Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

Incorrect. See Dance Language of the Honey Bee – Bee Health

Read about Behavioral Genetics - species’ specific behaviors like the one you are fronting are gene based.

Is speech really anything other than really complex grunting when all is said and done?

SMH
Language is the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured way. Which means that you learn the meaning of words to use them.

Animal grunts are just different pitched cries, you don’t have to learn nothing which means it is gene based mode of communication. A new born baby is never taught how to cry.

You can not build a language from cries.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you were about to give us your alternative…?

Just as soon as we get Fred’s version out of the closet.

And allow you to carry on with your MO? Picking holes in other people’s posts without offering an alternative? Because that’s what will happen. Whatever answer I give you will simply lead to further questions. Let’s give everyone an example…

My position is that the evolutionary process has led to the current biosphere by changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations resulting in speciation. The conclusion of which is that all life has evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor. But you knew that already. What we don’t know is your alternative to that.

Now what are the chances of actually getting your alternative? I would say nil. Because what you will do now is ask further questions in an attempt to avoid doing that. My best guess will be a demand for definitions which I’ll ignore. Not because I don’t have any but because I know you will reject them. So giving an answer will result in more of the same MO.

So please, as I have constantly said, define terms to suit yourself and give us your alternative process.

 

[Gigantals]

Well, I got it from here:

Loading…

www.semanticscholar.org

The labs were independent too.

 

[whatistrue]

Language is the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured way

So ASL is not a language? Really?

Animal grunts are just different pitched cries,

And speech is differently pitched vocalizations, sometimes with variation in intensity and other changes to the positions of tongue, teeth, larynx, and so forth. So more complex grunting (note I didn’t say cries, you did).

A new born baby is never taught how to cry.

A new born chimp is taught the specific sounds for specific things.

Read about Behavioral Genetics - species’ specific behaviors like the one you are fronting are gene based.

So a product of evolution - thanks for the support. Or does it being gene based mean it isn’t a language? Meaning that evolution doesn’t control language development? And you seem to have glossed over your claim that bee communication was restricted to chemical emissions. I wonder why that is?

You can not build a language from cries.

And yet another gratuitous assertion. I contend that human language first began as exactly that and developed over time, and provided a reference (that was originally provided by someone else, but why reinvent the wheel) to support it. What have you provided as far as evidence? Your bare unsupported claim?

 

[Freddy]

Well, I got it from here:
[PDF] Conflicting ‘ages’ of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilised wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia | Semantic Scholar

The labs were independent too.

All written by Andrew A Snelling who is young-Earth creationist geologist and who works for Answers in Genesis.

Here’s their web page with his ‘findings’. https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...sed-wood-crinum-central-queensland-australia/

Do you understand what that means? He is actually paid to produce conclusions that the earth is 6,000 years old. That’s his job.

Now either you did know that and preferred not to pass on that information or you are accepting ‘evidence’ without being aware of the source. Either option does not cover you in glory, I’m afraid.

 

[o_mlly]

My position is that the evolutionary process has led to the current biosphere by changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations resulting in speciation. The conclusion of which is that all life has evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Now, was that so hard?

My position is that the macroevolutionary process has not led to the current biosphere of biological populations over successive generations resulting in diversity of life forms. The conclusion of which is that all life cannot have evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Macroevolution is the best speculation that science can offer today. However, the speculation does not meet science’s requirements as an hypothesis evidenced in part by the failure to precisely define the very event it purports to explain.

Back to you.

 

[Noose001]

So ASL is not a language? Really?

Sign language is the method of human communication consisting of the use of signs in a structured way. Which means you have to learn the meaning signs to use the signs.

And speech is differently pitched vocalizations, sometimes with variation in intensity and other changes to the positions of tongue, teeth, larynx, and so forth. So more complex grunting (note I didn’t say cries, you did).

1. If speech involves tongue, teeth, larynx, and so forth, why do you exclude it from the evolutionary process? The dog ate my homework kind of excuse?!
2. Speech is not only differently pitched vocalizations but meaningful vocalizations whose meanings must be acquired externally through learning process, not internally acquired through genetics like other vocalizations also known as cries.

A new born chimp is taught the specific sounds for specific things.

No evidence.
A new born human is never taught how to cry.

So a product of evolution - thanks for the support. Or does it being gene based mean it isn’t a language? Meaning that evolution doesn’t control language development? And you seem to have glossed over your claim that bee communication was restricted to chemical emissions. I wonder why that is?

A language is externally acquired through learning the meaning of words. Bees communicate but not through language.
I might have glossed over bee communication as being chemical based but what i meant is that bees don’t acquire their communication methods externally.

And yet another gratuitous assertion.

The evidence we have is that a person must learn for them to speak a language. That’s all.

