|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
The notion that speech was prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years as grunts and coos, and developed to today's speech, is without any substance, while all evidences negate this premise, supporting only Genesis' version of human history. What "all evidences negate this premise?" Do you mean this evidence? Your "grunts and coos" are really all speech is (along with hissing) but breath control and specialized neurons have allowed humans to make rapid vocalizations in one breath and to learn said vocalizations (and the abiliy to learn new vocalizations is being studied in other mammals as well). Our physiology more than anything is what allows us to have the ability to speak (we could have the neurological ability, but without the musculature, the descended larynx and descended hyoid we would not have vocal speech, although we would most likely have some form of sign language and writing supplemented by your "grunts and coos") and physiology can be determined through fossils.
In fact there is no history per se before 6000 - meaning no speech endowed humans. You've been asked to prove this in many other threads. This cannot be used as "most convincing evidence for creation theory" if you have nothing to back it up. Arguments from incredulity (ie "I can't believe that humans spoke for hundreds of thousands/millions of years without learning how to write sooner") don't cut it.
The factor of speech is totally disregarded by darwin - as if it were not a unique factor on this planet! If by "totally disregarded" you mean studied, comtemplated, debated, wrote about and, even used as a basis for his descent through modification theory (meaning that lingusitic evolution followed a similar path and was known about before his time) then, yes, I completely agree with you.
This needs better contemplation. Evolution was introduced in Genesis, listing species emerging chronologically, also signifying adaptation and repro means (the 'seed', and its ability to cater to every transmission mentioned in Darwin's evolution). Explain please. Edited by Admin, : Fix link. Edited by Jaderis, : Admin beat me to it "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Just curious, why do you keep using random as a noun?
Your manner of communicating is already confusing enough and it would help alot if you either substituted "randomness" or added the noun which "random" is qualifying. Thanks. Edited by Jaderis, : forgot siggy "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
The prefix 'theory of' is inferred in random being used as an abstract noun, without confusion, because it has no other alternative meaning in the relevent context. Evolution, as opposed theory of evolution, is an example. Hmmm...I just googled "theory of random" and I got hits on theory of random determinants, Kinetic theory of random graphs, theory of random DNA changes, a rational theory of random crackdowns, and theory of random sets on the first page, theory of random processes, spectral theory of random matrices, and theory of random vibrations on the second page and on subsequent pages, "random" is always followed by a noun. I didn't find any "theory of random" references. Could you help me out? P.S. an abstract noun is still a noun. Randomness could be considered an abstract noun, but random is always an adjective. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT BE REASONABLY FOUNDED ON A RANDOM FOUNDATION' - Prof. Roger Premrose/author f Multiverse. I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on ya, mate, but the only reference to Roger Pre(i?)mrose author of Multiverse was you on another forum. Could you point me to where I might find this "Atheist Cosmologist's" work. Maybe a website or an ISBN number (I couldn't find him on Amazon either, though). Or was he just made up in your head to give the appearance that you could back up your arguments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
He's very famous and a long standing atheist. Recently he gave numerous interviews, and stated his position concerning complexities and randomness. He can be googled under MultiVerse (last book) or Roger Penfold/biologist. He's very famous and a long standing atheist. Recently he gave numerous interviews, and stated his position concerning complexities and randomness. He can be googled under MultiVerse (last book) or Roger Penfold/biologist. Right, except his name is Roger Penrose (as bluegenes was so kind to point out) and he is neither a biologist nor the author of Multiverse (although he apparently did contribute to it). Again, I'm not trying to pick on you, but some people take these things seriously and it's also nice to be able to actually check sources, so if you get the name and occupation wrong and don't quote accurately it tends to make people think you are just making shit up. BTW, do you have a link to one of these interviews? Or at least the name of the publication or group that interviewed him? ABE: oops...I see that you linked them downthread. Thank you! Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Your not picking on me, but you are looking for commas and items not related to the fulcrum points debated. Right, but I (and I am not alone on this) have a hard time discerning your "fulcrum" points because you are using words incorrectly (random), incompletely (grads) and superfluously (fulcrum) and that makes for a difficult read, so if you want to get your points across more readily, then please take my advice (I see you have started using "randomness" so thank you)
I have a copy of Penfolds Penrose
interviews and will post it. That would be wonderful thank you. As it happens, I listened to the BBC discussion and Penrose doesn't say what you think he says (for those who are interested the relevant remarks begin at 31:11, but the whole thing is quite interesting and the discussion leading up to his remarks are quite relevant to what he says). He invokes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain why he thinks the proposition that the universe was more random at the beginning than it is now in order to explain parts of the theory of inflation is bunk. Now I don't pretend to understand exactly what he is talking about because I am not involved in those fields and I don't know if he is right or wrong, but that is neither here nor there. What I do know is that he doesn't exclaim "A COMPLEXITY CANNOT COME FROM A RANDOM!!" and I also know that what he says with regards to the cosmological constant, 2LoT and inflation have absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Nada. It simply doesn't apply because, first of all, he is discussing cosmology and, secondly, the 2LoT has nothing to do with evolution because the Earth is not a closed system. His views do nothing to support your arguments.
