hypotheses are improbable but merely possible.
• that the value of a scientific hypothesis lies in to what degree does that hypothesis provide man to control nature.*

*the value of a scientific hypothesis is its workability, not its truth, in giving coherence to observed effects. The truth of the hypothesis belongs to a different realm of knowing.

 

[Noose001]

Because it didn’t just “appear” fully formed, it developed over time. Kind of like lungs and livers. That is what evolution is all about.

“it developed over time” Evolution in a nutshell, just brushing over but never going to the details. The following facts about language will hinder that notion:

1. Use of words in a language needs rules and those rules require words
2. Words needs to be taught and teaching requires words
3. Words need meaning and the meaning requires words
4. Based on the above, a language requires 10s or even 100s of known words from the word go. IOW, a language can not start with one or two words.

 

[whatistrue]

Evolution has facts to support it? Then why is it still a theory?

You mean like the Theory of Universal Gravitation is “just a theory”? This is basic science terminology, and should be fully understood by anyone studying any science (like geology).

 

[Gigantals]

One at a time please, I’m already backed up here. Wait your turn

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m not interested in arguing definitions. I don’t want to discuss macroevevolution or ‘Darwinism’ or the age of the planet or any similar subject.

I just want you to nail your colours to the mast and tell us what processes you think are responsible for us being here. Plus the rest of the biosphere. Just a simple explanation. God can be involved if you like. You can define your own definitions. You can express yourself as you feel the need.

It can’t be that difficult, surely.

Fancy yourself a wordsmith, eh? Well, “smith” a few words for what you mean by “scientific” so we can move on.

Apparently it is that difficult.

Your response to a simple question (see above - I don’t need to keep typing it out) is a deflection. And one as risible as ‘tell me what science means’. Which is patently and obviously formulated so that you can argue any number of esoteric points in order to avoid having to give anyone anything remotely approaching your own idea as to the processes involved.

You have been asked multiple times already and it’s still tumblin’ weed. And any time you’re involved in these type of discussions you will be asked again for your alternative. Not with any hope of getting a response but to continue to highlight your lack of one.

 

[Freddy]

whatistrue:

Because it didn’t just “appear” fully formed, it developed over time. Kind of like lungs and livers. That is what evolution is all about.

“it developed over time” Evolution in a nutshell, just brushing over but never going to the details. The following facts about language will hinder that notion:

1. Use of words in a language needs rules and those rules require words
2. Words needs to be taught and teaching requires words
3. Words need meaning and the meaning requires words
4. Based on the above, a language requires 10s or even 100s of known words from the word go. IOW, a language can not start with one or two words.

So, as I have been asking o-mlly for multiple posts, if you don’t like the explanation given, what is your alternative?

 

[whatistrue]

a language can not start with one or two words

It has to start somewhere. The basis issue with what you are saying is that you refer to a fully formed language that is in daily use by a population. I was talking about how that language got to be a language from the “grunt and point” statge, not how it is passed from person to person. And if you want an example of language evolving, compare the English of Chaucer to modern English (either British or American).

 

[Noose001]

So, as I have been asking o-mlly for multiple posts, if you don’t like the explanation given, what is your alternative?

Evolution and Creationism; the alternative is obvious as per topic but is it worth your time?

 

[Techno2000]

Evolution in a nutshell, just brushing over but never going to the details.

Exactly…

 

[Noose001]

It has to start somewhere. The basis issue with what you are saying is that you refer to a fully formed language that is in daily use by a population. I was talking about how that language got to be a language from the “grunt and point” statge, not how it is passed from person to person. And if you want an example of language evolving, compare the English of Chaucer to modern English (either British or American).

I’m not talking about a language evolving from an existing one.
Words have meanings which has to be taught or learned for one to use in expressing self.
Teaching the meaning of a word requires more words with meaning(s)- do you dispute this?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So, as I have been asking o-mlly for multiple posts, if you don’t like the explanation given, what is your alternative?

Evolution and Creationism; the alternative is obvious as per topic but is it worth you time?

The subject matter of that post was the evolution of language. What is your explanation for the origin of the multiple languages we have today with different grammar basics?

 

[Techno2000]

whatistrue:

It has to start somewhere. The basis issue with what you are saying is that you refer to a fully formed language that is in daily use by a population. I was talking about how that language got to be a language from the “grunt and point” statge, not how it is passed from person to person. And if you want an example of language evolving, compare the English of Chaucer to modern English (either British or American).

I’m not talking about a language evolving from an existing one.
Words have meanings which has to be taught or learned for one to use in expressing self.
Teaching the meaning of a word requires more words with meaning(s)- do you dispute this?

The answer is “time”, there was so much time for things to happen.

 

[whatistrue]

I’m not talking about a language evolving from an existing one.

Same process, just a different starting point.

Words have meanings which has to be taught or learned for one to use in expressing self.
Teaching the meaning of a word requires more words with meaning(s)- do you dispute this?

Have you never seen child’s primer? Like the ones where they show a picture of an apple next to the word “apple”? There are many ways to teach a language. The most common is by immersion (like a child growing up hearing it). But the techniques for learning a language, or the technical definition of the rules of an existing language (which is essentially what your laundry list is) have nothing to do with the initial creation of language as a concept or tool, or the development of a simple language into a more complex one, etc.

 

[Noose001]

The subject matter of that post was the evolution of language. What is your explanation for the origin of the multiple languages we have today with different grammar basics?

An existing language can be the basis of more languages, even now, new languages are being developed from existing ones. This is no issue at all. Already established words with meanings can change in pronunciation but maintain the meaning or i can use a known language as a basis to write down new words with meanings for reference- this requires one to know how to read and write.

What we know now is that a language is learned from knowledgeable sources so we can only go as far back as the original knowledgeable source aka God.

 

[Noose001]

Have you never seen child’s primer? Like the ones where they show a picture of an apple next to the word “apple”? There are many ways to teach a language. The most common is by immersion (like a child growing up hearing it). But the techniques for learning a language, or the technical definition of the rules of an existing language (which is essentially what your laundry list is) have nothing to do with the initial creation of language as a concept or tool, or the development of a simple language into a more complex one, etc.

Good, now explain how our ‘common ancestor’ did it.

 

[o_mlly]

And one as risible as ‘tell me what science means’. Which is patently and obviously formulated so that you can argue any number of esoteric points in order to avoid having to give anyone anything remotely approaching your own idea as to the processes involved.

Really? “Patently” and “obviously”? I guess you feel using redundant adjectives strengthens your defense for not responding. It doesn’t.

Esoteric? C’mon, Fred. You’re clever enough to defeat any illogical argument, aren’t you?

Your marching band could use a good trombone player; takes a lot of wind to play.