...
So, I'd like to engage you objectively to see what you really think. If you are agreeable, could we begin with your definition of language. I'm not trying to catch you out here, but there are different, equally valid, definitions of language and if you are debating with someone who is using a different definition then the debate can rapidly become a fight. Looking forward to your response.
In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain kills Abel and is driven away by God, according to the traditions. Cain fears for his life and complains that whomever will come upon him will kill him. The question that comes to my mind is, who are these whomever, if Adam and Eve and Cain are the only three humans on the earth at that time based on the current interpretation used by evolutionist and fundamentalists?
The bible implies other humans were also there. The whomever, were the pre-humans connected to biological evolution. They lacked the new invention and the impact that it had on the consciousness of Cain. God gives Cain a talisman object to distinguish his position. Science shows the pre-humans were into bling with the bling of Cain an object of respect, so he could wander among the pre-humans and not fear death because he was different in an intangible and non biological way; not instinctive.
You never pointed out any fraud on my part. And I don't think you ever explained what you meant by saying that there was fraud over the whole Ayala/Science thing, either. It's easy to shout "fraud!", but it's empty unless you can produce evidence of it.make it a perma ban james.
you are as fraudulent as the retraction.
That's a silly thing to do, leopold. But I guess you weren't thinking straight.my login info: ....
This is a bit of a rant. Actually, this whole series of your posts is a bit of a rant, isn't it? By the looks of it, you're the only unglued one here.you wouldn't worry about a respected source lying about what you said but you come thoroughly unglued about what an anonymous person on the net says about NAIG?
heh, heh, you don't deserve the title of "science site administrator".
you sir are a liar.
shall we call you richard instead?
On the contrary, I only wanted some honest discussion from you. Too much to ask, apparently.james doesn't WANT an honest inquiry into this.
I was pissed off for a number of reasons. What most got my goat about your approach to this matter, perhaps, was your blinkered approach. The spirit of intellectual enquiry says that honest pursuers of Truth should follow the evidence where it leads. Wilful blindness and denial is anti-intellectual. When people insist on sticking their heads in the sand as you did, it does annoy me. It's not just a matter of being wrong - that's no crime - it's actively closing your mind to alternative perspectives. I have very little tolerance, respect or time for people who do that. It goes against some of my personal core values.james is PISSED OFF because i refuse to accept a personal website over a respected source.
This was option number 2 that I gave you: "Alternatively, it will also be acceptable if you can find any quote from a published source written by Ayala himself that states that Ayala thinks that evolution by natural selection is false."leopold said:number 2 of course applies to the "retraction" in NAIG, and to hell with what science says.
You didn't fool anybody, leopold. You have no respect for Science, or for science. Your position on this is anti-intellectual.leopold said:sorry, it won't come from my lips james.
maybe YOU don't have respect for science but I do.
besides, you don't have the credentials to call science a liar, like you have been.
"We" want honest appraisal of all sources and evidence. That's what "we" want, don't "we", leopold? That is the spirit of intellectual curiosity and honesty.yes indeed, we want respected sources, unless it conflicts with our cherished beliefs.
And so we come to the insults - the last resort of those bereft of an argument.james,
you don't even rate the status of snake shit.
I'll assume this is just anger rather than the blatant stupidity it appears to be. Obviously, I have told you over and over again that evolution does not stand or fall on one quote published 35 years ago. Given that this is my expressed opinion, you could not possibly conclude that your silly misquote could seriously perturb, let alone destroy any worldview of mine concerning evolution.don't worry, it will happen when james finds out i'm not kissing his ass.
he seems adamant about not accepting a respected source for some reason, possibly because it destroys his worldview of evolution.
It's kind of like being attacked with a fluffy duster.it's kind of like getting hit in the nuts . . . isn't it james.
I'm not sure that the word "shill" means what you think it means.NAIG and its posse of criminal authors are shills, period.
We can't have that, obviously. This is one reason why I have granted your request. Threats are one of the most serious breaches of our site rules.james,
if you don't permaban me, i WILL flood this site with porn.
