Vanderzyden

NPM, this reminds me of Doubting Didymus. I'm not intentionally misquoting you. Please avoid jumping to conclusions. If I miss something, then take pains to clarify. I still don't see a problem with my interpretation of your post.

OK, but how does this compare with the laughing of a newborn, which is immensely complex communication--which, in turn, is a precursor to ever more complex communication! Do insects laugh at their parents?

OK, here is where the tricky part comes. I told you my question was "loaded"! If you admit the possibility of special abiogenesis creation, then what prevents you from admitting the possibility of special creation using building blocks that have already been established? If God can bring life from non-life, surely it is "child's play" to subsequently generate different forms of life. Please explain any contradiction you see in this suggestion.

Well, agreement with this speculation depends on your definition of "creationist", and what you mean by "the Bible may be wrong". I know, and can imagine many, Christians would readily admit the inability to comprehend all of the details from the biblical creation accounts. So far, there has been no natural evidence to contradict a careful reading of scripture.

Vanderzyden

Kevin Dorner

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

By the way: the earth isn't flat, the sky is not supported by pillars, insects don't have four legs, stars are not small or near enough to fall to earth, pi is not exactly three, mating goats near slats will not make them striped, the moon only reflects light, etcetera.

And, need I add: all life wasn't created in six literal days either.

Maybe I wasn't careful enough when I read it...

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Godless Dave:
Can you point me to a recent publication on this? I'm not doubting you. I have always been very interested in this, but haven't kept up over the last ten years.

Unfortunately I read the article in a magazine in a hospital waiting room, possibly it was Nature or National Geographic or something but it was dated this year. The info about the linguists came from a recent TV documentary.

Basically a few years ago a linguist professor finally decided to visit Koko and subsequently became involved in the project, he had been heading up a human cognitive development study in which he was interested in the evolution of human language. Up until his visit with Koko he was in the camp that claim human language was a late development, i.e coming sometime after the split with the chimps and after the physical mutations that allow complex speech. Now he is exploring the angle that language evolved back with the Orang/Gorilla split (so far Orangs have not shown any complex language skills like Koko does) and further developed with chimps and then further still in the hominid line.

The tests that he has been giving Koko are from his own linguistic background and not only test number of words/symbols learned but also the ability to think laterally using symbols, apparently Koko shows these skills to the level of a 7 year old (they even gave her special IQ tests and she comes out at about 90 or so).

If you put Koko in a search engine you should be able to find a ton of links.

My opinion, which I tried to state above, is that Koko does use language. My point about her language skills not progressing as fast as a human child's was that, again in my opinion, a gorilla's brain does not have the cognitive ability to learn language skills as quickly or extensively as a human. However I suspect this is a difference of degree not of kind.

Agreed, that is why I think it should be US that are learning their languages and not the other way round. Koko and Kanzi are both bilingual, i.e they communicate with their own species and with us in a language that we made for them (although both have extended those languages themselves as they needed to express more complicated ideas, like Koko inventing "Scissors" by signing "Finger" & "Knives" because noone had taught her the standard sign for "Scissors"), as far as I am aware no human in the entire world can communicate with another species in their language! (although Jane Goodall came pretty close)

Amen-Moses

Xixax

Van,

The problem with the 'building blocks' argument is that we have gene sequences that are useless that we share with other species. These are no longer active, and do not do any harm if removed. The fact that they are not only shared, but their location is shared as well rule out a REASONABLE assertion that the two were specially created apart from each other.

The idea of a special abiogenesis creation is less unreasonable, but still would require proof of the 'creator' outside of the creation itself. To say, "Creation proves the creator" is circular. Until evidence is presented to this creators existence, it's much more reasonable to continue research without appealing to one.

I'm slightly amused that you find evolution unconvincing, yet find the tales of men for whom lightning and wind was magical utterly believable.

As has been pointed out, religion's domain is the questions of "why", not "how". It's not overly effective at explaining why, but at least it's unable to be 'disproven' in that realm.

Vanderzyden

A wise man once said:

How terrible for those who laugh now...


