THE ATHIEST AGENDA

[calibob]

Well thank you. I won't change my belief system, that is, that the Bible is the final word and the only word that I trust 100% I don't trust science if it contradicts the bible but we must read and comprehend all of it or we might become flat earthers

I can overlook agnostics because they admit that God might exist and our duty in life is to love God and spread the gospel to all of the world. But atheist's are all going to hell if they don't come to believe and accept the salvation of Jesus.

Acceptance and worship of him only is the only way to proceed from certain death to the new life that is to come. this life is temporary, our goal should be eternal. That's enough. Peace out!

 

[Ohm]

Well thank you. I won't change my belief system, that is, that the Bible is the final word and the only word that I trust 100% I don't trust science if it contradicts the bible but we must read and comprehend all of it or we might become flat earthers

I'm not expecting you to change your beliefs. I just like discussion!

As far as my own experience of Christians, many accept evolutionary theory on the basis that they find the scientific evidence compelling. For a lot of those, this has forced them to re-evaluate their beliefs and perhaps adopt positions that read the creation story as either allegorical, or in terms of a moral message. Some even delve into Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic language history and propose the hypothesis that certain time-frames in these langauges are mistranslated.

It's not my forté, so I can't really comment on the veracity of their claims. I'm just saying that these interpretations do exist.

I can overlook agnostics because they admit that God might exist and our duty in life is to love God and spread the gospel to all of the world. But atheist's are all going to hell if they don't come to believe and accept the salvation of Jesus.

I don't think anybody really "knows", to any degree of complete scientific certainty. What I will say is that there a lot of atheists and agnostics who simply look at evidence, and who personally don't see evidence for the existence of a creator, as such. However, every atheist/agnostic I know will admit that if they were to be presented with irrefutable evidence right now, they would change their beleifs as a result. Because that's how their minds work.

Scientists, especially (and I hate to equate science with agnosticism or atheism because they are completely different things), function in a mental paradigm where their beliefs change in light of evidence and/or facts. So, for example, where scientists once considered the Earth to be flat and the sun to revolve around the Earth, the evidence to the contrary forced them to re-examine their beliefs.

I probably fit into this kind of bracket. I am inquisitive and I am willing to adopt a position that I become convinced of.

Acceptance and worship of him only is the only way to proceed from certain death to the new life that is to come. this life is temporary, our goal should be eternal. That's enough. Peace out!

Peace out!

 

[calibob]

 

[Noose]

Why worry? Jesus said, we are not of this world and our Kingdom is that of heaven; so what the world does is what is expected and it will be worse as we approach the end.

 

[Noose]

You cannot equate the theory of evolution by natural selection with a form of political indoctrination. Evolution is the most studied, verified, evidenced scientific theory in the history of this planet. And that's what it is: science. It's not a political argument. It's not a belief system. It is an explanation for a plethora of scientific facts.

That isn't politics.

Nope.
Evolution is the most studied lie which has nowadays become a belief system IMO.

One item that thoroughly disproves evolution is the human language. Human language is basically words with meaning(s) which MUST be taught/learned, by/from a knowledgeable source, for anyone to speak. Going back in time, even billions of years if you wish, you'll never get to the point where a word and its meaning came spontaneously without being taught from knowledgeable source.

 

[UnderGrace]

Nope.
Evolution is the most studied lie which has nowadays become a belief system IMO.

One item that thoroughly disproves evolution is the human language. Human language is basically words with meaning(s) which MUST be taught/learned, by/from a knowledgeable source, for anyone to speak. Going back in time, even billions of years if you wish, you'll never get to the point where a word and its meaning came spontaneously without being taught from knowledgeable source.

Just one correction, human language is modeled and toddlers imitate what the hear, children will learn language even if not explicitly taught, they need the exposure, much research shows our brains are wired to acquire language skills at a young age.

 

[Noose]

Just one correction, human language is modeled and toddlers imitate what the hear, children will learn language even if not explicitly taught, they need the exposure, much research shows our brains are wired to acquire language skills at a young age.

They can and will create words but the words won't have any meaning.
The meaning of a word requires other words with meanings to calibrate or explain to the population the meaning of that word so that it can be used for communication. This can never happen spontaneously, it requires learning from knowledgeable sources.

 

[UnderGrace]

They can and will create words but the words won't have any meaning.
The meaning of a word requires other words with meanings to calibrate or explain to the population the meaning of that word so that it can be used for communication. This can never happen spontaneously, it requires learning from knowledgeable sources.

