quote:Alex, being quite a character, quickly took over Pepperberg's life by teaching her all he knew about cognition and communication. As early as 1999, he was able to "identify 50 different objects and understand quantities up to 6; he could distinguish 7 colors and 5 shapes, and understand the concepts of 'bigger', 'smaller', 'same', and 'different', and he was learning 'over' and 'under'," according to the New York Times. By 2002, Alex had a vocabulary of more than 100 words.
Now you're just being wicked making everyone wait until HEWG gets back from suspension.
Of course the real reason this is a straw man argument is that this is not the way science determines dates, but one of the methods that it uses to set boundaries on dates. IE the result is that the candle could not have been burning longer that X hours -- which of course does not tell you much. Just another example of creationists misrepresenting science.
By similar processes we know that the age of the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old, but we don't know how much older it is. We know that life is at least 3.5 billion years old, but we don't know how much older it is (except that it it likely to be less than 4.55 billion years old). There is a difference between boundaries and dates.
But the real question of this thread is what kind of kind can a kind kind of be?
I don't know of any document which is as much science, certainly none in Genesis spacetime, and none of its stats have been disproven: this makes genesis the world's most vindicated science account, by period of time, number of stats and by impact.
Insist what you will, I prefer to have some evidence. Does your definition of kind hold up to the evidence?
I think we need to start with a definition of science first. It's not just observation and having statistics that haven't been falsified.
Speech Endowed
Consider you are sitting for one of those tests and have to tick off the uncommon factor from a list, which includes all life forms and humans
Define speech. No I am not being obtuse. Other animals communicate.
I would like to see IamJoseph propose a topic on just this issue so it can be discussed in depth. I expect this will either show
(1) begging the question (defining speech to only apply to humans then concluding it only applies to humans) or
(2) that it is only a difference in degree and not in kind, and that to restrict it to humans requires additional parameters specifically chosen to omit other animals (see (1) above).
Re: GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA.
Look at the stats as equations, akin to MC2.
That still doesn't make it science. Misusing or redefining terms doesn't improve your argument or show that you know what you are talking about, rather the opposite.
We refer to definition (1). It involves experimentation and testing.
Science is a recent study, appearing after maths and history. If there is a stat the city Ramesey is a one day journey from Goshen - mankind has to determine and evidence its veracity. Where it says the Nile never runs dry, it becomes evidenced by the terrain examination, namely all rivers flow down and never up from this point: there was never a famine in Egypt. If the text describes the ancient Egyptian diets [the fleshpots of egypt, the fish for naught, the garlic, melons, etc..] - we can verify of this is of contemporanous veracity. The surrounding colliliary gives the credibility factor.
Irrelevant waste of bandwidth.
It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.
Saying this does not make it so. Please start a new thread. We can discuss both science and speech if you want ("Science and Speech in Determining Kinds" for example topic)
It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.
™ Version 4.2