The time will come when laughing will cease, Kevin. No need to answer me--ask yourself this question: Are you ready?

Why do you choose to make the easy attack on the Young Earth Creationist? The original Hebrew doesn't say "six days". Perhaps you could study more and take on those who make a solid case in biblical scholarship and ID circles.

From the above trivialization, it is easy to conclude that you indeed have not been careful in reading the Bible. Have you read it in a modern translation? Do you understand the different types of literature in it? Do understand that variations of literal, historical, and illustrative content is contained therein, and yet it does not make it any less reliable?

Oh, please do us the favor of setting aside the "flat-earth" insinuations. Perhaps you didn't see what I posted in another thread:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘And where might you come from, my fine lad?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.

‘From Puritania, sir,’ said John….

‘Puritania! Why, I suppose you have been brought up to be afraid of the Landlord.’

‘Well, I must admit I sometimes do feel rather nervous.’

‘You may make your mind easy, my boy. There is no such person.’

‘There is no Landlord?’

‘There is absolutely no such thing - I might even say no such entity - in existence. There never has been and never will be.’…

‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’

‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder!’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.

‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.

‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.

‘I didn’t quite understand,’ said John.

‘Why, it’s plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, now, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round - round as an orange, my lad!’

‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’

‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known that everyone in Puritania thinks the earth flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question….’

-- C.S. Lewis, Pilgrim’s Regress

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vanderzyden

Coragyps

Mods? Can this go to RR&P now? Mr Pascal wants to place his bets, and here ain't the place.

Blinn

I second that. I also think it's about time the 'non-natural knowledge' thread is moved to Philosophy.

Clutch

Grumpy,

Gooch's dad

Yeah, I agree...I asked Vander a couple of days ago to define exactly what a 'biological event' is, and define 'life' while he's at it.

No response, of course, but he has plenty of time to toss out Pascal's wager nonsense.

Count me as another vote for moving it to RR&P.

-Kelly

Kevin Dorner

Geez, look at the stuff I miss when I don't check the forum for a few hours.

Laughing will cease? Ready? Ready for what? Is Sandy Kwaws not bwinging me any pwesents for Kwistmas? Can you be honest enough to come right out and say it? I will stop laughing when I am dead, thank you, and only because I will cease to exist, and for no other reason.

Nice tactic though: bury some blanket apologetic phrase in a mountain of verbiage and then when someone calls you on it, threaten them with Judgement via Pascal's Wager. And what does Pilgrim's Progress have to do with anything in this forum?

Obviously I must have been pretty close to the mark to provoke such a reaction, by challenging your somewhat offhanded that "So far, there has been no natural evidence to contradict a careful reading of scripture." I will stick to the matter at hand: scripture. Let's see how far off I was:

Re: the earth isn't flat

Dan 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"

Mat 4:8 - "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.."

Re: the sky is not supported by pillars

Job 9:6 - "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

Job 26:11 - "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof."

Re: insects don't have four legs

Lev 11:23 - "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Re: stars are not small or near enough to fall to earth

Rev 6:13 - "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."

Re: pi is not exactly three

1Ki 7:23 - "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Re: mating goats near slats will not make them striped

Gen 30:37-39 - "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."

Ah... goats were in the previous verse. Cattle then.

Re: the moon only reflects light

Gen 1:16 - "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."

Isa 13:10 - "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."

How "carefully" does one have to read these passages to avoid noticing that they are completely contrary to everything we know about? Am I taking them out of context? Fine: what's the context, and why is it only out of context if you say so? Is it a bad translation? Fine... how do we possibly determine what the right one is then?

These are tiresome paths that we walk down, but if phrases like "So far, there has been no natural evidence to contradict a careful reading of scripture" are casually used with a misfounded expectation that no one will challenge them, I see little other choice. Nor was I singling out YEC's, merely the stater of that statement.

I also wouldn't mind this being moved to RRP, but I will allow a fellow moderator to do so if they decide this is the proper course of action, not wishing to appear as if I am doing it out of spite. I'll leave it here for now.