I never said anything about spontaneously ....babies learn from exposure to language and being talked to and imitating....it does not need to be explicitly taught.

 

[Noose]

I never said anything about spontaneously ....babies learn from exposure to language and being talked to and imitating....it does not need to be explicitly taught.

Ok, they do learn.
A baby will first of all, through imitation learn the pronunciation and later after several demonstrations, understand the meaning(s) of the word.

Evolution has only beneficial mutations as its basis and beneficial mutation can not impart meaning(s) to words so as to have a language (part of Diversity).

If babies are put in an island, can they develop a language as they grow up? assuming they will know what to eat and can interact with nature (flora and fauna)

 

[UnderGrace]

Ok, they do learn.
A baby will first of all, through imitation learn the pronunciation and later after several demonstrations, understand the meaning(s) of the word.

Evolution has only beneficial mutations as its basis and beneficial mutation can not impart meaning(s) to words so as to have a language (part of Diversity).

If babies are put in an island, can they develop a language as they grow up? assuming they will know what to eat and can interact with nature (flora and fauna)

No they will not, absolutely agree.
The development of the eye is another problem point for evolutionists....it they are into the full macro evolution.

 

[Ohm]

Nope.
Evolution is the most studied lie which has nowadays become a belief system IMO.

One item that thoroughly disproves evolution is the human language. Human language is basically words with meaning(s) which MUST be taught/learned, by/from a knowledgeable source, for anyone to speak. Going back in time, even billions of years if you wish, you'll never get to the point where a word and its meaning came spontaneously without being taught from knowledgeable source.

This is a straw-man. No scientists, to my knowledge, are saying language is an inherent biological trait. It is clearly a learned phenomenon. But that doesn't mean that its conception couldn't have happened spontaneously over time. My undergraduate dissertation was based around the impact that inherent neurological faculties have on pattern recognition and systematic learning processes in two different communicatory phenomenons: everyday language, and musical language. And it is abundantly clear from my reading of research that humans have an evolved neurological capacity for languages. The only variation to be found is in the culture a person is born in. Chinese kids learn Mandarin and French kids learn French. But the neurological processes are largely the same.

Humans, before spoken language, had body language. Body language is evident in every species of ape on Earth. It's a form of partially instinctive, and partially learned, communication. And it is almost certainly the chronological precursor to vocalization, and then to spoken language.

At any rate, none of this disproves evolution by natural selection.

 

[Ohm]

Ok, they do learn.
A baby will first of all, through imitation learn the pronunciation and later after several demonstrations, understand the meaning(s) of the word.

Evolution has only beneficial mutations as its basis and beneficial mutation can not impart meaning(s) to words so as to have a language (part of Diversity).

If babies are put in an island, can they develop a language as they grow up? assuming they will know what to eat and can interact with nature (flora and fauna)

I would say yes. It may not be as complex and refined as languages that have had thousands of years to develop, but they WILL have a form of communication which is mutually intelligible. How else did tribes cut off from the rest of the world, ever communicate?

Humans and various animals even have the ability to develop cross-species "languages". Gorillas can learn signing. Dogs can read human facial expressions. Etc.

 

[Noose]

This is a straw-man. No scientists, to my knowledge, are saying language is an inherent biological trait. It is clearly a learned phenomenon. But that doesn't mean that its conception couldn't have happened spontaneously over time. My undergraduate dissertation was based around the impact that inherent neurological faculties have on pattern recognition and systematic learning processes in two different communicatory phenomenons: everyday language, and musical language. And it is abundantly clear from my reading of research that humans have an evolved neurological capacity for languages. The only variation to be found is in the culture a person is born in. Chinese kids learn Mandarin and French kids learn French. But the neurological processes are largely the same.

Humans, before spoken language, had body language. Body language is evident in every species of ape on Earth. It's a form of partially instinctive, and partially learned, communication. And it is almost certainly the chronological precursor to vocalization, and then to spoken language.

At any rate, none of this disproves evolution by natural selection.

You still did not say anything.

Fact 1: Words and their meanings have to be learned from a knowledgeable source for anyone to speak.
Fact 2: Meanings of words (information) can never be spontaneously generated in a billion years, one has to learn from knowledgeable sources.
Fact 3: You can not speak Germany unless you learn Germany

Body language are reflexes originating from our feelings, there's no way they will develop into words and their meaning(s).

