I have heard the arguement each life form has a trait not shared by humans or any other group, alligning this reason to show humans are thus just another differential. It is purposefully faulty. While all life forms have their own distinct features, they can all also be groupted as one kind of life forms, and on the other side will be humans as distinct from all of the others.
While you insist that humans are distinct from all others you give no credible reason to think this way. Speech, though unique, is not
special. Unless of course you plan to define why its special; saying that its unique immediately begs the question of why other unique attributes are not special.
You can have a sack of peas, and color each one different and give each a distinct dna imprint and a distinct serial number; but if one of them can sing and dance, all the other differentials will not allign them.
So we call the 'sing and dance' pea another species, thats what is meant by species... its different from the others. So are you saying this is an example of a
special type of pea?
Most leading scientists also turn away from the notorious example you counter me with - so don't be so confident.
I will retain my confidence until you provide a link to a credible reason why I should not hold my position. Why should an appeal to authority have any impact when its a bare assertion?
Speech is not a variance of degree but of kind. There is an anomoly that only one species has it, despite life being so varied and able to attain all manner of differences distinct from another: this reason ultimately favors my position.
Favor your position then by explaining why speech should be considered any more important than communication, height, weight, population, hearing, smell, flight, swimming, photosynthesis, or any other criterea used to separate one animal from another. I sense some type of
specialness in your insistance that speech is seperate from all other criterea.
Height variances are common to all life forms, thus not impacting here.
Nice changing goalposts. You said
"There are no changes in modern man - they have remained constant", I replied we are taller. Therefore I claim that there
are changes in modern mans skeletal and bio designs. You say no change, I show change, you say no impact. Was this deliberate or an honest mistake?
Science is now at a stage it can detect what the eye cannot see, even including indicators of another non-corporeal realm, such as a 4th dimension - apparently there are imprints to gauge this today.
We call them clocks.
But if there is nothing, no imprints, which resembles the premise of nothingness before and outside of the universe - what does that mean?
There was no time until Big Bang.
I say, it shows an external impact, by reason of the elimination of all other options.
Well sure, but its up to you to show it was the God of the bible and not all the other possibilities.
and if the atoms are seen as born outside of the BB sphear
You not really making much sense here. Please explain. Who sees atoms born outside of time and space? If everything was created when Big Bang started then who are these people saying that everything was not created when Big Bang happened? Why are you talking about them when talking about Big Bang?
This is a new direction of thought emerging, and is based on recent scientific findings derived from hubble.
I will ask again "so your saying Hubble is looking back to a point in space-time when there was no space-time."? Can you provide a link to this new direction of thought? Perhaps provide some explanation of how Hubble is seeing events that happened before time or space?
Life emerged outside of this point, as we know this to be correct; the notion of life emerging as a result of past atoms and molesculescombining in certain, critical frmations, also becomes voided if those molescules were non-existant in the early space-times - this again favours an outside impact.
So your saying that because molecules didn't exist
previously nothing can exist
presently that requires molecules? Wow.
Are molecules special in your statement or can we safely say that "since everything that exists didn't exist at some point previously, nothing actually exists presently"?
Here, the question is, what can be found which will negate the possibility of an external, independent impacting - I cannot even imagine an answer here
Does this "external impact" have to be your God? How did you manage to exclude the infinite alternative possibilities that could have provided the external impact?
----------
This will once agian come down to the same discussion that has taken place previously. My hope however is that at some point you could expand on a few of your assertions. You claim speech is seperate and that scientists will not admit as such - I rebut saying that it is a defining feature of the definition of human and also ask why speech is special from all other unique features in nature. Your insistance that speech is a different "kind" begs the question of what is a "kind". These problems will understandably lead to me asking what you mean by
special and what you mean by
kind. Thus far however you generally refuse to provide a testable definition and merely insist that your position is the correct one.
Another issue that will eventually crop up is that you inextricably link Big Bang with speech/kind/biology that our discussion will most certainly ride the fence of moderator action. I always find your posts to be an interesting read and prompts me to think in a different way. Though we both obviously find the topics interesting, they belong in different threads.
Edited by Vacate, : spelling
™ Version 4.2