Remember: you ultimately left because you were unwilling to have an honest and "serious" discussion.this site will never be any kind of place where serious discussions happens.
the admins don't have the guts for it.
leopold:
All I was really asking of you was that you post with honesty and integrity on this topic that means so much to you. Apparently, you regarded that as an unreasonable restriction on your posting. I realise that it's hard to admit you were wrong about something that you've been so strident about, but sometimes it's better to cut your losses. If eating humble pie isn't your thing, you could have called it quits, slunk away from that discussion and pretended it never happened.
We see this kind of thing time and again on sciforums. Somebody posts claims about something they really don't know very much about. They are, at first, merely corrected and informed by other posters. Instead of learning or admitting their initial ignorance, they dig in and try to defend the indefensible. Then comes the deluge, in which they are overloaded with rebuttals to their position. Their response is to deny, to try to change the subject, to go off on tangents or to try to restrict or redefine the discussion. When those tactics fail and the pressure builds, they decide that if they can't win the argument, they'll at least go out in a blaze of self-righteous glory. At that stage one or more moderators get involved (if they weren't already part of the discussion). And it's often all down hill from there.
You have made it quite clear that you will settle for nothing less than a permanent ban from sciforums. I have granted your request, despite the fact that I think you were angry and confused when you last posted. I hope you don't regret your decision later.
For completeness, I will respond to your last series of posts.
You never pointed out any fraud on my part. And I don't think you ever explained what you meant by saying that there was fraud over the whole Ayala/Science thing, either. It's easy to shout "fraud!", but it's empty unless you can produce evidence of it.
That's a silly thing to do, leopold. But I guess you weren't thinking straight.
This is a bit of a rant. Actually, this whole series of your posts is a bit of a rant, isn't it? By the looks of it, you're the only unglued one here.
Look, I've already told you many times that Lewin's error in Science is no big deal. It most likely would have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for the creationists jumping on it and spreading it all over the interwebs.
Again, you accuse me of lying - about what I'm not sure. You may disagree with my assessments and/or opinions, but that doesn't make me a liar. A liar says things he knows are untrue.
What's with the "richard" comment? Is that like an insult where you really meant "dick" or something?
On the contrary, I only wanted some honest discussion from you. Too much to ask, apparently.
I was pissed off for a number of reasons. What most got my goat about your approach to this matter, perhaps, was your blinkered approach. The spirit of intellectual enquiry says that honest pursuers of Truth should follow the evidence where it leads. Wilful blindness and denial is anti-intellectual. When people insist on sticking their heads in the sand as you did, it does annoy me. It's not just a matter of being wrong - that's no crime - it's actively closing your mind to alternative perspectives. I have very little tolerance, respect or time for people who do that. It goes against some of my personal core values.
If it hadn't been that you've been pulling this bullshit for 3 years, then I might have been more patient with you. But you can't deny that you've had more than a fair run at this.
This was option number 2 that I gave you: "Alternatively, it will also be acceptable if you can find any quote from a published source written by Ayala himself that states that Ayala thinks that evolution by natural selection is false."
This left it wide open for you to find any evidence from any source (excepting the disputed Science source, naturally) where Ayala in his own words denied evolution. He never denied it in NAIG, as far as I am aware.
And there's that "retraction" thing again. Didn't you read the posts where I walked you through that?
You didn't fool anybody, leopold. You have no respect for Science, or for science. Your position on this is anti-intellectual.
Credentials aren't required to call Science a liar, by the way. Any fool can do that. I made no accusations that Lewin lied or that Science lied, or anybody else in this matter (except for you, leopold, about some matters).
"We" want honest appraisal of all sources and evidence. That's what "we" want, don't "we", leopold? That is the spirit of intellectual curiosity and honesty.
And so we come to the insults - the last resort of those bereft of an argument.
I'll assume this is just anger rather than the blatant stupidity it appears to be. Obviously, I have told you over and over again that evolution does not stand or fall on one quote published 35 years ago. Given that this is my expressed opinion, you could not possibly conclude that your silly misquote could seriously perturb, let alone destroy any worldview of mine concerning evolution.
It's kind of like being attacked with a fluffy duster.
I'm not sure that the word "shill" means what you think it means.
This is tantamount to libel, you know, leopold. If NAIG or its authors cared about what you wrote, they could possibly sue you. But don't worry. I'm sure they don't care.
We can't have that, obviously. This is one reason why I have granted your request. Threats are one of the most serious breaches of our site rules.
Remember: you ultimately left because you were unwilling to have an honest and "serious" discussion.
