1. That the universe is finite - a preamble and vindicated premise introduced in Genesis, which affirms a 'beginning'. Why does a finite universe effect a biologist, peering down a virus' dna cells? Because in an infinite universe, any theory is permissable: the time factor can be used to justify anything. Not so in a finite universe, where any premise of life from inanimate matter becomes far less plausable. Because the very existence of matter and complex atoms, before the advent of life, says there was already a control system in force, producing complex structures, and that life could not occur by itself at a later point, but is/must be part of a pre- and on-going development process. The latter renders all dates and factors of origins as wrong, and the design of life would have been closer to the universe source when complex products were being formed. Nor does a finite universe allow the same criteria as life for its emergence: eventually a biologist must consider that matter's emergence is not possible on just odds - which requires other matter to interact with.
2. If speech is not an extension of other lifes' communication traits - a biologist must question all views which made life occur and graduate, that it may not be as per ToE: how can one life form break the rule?
Those two factors are among the stumbling blocks for biology, subsequent to it being the same for ToE. These are not issues proven by science, and remain in the brink. There is no hard proof for speech from grunts and hisses - but there should be millions - if not billions - all over the planet. After all, modern humans are recent or last entries, unlike all other life forms. And the issue of life from matter, and matter of itself - are not scientifically evidentiable, but this is what ToE relies upon.
I take it this is your list of "big problems" with the ToE ...
1. That the universe is finite ...
... is absolutely irrelevant to biology and the theory of evolution. Whether it is finite of infinite has no effect on the behavior of life on this planet, which in either scenario exists for a brief period with a beginning and an end regardless of the universe.
2. If speech is not an extension of other lifes' communication traits ...
... which cannot be evaluated until you provide a definition of what you mean by speech so that it can be tested. This was the whole point for the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind, where you failed to make any case for speech due to avoiding the definition issue (for fear that your pet concept would not hold up to rational evaluation).
Honest scientists (including biologists) define their terms so that they can be tested. Dishonest people don't.
Those two factors are among the stumbling blocks for biology, ...
Only in your mental world. One is totally irrelevant and the other has been shown to be a difference of degree unless there is some additional information that is relevant ... and we are waiting for honest input from you on what that could possibly be to proceed to see how relevant it is.
Your bias has shown through. How convenient that what you decide is the measure of a countries worth is also the country of your faith. Don't feel bad, I love my country.
But be not jealous no one wants to blow up Canada
I'm not.
Even she will help US if needed.
Its a sad state of affairs. I see no reason for us to help out in the US campaign to add to the ever growing list of countries they wish to blow up. They sure do add to the merit of those muslim countries though.
I like to measure a country's merits by the opposing forces confronting it.
(vacate: Message 225) You had not specified that a measure of a countries superiority was how many other countries wish to blow it up. I was thinking more along the lines of a strong economy and low unemployment, how silly of me.
So based on your idea of what makes a country superior, who would you vote as top of the list?
(your reply to vacate, Message 227) 1. Israel. 2. USA. But be not jealous no one wants to blow up Canada - if they did, Canada will show 'em! Even she will help US if needed.
So we can evaluate all the countries and nations down through history on this basis and see who comes out on top?
Just curious -- this has nothing to do with the topic but everything to do with your ability to present a rational argument.
quote:Except (1) what you posted doesn't contradict the ToE
Except, agreed by those scientists, that speech is indefinable, different from communications, no other life has ever had speech, it came suddenly and in advanced mode. These quotes were put up in the preamble. And they do contradict ToE.
quote:
and (2) until you define "speech" so that it can be evaluated you have no argument. As was amply demonstrated on the speech thread, the one where you were completely incapable of making a point because of the total lack of definition on your part.
No, I, and anyone else, will be wrong if speech is defined - with respect to the talking parrots desperation. We have nothing to compare speech with, is what it means. That is what 'unique' on this planet, in all its 4.5B history, and of the known universe, is all about. Have you sufficiently contemplated the implications if Genesis was correct about speech's emergence dating? There is more evidence that speech endowed humans - and their populations and mental prowess imprints, are as per Genesis than ToE. Is it a fluke there is no history per se before that date - not a single name of a human or event recalled by any human?
quote:
There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it:
Nope. Care to provide some substantiation for this assertion?