The link I gave you does show he is more than a math or biology professor ('he is, after all, considered by some to be the leading mathematician in the pursuit of the Theory of Everything'),: Yes, that is all right and good, but he is not a biology professor, nor did he write Multiverse, nor did I or anyone else here proclaim he was nothing more than a math or biology professor. We didn't even know who he was at first because you didn't get his name or anything about him right! That is no longer the point, though. The point is that his statements do not support your ideas. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Logically, appearance of design is evidence of design. How else should design appearance be interpreted? Well the first step (at least for scientists) would be to take this observation of apparent design and test it to see if it is actual design. Then, if evidence is found that the object(s) could have been "built" through processes based on natural laws, we then begin to look for the exact mechanisms and once these mechanisms are found, we can then say that apparent design does not equal design in this instance. See, Ray, "interpreting" evidence is different from actually testing the evidence.
It is the evolutionist who special pleads the appearance, RAZD. If you define "special pleading" as asking questions and testing evidence, then, yes, we do.
You are forgetting the subject of this topic and there have been at least 3 major evolutionists who have already objectively recognized that from the Creationist perspective, design indicating invisible Designer is prima facie evidence for Creationism. Bolding mine. Yes, it is prima facie evidence. From Wikipedia quote: Meaning that it looks good at first glance, but it needs to be able to stand up to contradictory evidence. I doubt that these 3 evolutionists rule in favor of your evidence in light of the evidence for evolution. All they were really saying is that it looks good on its face and (I don't mean to put words into people's mouths, but this is how I took it) that it's kinda pathetic if this is all you have, especially if you can't back it up. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Now, I have posted 3 different evolutionists (in four posts) recognizing the best positive evidence for Creationism. Straggler's post preceded my post (but acknowledges IC in my post) and Percy and Crashfrog's posts were replies to my post. Ray, I addressed back in Message 237, where I said
Yes, it is prima facie evidence. From Wikipedia quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prima facie is a Latin expression (which originates from Middle English) meaning "on its first appearance", or "by first instance", and is used in modern legal English to signify a matter that appears on first examination to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that is sufficient (if not rebutted) to prove a particular proposition or fact. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, at which point proceedings can commence in order to test it, and create a ruling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meaning that it looks good at first glance, but it needs to be able to stand up to contradictory evidence. I doubt that these 3 evolutionists rule in favor of your evidence in light of the evidence for evolution. All they were really saying is that it looks good on its face and (I don't mean to put words into people's mouths, but this is how I took it) that it's kinda pathetic if this is all you have, especially if you can't back it up. Now, it seems to me like you either didn't bother to read my reply or you did and are trying to make it seem like these 3 people still support your evidence in light of all the evidence for evolution. I doubt they enjoy you misrepresenting their views. One of the three (Straggler) has already agreed with my assessment. I can't speak for the other two, but I am willing to bet that they feel the same. Care to address this? "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024