|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
About your source:
quote: Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions So, you agree with this nutter, Alan Alford, on human origins, do you? And this is the kind of junk that you call science, is it? This is supposed to back up your fantasies about language, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I quoted leading scientists only, and referred it to speech origins. Your post is deflecting and inconnected with me. Are you deliberately lying, Joseph, or are you suffering from severe schizophrenia, as your consistently bizarre (and "inconnected") English suggests. You quote Alan F. Alford at length, and he is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a leading scientist. So, do you agree that the phrase that I've highlighted in bold is a lie? What's odd is that you thought the article in some way backs your views, even though neither the author, nor the scientists he quotes share those views. Incidentally, here's a bit you left out:
quote: Chomsky holds the view that our species is hard-wired for language, meaning that if you find a fossilized homo-sapiens, it is a creature that had language. He just couldn't see how natural selection could bring it about, but then his understanding of natural selection is limited, because he can't understand how a wing could evolve either. Gould, the other scientist you misunderstand, thought that language ability probably evolved as a by-product effect of other things that were selected for. Both scientists (and the accountant/pseudo-scientist you quoted) think that our ancestors have had speech for tens of thousands of years, minimum, as do all sane people who've examined the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Strong words, but Alford was not my, but lyx's link. I merely responded to items in that link, as a negation of it. It was whose link????????? You quoted Alford, linked to his web page, and you don't even know that you did? See a Doctor, Joseph. This is serious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Joseph writes: Your getting hysterical. You accused me of lieing and my link was not of a scientist by any imagination: I'm laughing at you Joe, not hysterical. What you said was that you had quoted only scientists. In fact, you quoted a non-scientist talking about things he had little understanding of, and describing the views of two scientists in ways that were misleading. You obviously understood nothing of your own "source", which didn't back your views, anyway. Now you say:
But I quoted also Chompsky? No, you didn't quote Chompsky, whoever he is. Neither did you quote Chomsky. You quoted an accountant talking about him. Honestly, Joe, you have no idea what you're talking about. Listen to yourself:
I did not refer to the other link - the link from inx sounded like the same author, but those names do not have any meaning to me, as I have never heard of them - it was what they said which mattered. That's why the title here is "one lunatic quotes another". There's no point in quoting stuff just because it's on the Web. That guy's an alien nutter, and you're a God nutter, so you've got nothing in common, except, I suppose, that you both make up your own worlds.
Thus there was no lie - only your focusing on the irrelevent in hysterical mode. You may find it irrelevant when I point out the mistakes that show everyone that you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to science (or reality, for that matter). But I find it funny, and if you keep on posting rubbish, I'll keep on pointing it out. Stop making a fool of yourself, Joe, and go away and learn something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: So? It was an article which contained that quotation, if your inference is the accountant is also lieing? The accountant doesn't quote Chomsky. How old will you be, Joseph, before you learn what quotation means.
Let the message be more important than the messenger here. The message that speech may have arrived via genetic drift or as a by-product of selection for other advantageous characteristics, rather than having been selected for itself? It's unlikely, but what makes you think that that would be a problem for evolutionary biology? Why don't you write to Chomsky and tell him about your 6,000 year old human speech hypothesis if you think he's the world's leading expert. That should give him a good laugh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I dare you to start a thread, WHAT IF SPEECH IS EXACTLY 6000 YEARS OLD? You should play devil's advocate - just to enumerate the havoc it creates. I mean, what if genesis is right? It's impossible to play devil's advocate for it, emptyhead. There's no evidence for the proposition, and plenty against it. I've already explained this to you months ago when you were expressing a similar delusion. It would require a schizophrenic to seriously advocate such an idea. So start your thread. And you can "enumerate the havoc" yourself. (1 havoc, 2 havocs, 3 havocs, 4...).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Evolution is based on periodical, transit developments - and no such imprints exist. That sentence means nothing. You're going to have to learn to speak English properly if you want to discuss complex subjects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Larni writes: Eridu. Strange, because guess where I saw that name recently? http://EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? -->EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? Where IaJ unwittingly linked to an alien loony site: http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/human_origins/article3.html Eridu.co.uk Which led me to post this: http://EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? -->EvC Forum: Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? Strange, eh? Must be the hand of the intelligent designer involved somewhere. {ABE} Enki came before Eridu, because he built it. Edited by bluegenes, : marked addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Admin Ned:
IaJ is already well aware of my opinions on his mental state from another thread. He's always welcome to comment on mine. If I'm right about him, a bit of honesty might do him some good. There are definitely fixations, and, IMO, something's very wrong. I know this is off topic, but so are most of the recent posts, and the thread is old and dead anyway. Larni:
Larni writes: I've given you a name, you ignorant fuck. You're far from alone, obviously, in your view of IaJ. And I don't mean just on EvC. I just found this: IamJoseph #fundie Or just try googling "IamJoseph", and there's that "F" word again.
IamJoseph You work with the mentally ill, if I remember your profession correctly, so you may be in a better position to understand Joe than most people. Use (and abuse) of language is the interesting thing, especially the inability to recognise mistakes. NCBI We all see plenty of examples of Joe's language use. What do you diagnose? {ABE}Read the comments on FSDT. Edited by bluegenes, : afterthought
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024