List the "big problems" first ...
I did.
quote:
You ran screaming from the speech thread making up excuses and ducking the issue ...
I recall not running, but was barred for 2 days because I was warned to define what is indefinable - even after I posted leading scientists' assertions, speech is not definable or explainable scientifically. The issue is hardly about running away but confronting the issue correctly. I vindicated my stance, and there was no more requirement.
It is a stumbling block which will not go away by semantical or science manipulations. Confronting the issue requires the acceptance speech contradicts certain pillars of ToE, and the acknowledgement of the evidences speech is not an extension of communications seen with all other life forms.
You asked, I replied. Bias is not in the equation, and if it is, not by me. Assess anything by its situation and opposing factors, devide by time period, multiply by positive factors contributed to humanity in the face of it [how's your mobile and pc working!]. America has had more time, but I agree she has been there to save many nations, and will probably save many other asses in the future.
The wars have put a pause on science going forward, but many nations would go belly up if they never had US commerce backup, and had to defend and incur legit wars. I wish Canada would deal with the issue of Iran, and let others restore science.
You mean my Finnish mobile phone and my Taiwanese PC? They're great but it would be nice if the top-of-the-line hardware in America wasn't always two years behind what they have in Europe and Japan.
Except, agreed by those scientists, that speech is indefinable,
Not what they said. Go back to the thread and read again.
{abe} What I find is that in Message 146 you quoted a creatortionista website ("answers in genesis") article and in Message 188 you quoted another creatortionista website ("talkorigins") with the same article (the same quote anyway, the first link doesn't work), one that quoted various scientists and not their original sources. Not one of the quotes of scientists in the field made in your article says that speech is not definable. I can find no posts where you actually quote scientists in the field.
Implying that you quoted scientists is dishonest.{/abe}
No, I, and anyone else, will be wrong if speech is defined -
This is an absolutely absurd statement:
Speech: the ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by vocal sounds and gesture. See how easy it is?
This was posted on the speech thread and using it shows that animals use speech to a different degree than humans.
This does not invalidate my position, only yours. Yours will remain invalidated until you can provide a different definition that can be used (and that doesn't beg the question -- the refuge of the logically challenged).
I recall not running, but was barred for 2 days because I was warned to define ...
... with the understanding that you would come back and actually post a definition. You have not done that and are no longer posting there because that was when you "ran screaming from the speech thread making up excuses and ducking the issue" -- otherwise you would have actually resolved the issue.
You are still running from the issue.
This is one of your latest excuses for running screaming from the issue of the thread (the other was that addressing the topic was off-topic ... )
List the "big problems" first ...
I did.
And they are not any kind of problem (see Message 228), so what you "did" failed to accomplish what you thought you did (again). Self delusion is like that.
It is a stumbling block which will not go away by semantical or science manipulations. Confronting the issue requires the acceptance speech contradicts certain pillars of ToE, and the acknowledgement of the evidences speech is not an extension of communications seen with all other life forms.
This twaddle is irrelevant once you actually define speech or accept the definition that is available. Avoiding the issue is not the way science is done, but it is the way creationism is done -- it relies on delusion of self and others and denial of reality. Confronting the issue involves using a definition of speech first and foremost.
Your failure to substantiate your position on speech is documented on the thread, by your own posts as well as by everyone elses.
You will not bring up a concept for which you have no ability to define. You use the term bugubleblab (but spell it speech) without being able to articulate what it is. In fact you now say it can't be defined.
There for you will not bring it up again! You may go back to your speech thread and define your terms. Until you do that you will not clutter up other theads ith bugubleblab.
There is no doubt, that there are big problems with ToE, agreed even by those who support it: I posted here opinions of the most prominent scientists in the aspect of 'speech' - which does contradict everything held by ToE. The anti links on Google is hardly short or insignificant, but a reasonable and growing minority. But this is a lengthy and avoidable debate, and it will only end up like the speech debacle. It's become science religion vs those mythical religions.