No scientists say language is an inherent biological trait, true, but that's the failure i was pointing to. Evolution explains diversity, human language(s) are part of these diversity, so evolution should effectively cover this diversity.

I know humans developed the ability to speak over time according to the theory but from where did they learn words and their meaning(s)?

 

[Noose]

I would say yes. It may not be as complex and refined as languages that have had thousands of years to develop, but they WILL have a form of communication which is mutually intelligible. How else did tribes cut off from the rest of the world, ever communicate?

Humans and various animals even have the ability to develop cross-species "languages". Gorillas can learn signing. Dogs can read human facial expressions. Etc.

They will have a form of communication which is mutually intelligible- someone may cry to mean they are in pain or laugh to mean they are happy, these are almost inherent capabilities, but they will never develop words and their meanings (human languages).

Words and their meanings MUST be learned from knowledgeable sources, no other way.
And yes, human languages (words and their meaning), destroys Evolution.

Tribes cutting off and developing other subset languages is totally a different issue; they don't develop a new language from nothing and even if they do, they do it because they already have words and their meaning (a language) to explain new words and their meanings and hence can calibrate the rest of the population.

 

[Ohm]

You still did not say anything.

Fact 1: Words and their meanings have to be learned from a knowledgeable source for anyone to speak

Mathematics is a descriptive language that certainly arose spontaneously.

Fact 2: Meanings of words (information) can never be spontaneously generated in a billion years, one has to learn from knowledgeable sources.

This is not a fact. Individual humans have created new, artificial languages. Something spontaneously generated, can then be learned. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Fact 3: You can not speak Germany unless you learn Germany

Your point being?

Body language are reflexes originating from our feelings, there's no way they will develop into words and their meaning(s).

Infants spontaneously shake their heads to mean "no". It's not difficult to imagine how such communication can develop into a vocalized form.

No scientists say language is an inherent biological trait, true, but that's the failure i was pointing to. Evolution explains diversity, human language(s) are part of these diversity, so evolution should effectively cover this diversity.

Evolution explains genetic diversity. It does not claim dominion over the diversity of learned phenomena. For example, evolution explains the genetic relationships between species, but it does not explain the diversity of behaviours among certain geographically separated groups of the same species. For example, a species of dolphins in a particular area of the world have learned to herd shoals of fish to the coast, where the fish are more vulnerable to being caught by humans. Other individuals of the same species, in other parts of the world, do not show this behaviour. This behaviour arose spontaneously in a single population of these dolphins. They learned to communicate behaviours between individuals by mimicry and vocalization.

I know humans developed the ability to speak over time according to the theory but from where did they learn words and their meaning(s)?

Meanings developed over time, and became more complex. It only takes two humans to develop a mutual code of communication. By propagating that code, they then teach others. Over time, others contribute to the syntax, vocabulary and grammar of the vocalizations, to become what we think of as "language".

For example, if I point or grasp towards an object (pointing and grasping are also instinctual methods of human communication), there is a level of mutual intelligibility there. You understand "look this way", or, "this direction in which I am looking and motioning, is important". If I then pair that grasping motion with a distinct grunt, perhaps "Ugg", you associate the two in your mind. "Ugg" and a grasping motion take on synonymous meaning. They mean "this direction", or "this object", or "look".

You then understand, on an instinctive level, that a vocalization can convey a message. Ugg now has meaning.

 

[Ohm]

They will have a form of communication which is mutually intelligible- someone may cry to mean they are in pain or laugh to mean they are happy, these are almost inherent capabilities, but they will never develop words and their meanings (human languages).

Untrue. If we are infants, and you hit me, and I cry, you empathize with that emotion because you understand it in an instinctive way. By empathizing with it, you understand that hitting causes crying. Thus, hitting is a hurtful action. Within a matter of seconds, hitting someone is correlated to negative emotions, and perhaps even retaliation. You quickly learn that hitting hurts others, and others are likely to want to hurt you in return. Thus, you develop an elementary understanding of reciprocity, and the associated power dynamics that violence/dominance/submissiveness has a part in.

Crying develops negative connotations.

Likewise, if you laugh, and the other infant with you laughs, you develop positive correlations. Thus, certain inflections of sound, coupled with facial expressions and body language, carry certain connotations. You know, from then on, the distinctive sound of crying, and also the distinctive sound of laughing. And although these aren't fully formed languages, they are full of information, full of meaning.

