Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1505974 wrote: For example, pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts.


For example?

[Snowfire]

Pahu;1506019 wrote: For example?


You have either a short memory or an inability to read. You are simply putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "blah blah blah" in case you hear something that might make you stop and think.

People are just getting bored with repeating themselves when you ask the same questions over and over again

[Pahu]

Snowfire;1506022 wrote: You have either a short memory or an inability to read. You are simply putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "blah blah blah" in case you hear something that might make you stop and think.

People are just getting bored with repeating themselves when you ask the same questions over and over again


LarsMac made the statement: "Pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts."

I simply asked him to give me an example. What is wrong with that?

[Snowfire]

Pahu;1506025 wrote: LarsMac made the statement: "Pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts."

I simply asked him to give me an example. What is wrong with that?


We've answered the same questions over and over again. All you have ever done is ignore them, consistently, since the thread started, knowing or at least hoping, that we wont trudge through more than 300 pages to keep finding them.

Many of us have shown you quite clearly, proof of your disingenuous use of out of context quotes in order to make it appear that certain scientist through history agree with Walt Brown. Refusing to understand that is either you being deliberately obtuse or you have no idea what the notion of context means.

I'm having a wager on what your predictable response will be to this post.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506025 wrote: LarsMac made the statement: "Pretty much everything you have posted in this thread has been, at best, a misapplication of the facts."

I simply asked him to give me an example. What is wrong with that?


Well, OK, let's just start at the beginning, shall we?

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346204

[Bruv]

Is Pahu being held captive in this thread ?

(And the Bible disproves God thread of course)

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1506037 wrote: Well, OK, let's just start at the beginning, shall we?

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346204


Did you make a mistake? Your thread simply goes here.

[Ted]

Same old. Same old. Mr. Brown is getting very boring. Scientist?? You jest.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506049 wrote: Did you make a mistake? Your thread simply goes here.


No mistake. It's not MY thread. You just need to think about it.

[Ted]

too funny/

[Pahu]

Language 2



If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g). See [Figure 208 ]

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex. He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view. George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man, Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification. Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples. Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates. Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words, Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once. John Maddox, “The Price of Language? Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506171 wrote:

Language 2



If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g). See [Figure 208 ]

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex. He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view. George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man, Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification. Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples. Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates. Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words, Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once. John Maddox, “The Price of Language? Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


OK, that has now risen to probably the silliest post you have made, so far.

The logic fails miserably on so many levels.

to start with, Complexity is not necessarily a sign of evolution.

[Ted]

This thread is akin to taking the Christian Bible stories as literal history. It really is a joke.

[LarsMac]

Ted;1506193 wrote: This thread is akin to taking the Christian Bible stories as literal history. It really is a joke.


Hmmm, You may be on to something, there.

[Pahu]

Ted;1506193 wrote: This thread is akin to taking the Christian Bible stories as literal history. It really is a joke.


Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



Archaeology and the Bible

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:



100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to meeting those requirements.

[Ted]

joke

[Ted]

A great place for wannabees.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1505960 wrote: Wrong! Each name on that list is a scientist who confirms Walt Brown's conclusions and in the past I have given some examples.


Wrong. You have done no such thing. All you have done is repeatedly paste the same, sad list of meaningless names. The only other links you have provided are more pastings ALL of which I have provided evidence that these were scientific wannabes with no genuine Scientific accreditations - only connections with Brown's own Creation Institute. Not one of them were ever peer reviewed & most had been debunked by genuine scientists. You have also repeatedly made quotes out of context. The very first time I pointed out how Stephen Hawking had been taken out of context by providing the rest of the quote you were taken unawares because you faithfully took Brown at face value without ever double checking anything he claimed, and even then you vainly tried to defend it.

Basically, Brown is a fraud & those who blindly follow him without question are mindless idiots.

[FourPart]

Now he tries to make claim that Language doesn't evolve either. Nothing could be further from the truth. Language evolves from year to year. This is why dictionaries are constantly being updated. New words are invented. Unique dialects are being generated from interbreeding with others.

Regardless of dialect or language, early man wouldn't even have the mental capacity to cope with modern language - so perhaps Pahu hasn't evolved much since that stage after all.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1506212 wrote: Wrong. You have done no such thing. All you have done is repeatedly paste the same, sad list of meaningless names. The only other links you have provided are more pastings ALL of which I have provided evidence that these were scientific wannabes with no genuine Scientific accreditations - only connections with Brown's own Creation Institute. Not one of them were ever peer reviewed & most had been debunked by genuine scientists. You have also repeatedly made quotes out of context. The very first time I pointed out how Stephen Hawking had been taken out of context by providing the rest of the quote you were taken unawares because you faithfully took Brown at face value without ever double checking anything he claimed, and even then you vainly tried to defend it.

