Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 333 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 3330

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,461
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    5,448

    Language 1


    Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).

    Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

    Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).

    Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

    a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

    b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

    “Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

    c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

    “...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

    d. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

    “There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.” Chomsky, p. 60.

    e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).” Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

    [From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
    ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 13.   Language
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    8,945
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    27,172
    Gifts Kitten

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Sure. If I show you scientific facts disproving evolution, will you admit them to be valid?
    Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    is Alive
     
    I am:
    Sad
     
    OpenMind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    8,602
    Local Date
    04-29-2017
    Local Time
    02:42 AM
    Points
    84
    Gifts Beer Message in a Bottle Burger Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Life, as we know it, only exists on Earth. Life, as we know it, cannot exist anywhere else within the realm that we ccan observe. Having said that, we have discovered by observations of the extremities of this planet, that life as we know it, is not the only possible form of life.
    The fact that we have not come across another lifeform like our own beyond this world does not prove the existence of a god. The actual cause of life on this planet as we know it was the metabolisation of oxygen which is an active component in our cellular make up. It is a very reactive component.
    Without an understanding of the nature of life, it is easy to fall into the notion that it is so amazing, that some entity must have had a hand in its creation. But, as I mentioned earlier, once a chemical process begins, it is difficult to stop it. Crystal formations are an example of this.
    Yes, the chances of the initial combination are finite. But we live in an infinite universe. This is by no means an argument for the existence of a deity. After all, if you'd successfully created something, wouldn't you want to do it again. You would want to make it better.
    No, I'm sorry. We're not a creation of some deity. We're just an oxygen-based virus.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,461
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    5,448

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.
    Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Invariably the cited papers or books either deal with non-irreducibly complex biochemical systems, or do not deal with them in enough detail for critical evaluation. I strongly emphasize, however, that I do not prefer it that way. I would sincerely welcome much more serious, sustained research in the area of irreducible complexity. I fully expect such research would heighten awareness of the difficulties of Darwinian evolution.

    Behe on Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    is Sh#$!!!! you can still see the F!@#ing flowers!
     
    I am:
    Awesome
     
    littleCJelkton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Maryland, United States
    Posts
    1,209
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    2,866
    Gifts Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.
    I told you bananas vs pointed sticks

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    is poking the sun
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,210
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    08:42 PM
    Points
    638

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Pahu, what would be more irreducibly complex: a single-celled organism or God?

    You may posit the existence of a higher order of complexity to explain lower orders of complexity, but you just create larger and more complex unanswered questions.

    Your arguments don't actually end on the conclusion that God created life. If you complete the reasoning they conclude that something must have created God (who must also be irreducibly complex), and something created that entity, and so on. You end up with an infinite number of different Gods of increasing complexity.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    8,945
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    27,172
    Gifts Kitten

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Invariably the cited papers or books either deal with non-irreducibly complex biochemical systems, or do not deal with them in enough detail for critical evaluation. I strongly emphasize, however, that I do not prefer it that way. I would sincerely welcome much more serious, sustained research in the area of irreducible complexity. I fully expect such research would heighten awareness of the difficulties of Darwinian evolution.

    Behe on Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature
    So, what does all that mean, that you are now backing away from Irreducible Complexity? Micheal Behe's claim was refuted immediately after making it.

    The Flagellum Unspun

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    8,945
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    27,172
    Gifts Kitten

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    BTW, Pahu, Irreducible Complexity is not science, it's conjecture.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,461
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    5,448

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg View Post
    Pahu, what would be more irreducibly complex: a single-celled organism or God?

    You may posit the existence of a higher order of complexity to explain lower orders of complexity, but you just create larger and more complex unanswered questions.

    Your arguments don't actually end on the conclusion that God created life. If you complete the reasoning they conclude that something must have created God (who must also be irreducibly complex), and something created that entity, and so on. You end up with an infinite number of different Gods of increasing complexity.
    Unless God has always existed, as He reveals. This thread is not a Bible study. If you are interested in studying the Bible, there are numerous sites on the web.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,461
    Local Date
    04-28-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    5,448

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    So, what does all that mean, that you are now backing away from Irreducible Complexity? Micheal Behe's claim was refuted immediately after making it.

    The Flagellum Unspun
    Only in the imaginations of those clinging to their erroneous preconceptions. You didn't read the whole article, did you?
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 333 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2