Aside from being an unproven theory, except for the most flimsy, obscure inferences seen from a perspective which contorts every plausable logic assumption held - it is also wrong when those compromises are held as fact. This does not mean that all of evolution is wrong, but fulcrum sectors are scientifically controvercial and contradictory, after every effort of consideration. Its not a B/W issue.
And there is formidable motive to distort and negate the evidences concerning speech's history and background: the latter makes it encumbent to consider what if speech contradicts the fulcrum clauses of ToE - on multiple levels, making totally wrong it had any linkage with all other forms of communications? Where do we go from such a point - or is biology shakled in a prison and cannot go there?
So, you've posted more windy rhetoric, and not one single fact that contradicts the ToE.
1. That the universe is finite - a preamble and vindicated premise introduced in Genesis, which affirms a 'beginning'. Why does a finite universe effect a biologist, peering down a virus' dna cells? Because in an infinite universe, any theory is permissable: the time factor can be used to justify anything. Not so in a finite universe, where any premise of life from inanimate matter becomes far less plausable. Because the very existence of matter and complex atoms, before the advent of life, says there was already a control system in force, producing complex structures, and that life could not occur by itself at a later point, but is/must be part of a pre- and on-going development process. The latter renders all dates and factors of origins as wrong, and the design of life would have been closer to the universe source when complex products were being formed. Nor does a finite universe allow the same criteria as life for its emergence: eventually a biologist must consider that matter's emergence is not possible on just odds - which requires other matter to interact with.
If you don't realise that this vacuous pseudophilosophical crap has nothing to do with the ToE, after you have been on this board for over a year, and having made 495 posts, I can only feel pity and bewilderment.
If you want to argue against the ToE, couldn't you at least mention it?
2. If speech is not an extension of other lifes' communication traits - a biologist must question all views which made life occur and graduate, that it may not be as per ToE: how can one life form break the rule?
This is like asking how titanium can break the rule that no element has 22 protons.
Or how elephants can break the rule that nothing is an elephant.
quote:Not what they said. Go back to the thread and read again.
Implying that you quoted scientists is dishonest.{/abe}
My links contained the best regarded scientists in the world today. Chomsky himself says language has no analogue elsewhere, so its definition in line with parrot mimicking should be discussed with his quotes, not what I said. The posts here do not factor any variant science responsa on the subject, and accuse me instead of correcting your runaway statements. Every criteria has been responded to, with the back-up of prolofic science experts. Slot it in, w/o paranoic qualifications.
You have a problem with science icons like Suzette Elgin, and Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ” ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp No known language in the whole of human history can be considered ”primitive’ in any sense of the word. In her book, What is Linguistics? Suzette Elgin wrote: ”the most ancient languages for which we have written texts”Sanskrit for example”are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many other contemporary languages.’[40]
Figure 5. The most ancient languages for which we have written texts are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.
The late Lewis Thomas, a distinguished physician, scientist, and longtime director and chancellor of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, acknowledged: ” ...Language is so incomprehensible a problem that the language we use for discussing the matter is itself becoming incomprehensible’.[41] It appears that, from the beginning, human communication was designed with a tremendous amount of complexity and forethought, and has allowed us to communicate not only with one another, but also with the Designer of language.
Also, consider that when language first appears on the scene, it already is fully developed and very complex. The late Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson described it this way: ”Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. The oldest language that can be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.’[45]
Chomsky summed it up well when he stated: ”Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world ... There is no reason to suppose that the ”gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking.’[46].
Here's a counter scientific responsa to some of the factors debated here. The most relevent factors are quoted in preamble: Unique: The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Re.Evolutionists' distortions to pose speech as another communication extention: Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. No non-human languages exist: In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added]
No pre-6000 speech: In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ”No languageless community has ever been found’.[5] This represents no small problem for evolution. Speech emerged suddenly, not via evolution: But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ”The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’ [emphasis added].[7] The Origin of Language and Communication
)
™ Version 4.2