Words and their meanings MUST be learned from knowledgeable sources, no other way.

You keep repeating this, but I've given you quite a few examples where this idea falls apart.

And yes, human languages (words and their meaning), destroys Evolution.

Again, repetition is not evidence of the validity of a statement.

 

[UnderGrace]

evolved neurological capacity for languages.

There is no fossil record to prove that " spoken language" is an evolved trait.

 

[Noose]

Mathematics is a descriptive language that certainly arose spontaneously.

Globally, when we talk of languages, we never mean Mathematics, the reason i keep saying words and their meanings. Mathematics is not about words and their meanings.

This is not a fact. Individual humans have created new, artificial languages. Something spontaneously generated, can then be learned. The two are not mutually exclusive

Yes, humans can create new languages mainly because they are already speaking one and they have tools to capture the word and its meaning for future reference.
I will explain why it was impossible for our evolutionary ancestor to create a language:

1. A human language can not at one point constitute one or two or ten words, a human language is a language because it has Nouns/pronouns/ verbs/adverbs and many other features. So, a human language grows but it never grows from one or two words, it starts from 100s of words already (minimum).

If a word (new word) and its meaning are to be calibrated to the population, you'll need other words with meanings to explain that new word.
The idea that it grew from few words is a lie and an impossibility which can never be proven.

2. A human language does not reside in an individual but a population. At one given moment, several people should be understanding the words and their meanings. So it can not start with an individual

3. New words need to be captured for remembrance and reference. Our evolutionary ancestor couldn't develop words and keep remembering their pronunciation and meaning through the years. The reason people go to school today and write down is for reference and remembrance.

The rest of your write up just doesn't make sense in light of what i have just said.

 

[kaylagrl]

The separation of church and state forbids the preference of the state for a particular religious affilitation. Evolutionary theory is not a religion: it is a scientific theory of factual information, like gravitational theory or special relativity.

I assume you would not oppose the teaching in state schools of fundamental human biology; chemistry; the theory of gravity; the theory of special relativity; the standard model of chemistry etc? Because that would be ludicrous. So, unless you actually strive for the USA to become a nation of scientific illiterates (thereby completely and utterly destroying its economy and industry), I would be very careful what you wish for.

Evolution is a theory, that word does not mean fact. Darwin himself said it could be disproved. Science is changing all the time when new discoveries are made, at least that use to be what science was before it became a religion to the left. Now we must accept as fact everything they say even when data might show differently. Like the climate change cult. Evolution has wrought it's own destruction through the likes of Planned Parenthood, and the Nazis before them. Darwins "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," has nearly wiped out the black race thanks to eugenics which is still very much at work today.

Quote "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Who said it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She tried to explain it away later, but it was already there, eugenics. I don't believe we are descended from animals I believe we were created. And there is plenty of evidence of ID but no one dares say it for fear of being burned at the scientific stake. Science isn't science anymore, it's religion. And no one can question the powers that be. They lose their minds if you disagree with climate change. It's ridiculous. Science use to allow a difference of opinion, no longer. It's pure cult.

 

[Noose]

Untrue. If we are infants, and you hit me, and I cry, you empathize with that emotion because you understand it in an instinctive way. By empathizing with it, you understand that hitting causes crying. Thus, hitting is a hurtful action. Within a matter of seconds, hitting someone is correlated to negative emotions, and perhaps even retaliation. You quickly learn that hitting hurts others, and others are likely to want to hurt you in return. Thus, you develop an elementary understanding of reciprocity, and the associated power dynamics that violence/dominance/submissiveness has a part in.

Crying develops negative connotations.

Likewise, if you laugh, and the other infant with you laughs, you develop positive correlations. Thus, certain inflections of sound, coupled with facial expressions and body language, carry certain connotations. You know, from then on, the distinctive sound of crying, and also the distinctive sound of laughing. And although these aren't fully formed languages, they are full of information, full of meaning.



You keep repeating this, but I've given you quite a few examples where this idea falls apart.



Again, repetition is not evidence of the validity of a statement.

You are basically dwelling on instincts but my point is, instincts can never develop words and their meaning(s). I have to repeat this because it is what it is.

Even medically, a person born with hearing abilities never speaks a language not because they have not developed necessary tools of speech but because they never get to hear words and never get to learn their meaning.

Our evolutionary ancestor as much as they developed all the faculties of speech, they would never speak a language because they never got to learn one. Where did language come from?