Basically, Brown is a fraud & those who blindly follow him without question are mindless idiots.


Mindless ravings without evidence.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1506213 wrote: Now he tries to make claim that Language doesn't evolve either. Nothing could be further from the truth. Language evolves from year to year. This is why dictionaries are constantly being updated. New words are invented. Unique dialects are being generated from interbreeding with others.

Regardless of dialect or language, early man wouldn't even have the mental capacity to cope with modern language - so perhaps Pahu hasn't evolved much since that stage after all.


And yet language was more complicated in the past.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506219 wrote: And yet language was more complicated in the past.


Language evolves to become less complex. As I said before, your assertion that complexity is always an improvement is false.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1506224 wrote: Language evolves to become less complex. As I said before, your assertion that complexity is always an improvement is false.


No, Pahu is correct it was more complex in the past. Easy example. Look at the KJV of the Bible and how complicated the language was even 400 years ago compared to now. Look at the writing of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The language is clearly more complex than today's language.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Stephen J Gould admits that there are no transitional fossils, AKA, Missing links.



http://creation.com/that-quote-about-th ... al-fossils

[Ted]

There are somer 25 000 translation errors in the KJV.

[Ted]

Gary Batres dh. That explains it all. Another wannabee. Wishful dreaming.

[Ted]

Ancient Hebrew was not more complex. Example they did not have a past present or future in their grammm they a two tenses incomplete and completed

. If the project was completed it was written in the complete tense and if the project was not completed it was in the incomplete tense. These ancient languages are still in some form of transliiteration. There is no direct translation. which adds to the problem of trnslation. Let's not forget the 25 000translation errors in the KJV.Another error :a virgin shall conceive: is a mistranslation the word translated virgin has nothing to do with sexuality it simply means young maiden or young girl. The word translated to faitdh is mistranslated it was "pistis" and means trust not faith.

[FourPart]

xfrodobagginsx;1506233 wrote: Stephen J Gould admits that there are no transitional fossils, AKA, Missing links.



That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils - creation.com


Every single fossil that exists is transitional to some degree. Every slightest change is a transition. Most changes are so minute that they are not even noticeable. It is only when there are gaps that changes become self evident - like time lapse photography. However, Creationists see each step as some miraculously newly created species having suddenly appeared out of nowhere, despite the obvious similarities from previous examples along the chronological line.

Furthermore, Evolution is not linear, as Creationists try to make out. It branches out, so that different species have common ancestry from a certain shared point. Rather than each species being a descendant of the other, they are, in fact distant cousins.

You quote from Colin Patterson. Here is another, also from Patterson. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pat ... biologist))

Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.


As for no existing Transitional Fossils...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

[Pahu]

FourPart;1506251 wrote: Every single fossil that exists is transitional to some degree. Every slightest change is a transition. Most changes are so minute that they are not even noticeable. It is only when there are gaps that changes become self evident - like time lapse photography. However, Creationists see each step as some miraculously newly created species having suddenly appeared out of nowhere, despite the obvious similarities from previous examples along the chronological line.

Furthermore, Evolution is not linear, as Creationists try to make out. It branches out, so that different species have common ancestry from a certain shared point. Rather than each species being a descendant of the other, they are, in fact distant cousins.

You quote from Colin Patterson. Here is another, also from Patterson. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pat ... biologist))



As for no existing Transitional Fossils...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils


There is no evidence in your Wikipedia link of any transitional fossil. All are complete. Here are the facts:



Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms


The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research

[xfrodobagginsx]

All of the examples given by evolutionists are examples of lateral adaptation within the species, not one animal evolving into another. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, there must be an increase in genetic information, which has never been shown to happen ever. Take it from Richard Dawkins:

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1506256 wrote: All of the examples given by evolutionists are examples of lateral adaptation within the species, not one animal evolving into another. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, there must be an increase in genetic information, which has never been shown to happen ever. Take it from Richard Dawkins:


Evolution is real. It is a simple fact.

Evolution simply refers to the observation that species will adapt and evolve to meet changes in their environment.

It is that simple.