Goodbye leopold.
Clearly you haven't followed the discussion. Please read through the entire thread. leopold wasn't banned for defending his position.Leopold has used choice words, but banning him for defending his position is wrong.
Leopold: You have some interesting ideas and this
Leopold has used choice words, but banning him for defending his position is wrong.
davewhite04,
Clearly you haven't followed the discussion. Please read through the entire thread. leopold wasn't banned for defending his position.
Recall that ultimately leopold was banned because he asked to be banned.
Banning someone for defending his position would indeed be wrong. However:Leopold has used choice words, but banning him for defending his position is wrong.
I have some interest in it and some knowledge of it, though it is not central to my interests. Thank you for responding, by the way.I'm exclusively interested in human language.
I am confident that it can, however dictionaries have two limitations in relation to this discussion:My definition of language can be picked from any dictionary.
It is certainly an interesting question. I'm assuming that your quotation marks around why mean that you are asking "what pushed us in that direction", or something like that. Yes?What I'm interested in is "why" we learnt to talk? Could it be evolution that inspired our imagination, or was there something else at work.
Was it not on this thread that someone pointed out the first writing is all about commercial transactions. Of course writing followed many millenia after speech, so its quite possible that we were talking about gods so much we didn't need to write about them.It is interesting to introduce "God" or "gods" because it seems that as soon as we could write we wrote about deities.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "wheel" situation. If you mean the invention of the wheel, I wouldn't expect evolutionists to have any answer for it since a wheel is a cultural artifact, and not subject to biological evolution.Then we have the "wheel" situation, which no doubt evolutionists will have some form of answer for, but how the hell did the written word pop up globally around the same time? What are the chances of that?
Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.
From Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University:Irreducible complexity is used by some creationists as a proof that the bacterial flagellum is designed.
Some great questions, I'm in the middle of cooking dinner for the family, but should be back online in about 4 hours, just in case you thought I was ignoring you.
From Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University:
=====================
The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry
Agreed. The first person to note this was Darwin (see below) and it's been true ever since. Still nothing found that is irreducibly complex.I disagree with "the many", whoever "they" are.
It would be a mortal blow to the theory of evolution if they could find something that is provably irreducibly complex.
At the moment it is a creationism of the gaps, where they seize upon anything that science cannot yet explain.
Once something is explained they try to find something else.
Some great questions, I'm in the middle of cooking dinner for the family, but should be back online in about 4 hours, just in case you thought I was ignoring you.
tali89:
Since we're getting all personal and all, I might point out that you're behaving like a young man who feels that his talents aren't being adequately acknowledged by those he feels are in positions of power. And at the same time, you come across as jealous of people who you perceive as having power or influence, particularly when they happen to be women.
Sounds like you and Leopold would get along swimmingly.Are your genitalia smaller than average?
That is a good start point, I too have more interest in other areas, but want to learn much more about spoken language, even body language I might touch on.I have some interest in it and some knowledge of it...
True. Written language and spoken language.I am confident that it can, however dictionaries have two limitations in relation to this discussion:
1. They offer multiple definitions.
2. These definitions are rarely ideal when dealing with a specialist subject.
So, I would really appreciate it if you would offer your own definition of language, or refer me to a specific definition in a specific dictionary. (The full version OED would be preferred, but I'll go with your wish.)
It is certainly an interesting question. I'm assuming that your quotation marks around why mean that you are asking "what pushed us in that direction", or something like that. Yes?
I'm not clear what you mean by "could it be that evolution inspired our imagination". It doesn't make sense to me. Evolution doesn't inspire, so you must be intending something else. Would you clarify that please?
Was it not on this thread that someone pointed out the first writing is all about commercial transactions. Of course writing followed many millenia after speech, so its quite possible that we were talking about gods so much we didn't need to write about them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "wheel" situation. If you mean the invention of the wheel, I wouldn't expect evolutionists to have any answer for it since a wheel is a cultural artifact, and not subject to biological evolution.
How close in time is the emergence of written language? Since this is your singular interest you probably have more precise numbers in your mind than my own eclectic knowledge gathering can provide. It is wise not to underestimate the amount of communication between cultures, even in pre-historic times.
A mix of Chicken Madras/Korma.Four Hours?
What are you cooking? Roast Hippopotamus?