I contend that human language first began as exactly that and developed over time, and provided a reference (that was originally provided by someone else, but why reinvent the wheel) to support it.

There’s no evidence for this assertion.

What have you provided as far as evidence? Your bare unsupported claim?

Mine is not an unsupported claim but yours is.
Look around again, the only thing you’ll ever see is people learning languages to speak those languages.

 

[Freddy]

Well, I got it from here:

And here’s an example of Snelling’s duplicity. He is a YEC and works for the organisation that promotes a young earth. I don’t think there’s any doubt about what he believes. But when it comes down to practicalities, he has no problem in publishing papers that contain information that he would normally categorically deny. In a paper making assessments of isotopes for uranium exploration, he says this in regard to rocks examined in the north of Australia:

…indicating an apparent age of 1445 ± 20 Ma Further assessment of stable lead isotope measurements for uranium exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia - ScienceDirect

That age is 1.445 billion years.

Could you trust this guy? He’s either lied in one paper or the other.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

My position is that the evolutionary process has led to the current biosphere by changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations resulting in speciation. The conclusion of which is that all life has evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Now, was that so hard?

My position is that the macroevolutionary process has not led to the current biosphere of biological populations over successive generations resulting in diversity of life forms. The conclusion of which is that all life cannot have evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Macroevolution is the best speculation that science can offer today. However, the speculation does not meet science’s requirements as an hypothesis evidenced in part by the failure to precisely define the very event it purports to explain.

Back to you.

Yet again you refuse to give your alternative. It’s all negative. It’s the standard MO - simply saying ‘This is wrong’. This is all you said:

…the macroevolutionary process has not led…
…life cannot have evolved over a period of billions of years…
…does not meet science’s requirements…
…the failure to precisely define the very event…

Absolutely nothing whatsoever about what you think the alternative is. Nothing at all. In any post. Even when you say you will give your answer if I answer your question as to my views, you completely ignore your own promise.

You have nothing to offer except negativity. You propose nothing. You offer nothing. You apparently have nothing to give. I think that’s been plain to see in all comments up to your last post and has indeed been confirmed by that last post.

At least Buffalo and now Gigantals have the courage of their convictions. At least they tell us exactly what they believe to be true.

From you? Nothing.

 

[whatistrue]

Sign language is the method

So your original definition was incorrect? Not surprised.

why do you exclude it from the evolutionary process?

I have said all along that the capacity for language was evolved, but individual specific languages were not. So the “hardware” for lack of a better term evolved for whatever reason, but the use of it for intelligible speech developed in a more social than biological manner.

No evidence.

Not quite a “smoking gun”, but this is interesting: https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Wiley-Blackwell/Crockford_Wild_Ethology_2004_1555595.pdf

So decidedly not “no evidence”, unless one automatically excludes evidence that opposes one’s position.

There’s no evidence for this assertion.

Of course, if one dismisses contrary evidence arbitrarily.

Mine is not an unsupported claim but yours is.

When was the last time you provided a reference? I have provided several on several topics.

 

[EndTimes]

Man evolving from an unknown first life form versus God …
Is a false presumptuous notion - known as “scientism”

science? Homo Sap’'s Quest to Know Everything…

Including H-Bombs

_

 

[Gigantals]

You just answered your question. A Creationist publishing their works in the media has to make sure of two things in order to publish something with a clear conscience:

1. Do not directly implicate God, Christianity or Creationism in any way. Stick to the evidence, and if a fellow Creationist figures it out after reading it, good for them.
2. Wordplay. Use words like ‘suggests’, ‘indicates’, ‘apparent’, etc. We must remember that whilst evolutionists and atheists hold up dates like these as proof of an old Earth; in the end, there are too many assumptions and unknowns for those results to ever be confirmed as solid fact. By using wordplay, we can be truthful to those reading it and show Creationists that these are not foolproof dates.

Atheists require evolution to be true to explain a Godless origin of life. Does that mean all the atheists’ work needs to be removed because they’re being religiously bias? I’m sure they’re being paid a lot more than the Creationists are.

Whenever a Creationist (who actually remembers they’re sheep among wolves) wants to publish something, we have to be careful how we do so without being found out and discriminated against. It can be hard, yes; but it is possible.

I wrote a report about Mt St Helens for my geochronology lecturer. I didn’t believe a word about the ages, but I gritted my teeth and carried on researching. When I had finished, I had produced a report that attacked almost every single thing we knew about volcanic structures and processes. But because I had kept my Creationism to myself, I couldn’t be implicated. It just showed my geochronology lecturer that I knew enough about such processes and structures to compare and criticise multiple theories and methods surrounding them. I don’t see anyone taking away Steve Austin’s PhD because he turned out to be a Creationist. He clearly separated any Creationism from his dissertation. An atheist could gladly use it.