You and Pahu have consistently proved that you have no real idea what it is you are talking about.

[FourPart]

xfrodobagginsx;1506256 wrote: All of the examples given by evolutionists are examples of lateral adaptation within the species, not one animal evolving into another. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, there must be an increase in genetic information, which has never been shown to happen ever. Take it from Richard Dawkins:
If you bothered to read - or more to the point, take notice of what I said, you would realise that what he said there was exactly as I had just described. Cousins - not ancestors. Creationists just don't get the whole concept of it.

One thing Creationists have never been able to define, and that is just what is it that defines a 'kind' (species). When challenged to do so, all they are ever able to do is to give examples of species (eg cat / dog etc). However, this is not a definition. Why don't they give a definition? Because they don't understand what a definition is? Unlikely. It's more likely because once they commit themselves to a definition they know full well that they will immediately be faced with an example of something that fits their own definition for more than one species - in other words, a transitional.

In my experience, with most Creationists it's not that they DON'T believe in Evolution. They know full well that there's overwhelming evidence to support it as a Scientific fact. It's just that they don't WANT to believe it because it goes against their own unfounded ideology of a Magic Sky Daddy, based on millenia of superstition & ignorance, with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[Pahu]

xfrodobagginsx;1506256 wrote: All of the examples given by evolutionists are examples of lateral adaptation within the species, not one animal evolving into another. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, there must be an increase in genetic information, which has never been shown to happen ever. Take it from Richard Dawkins:


Very good expose of Dawkins' ignorance.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1506260 wrote: Evolution is real. It is a simple fact.

Evolution simply refers to the observation that species will adapt and evolve to meet changes in their environment.

It is that simple.


Where is evidence supporting that "fact"?

[Pahu]

FourPart;1506263 wrote:

One thing Creationists have never been able to define, and that is just what is it that defines a 'kind' (species).


Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within distinct created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential to produce a variety of types within the kind, allowing the offspring to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism.

Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal—but they all remain distinctly recognizable as dogs. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within their own created kinds.

In my experience, with most Creationists it's not that they DON'T believe in Evolution. They know full well that there's overwhelming evidence to support it as a Scientific fact.


Where is that overwhelming evidence? Actually, the overwhelming evidence I have been sharing scientifically disproves evolution.

It's just that they don't WANT to believe it because it goes against their own unfounded ideology of a Magic Sky Daddy, based on millenia of superstition & ignorance, with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.


Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God



Bible Accuracy



1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



Archaeology and the Bible

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:



100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to meeting those requirements.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506291 wrote: Where is evidence supporting that "fact"?


Go back and read that post again. After you get to the end of the first line, read the second line.

Then read the third line.

Think about it for a while.

It really is that simple.

[Ted]

There we go with the BS again. Saint great post and so true. The reason for the funadmentalistsangst is the lack of security. They are frightened by insecurity which in fact is a way of life on this world.. If the Bible is not literally true then thed angst increases. But it is not a literal history book bbut a religious book written in an ancient Jewish style and gentiles for centuries have not understood that. dLiteralism is iindeed a heresy. They need the

Bible to be a contract(covenent ) . It is like a conmtract signed sealed and delivered. It is not that the Bible is lying it is that people don't know how to read and interpret it. That is the problem of literalism. There if is truth and in the Bible.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Soft Tissue Found In Supposed 195 MILLION Year Old Fossil:

http://www.sciencealert.com/195-million ... ever-found



Does it ever occur to the evolutionists that soft tissue would break down in less than 1 million years?

This Article Gives The Creationist Side Of The Story:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1506419 wrote: Soft Tissue Found In Supposed 195 MILLION Year Old Fossil:



Fossilised protein has been discovered inside a 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone - ScienceAlert



Does it ever occur to the evolutionists that soft tissue would break down in less than 1 million years?



This Article Gives The Creationist Side Of The Story:

Dinosaur soft tissue - creation.com


Um, not if it is fossilized.

Do you understand how fossilization takes place?

[Ted]

I find it hard very hard to think that folks in this day and age still thing in the traditional way. Always the wannabees. And a Voice from above told me that the earth was flat.

[Ted]

The ancient myths continue to be subject to the ignorance of 2000 years in failing to understand the ancient style of writing and its interpretation. Unvelievable.

[Pahu]

Speech



Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).



Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain]. Ibid., p. 164.

b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech, Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates. Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506481 wrote:

Speech



Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).



Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain]. Ibid., p. 164.

b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech, Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates. Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


What is your point, here, exactly?

Humans can use human language. Chimpanzees cannot vocalize human language. OK. Got that. And, nobody is saying that Chimpanzees evolved into humans. At least not any scientists.

[Ted]

Not only that snakes talk, the sun stood still so Joshua could finish his massacre, the Hebrew were told to massacre all the cannanites bu could keep the virgins for themselves. That is about as brilliant asbelieving in creationism.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1506421 wrote: Um, not if it is fossilized.

Do you understand how fossilization takes place?


I guess what you aren't understanding is that the fossil isn't really millions of years old or it wouldn't have soft tissue in it. The soft tissue, collagen, ect. would have broken down in thousands of years, let alone millions. And this tissue was encased in a tiny rib. No way it's millions of years old.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1506570 wrote: I guess what you aren't understanding is that the fossil isn't really millions of years old or it wouldn't have soft tissue in it. The soft tissue, collagen, ect. would have broken down in thousands of years, let alone millions. And this tissue was encased in a tiny rib. No way it's millions of years old.


Well, the article said that the "soft tissue" was fossilized. So it is not actually "soft" tissue. The term soft tissue refers to non-bone matter. (tendons, musculature, and such) but if it is fossilized, it is not "soft" anymore.

Again, do you really know what "fossilized" mean?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 115306469/

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

[Ted]

JJWow a make believe world Had a primary read when working titled "Magic and Make Believe"

[Pahu]

Ted;1506566 wrote: Not only that snakes talk, the sun stood still so Joshua could finish his massacre, the Hebrew were told to massacre all the cannanites bu could keep the virgins for themselves. That is about as brilliant asbelieving in creationism.


Consider the context. The Garden of Eden story is symbolic. God was bringing judgment against His enemies (Joshua 10:8-18). God, who created everything, had no problem stopping the sun for a day.

Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation:

(1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred, which leads to life taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9:), in self-defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14).

(2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).

(3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31).

(4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full, divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society.

(5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God. (Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100.)

http://bible.org/question/how-could-lov ... n-children

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1506573 wrote: Well, the article said that the "soft tissue" was fossilized. So it is not actually "soft" tissue. The term soft tissue refers to non-bone matter. (tendons, musculature, and such) but if it is fossilized, it is not "soft" anymore.

Again, do you really know what "fossilized" mean?

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained


We've all been taught that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. This theory was developed by evolutionists before many dinosaur fossil discoveries had been made. More and more "fresh" fossils are being found - with blood still inside. In fact, many fossils may have blood in them, but they simply haven't been cut open to look inside because the evolutionists thought it impossible that any blood could still exist after 65 million years. And of course, they are absolutely right about that! There's no way blood could survive that long, no matter what. Recent scientific investigation and testing show that cells and DNA break down in just thousands of years. And we're supposed to believe it lasted millions of years? A million years is a very long time. And 65 million years is 65 times a very long time! Yet we are finding fossils which are supposed to be 65 million years old - with blood still inside. What does this tell us? Obviously that the bones aren't really that old after all.



Recently (late 1990's) fresh dinosaur skin and blood vessels were found in a T-Rex bone

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1506587 wrote: We've all been taught that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. This theory was developed by evolutionists before many dinosaur fossil discoveries had been made. More and more "fresh" fossils are being found - with blood still inside. In fact, many fossils may have blood in them, but they simply haven't been cut open to look inside because the evolutionists thought it impossible that any blood could still exist after 65 million years. And of course, they are absolutely right about that! There's no way blood could survive that long, no matter what. Recent scientific investigation and testing show that cells and DNA break down in just thousands of years. And we're supposed to believe it lasted millions of years? A million years is a very long time. And 65 million years is 65 times a very long time! Yet we are finding fossils which are supposed to be 65 million years old - with blood still inside. What does this tell us? Obviously that the bones aren't really that old after all.



Recently (late 1990's) fresh dinosaur skin and blood vessels were found in a T-Rex bone

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True


Read the articles that I posted. That was not "fresh blood" by any stretch of the imagination.

And, yes, the find does require examining some long held beliefs by scientists. However, unlike religious fanatics, scientists are used to having their beliefs questioned, tested, re-examined, and refined.

However the find does not prove anything other than science is a constant study of the available evidence.

side note: I once chided Fourpart for calling you an idiot.

Don't give me cause to re-think that action.