I did refer to Steve Austin’s log mat, but because that paper didn’t mention God or Creationism and instead focused on an alternative formation of coal through observable science; it was accepted.

And if Creationist sites use such data to support their case, then that just means that the science is in our favour. Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling have a lot of work that seems to not support Creationism, or at least be neutral in their own opinions. That is because they need to maintain their reputation of religious and ideology neutrality during their investigations (is that not how investigations should be carried out?). And that is how a Creationist builds up scientific credibility for several years before they associate themselves with Creationism publicly. Because if they can prove to keep their neutrality when investigating, then there’s nothing wrong with using those reports.

 

[Gigantals]

My geochronology lecturer has commented on those reports and sites before. He openly agreed with the report and the data presented, but not with the Creationist interpretation after the report had been published.

As I said before, the labs that tested those samples were independent. They maintain their stance that the samples were not contaminated at any point, and the results were genuine. Snelling’s report doesn’t say this proves a Young Earth. An atheist could use this report to prove just how little we truly understand about radioactivity, whilst a Creationist would use it to prove low levels of atmospheric C14 in the past. That is how neutral this is.

Or we could take Newton’s Arianism and Einstein’s Agnosticism into account whenever we look over their work. Would it make much difference?

 

[Noose001]

So your original definition was incorrect? Not surprised.

Not my definition but a definition from an English dictionary (look it up) and it did not fail.

I have said all along that the capacity for language was evolved, but individual specific languages were not. So the “hardware” for lack of a better term evolved for whatever reason, but the use of it for intelligible speech developed in a more social than biological manner.

How does a hardware ‘evolve for whatever reason’ when natural selection confirms fitness (fit for purpose) all the way?
Biological manner (Evolution) stops and in comes social manner- seems well coordinated than it is random, almost designed.

Not quite a “smoking gun”, but this is interesting: https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Wiley-Blackwell/Crockford_Wild_Ethology_2004_1555595.pdf

So decidedly not “no evidence”, unless one automatically excludes evidence that opposes one’s position.

These are gene controlled behaviors

Of course, if one dismisses contrary evidence arbitrarily.

Again, no evidence to support the idea that languages (words with meanings) slowly grew from grunts and cries.

When was the last time you provided a reference? I have provided several on several topics.

I’m a testament myself, i learned English (though not very good at it) and now i can speak English. I can provide a million other attestations.
.

 

[whatistrue]

and it did not fail.

I didn’t say it failed, I said it was incorrect.

natural selection confirms fitness

Where did you get that idea? Natural selection only has to do with survival. Beneficial or neutral changes can be passed on, detrimental will die out.

seems well coordinated

If you are predisposed to that position perhaps. But it is only a relative sequence (you have to have the “hardware” first) rather than a specific timetable.

These are gene controlled behaviors

They are not. See, I can make gratuitous assertions also, even though I have provided actual references.

Again, no evidence

Again, arbitrary dismissal.

I’m a testament myself

Anecdotal? And a personal anecdote at that? Seriously? Okay then, where is the paper you wrote about the experience? Or any of the “million other” experiences? The request was for references, not more assertions.

 

[o_mlly]

if I answer your question as to my views …

Get a hold of yourself, Fred. I answered your view of macroevolution in the approved Freddy Format:

Freddy:

He’s constricted to a few thousand years so he starts with a fundamental interpretation of the bible and then builds everything around that. That’s not science.

Darwin’s constricted to a few observations of microevolution so he starts with a wild speculation of macroevolution and then builds everything around that. That’s not science.

According to you, bad science is not science. Ditto macro.

Back to you.

 

[rossum]

The fact that there is C14 in the coal in the first place either shows that carbon dating is not a closed system and shouldn’t be used as a dating method, or the coal is clearly not millions of years old.

Or the coal was buried near a uranium deposit. Radioactivity from the uranium makes C14 in the coal. Take your coal from a different mine, away from any uranium ore.

 

[rossum]

This falls on the younger side of 60K, so there is a meaningful amount left, right?

That depends on the equipment used. More sensitive equipment can measure a smaller amount of C14. We would need to know the limits of the equipment used to be able to tell if the result is significant or just noise below the equipment limitations.

As per my previous post, is there a Uranium mine in the vicinity? Australia has a number of Uranium deposits.

 

[o_mlly]

And here’s an example of Snelling’s duplicity.

Standard atheist stance to impute evil to anything that contradicts their beliefs.

He is a YEC …

Followed by the obligatory ad hominem.

I don’t think there’s any doubt about what he believes. … he would normally categorically deny.

Then claim a paranormal ability to read minds.

I think we may call that post a nonresponse but rather a polemic masquerading as a screed.

 

[Gigantals]

You’re right, the presence of uranium would impact that. But there is no uranium in the area, nor within a +200 mile radius (I admit, I may be a little out with that number).