Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 64 of 64
 [ 1268 posts ] 
The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you
Author Message
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

he_who_is_nobody wrote:From the YouTube:

daniel nahum wrote:This is how I view it:

Lets make an analogy.

Pretend that you have a book about ancient Egypt that you believe was written by a very good historian.

Given this assumption it makes sense to assume that the book has reliable information about ancient Egypt,…….. sure the author of the book could have had created a book with lies, misinformation, but in this hypothetical case, the default answer should be that the book is reliable until proven wrong.

In this analogy:

Book = Free Will / Human brain

Historian = God



However at the end of the day, both theist and atheist would have to admit that no one knows what causes “free will” and therefore we can´t make much predictions about the origin of free will.



Yea sure, assuming that a book about Egypt is accurate because it was written by a very good historian is a very stupid thing to say…..
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:03 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 148Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

I recently spoke to someone who claimed that the theory of evolution couldn't be completely factual because of maturational constraints on learning language. They argued that the vast majority of the population at the time of the first epoch would have been too old to properly learn a first language and, as such, couldn't help contribute in any way towards creating a first language, and that therefore language must have some other unknown origin.
Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:24 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2684Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

psikhrangkur wrote:I recently spoke to someone who claimed that the theory of evolution couldn't be completely factual because of maturational constraints on learning language. They argued that the vast majority of the population at the time of the first epoch would have been too old to properly learn a first language and, as such, couldn't help contribute in any way towards creating a first language, and that therefore language must have some other unknown origin.


Hi, I only just saw your post in the queue now, apologies.

Welcome aboard!
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:45 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

psikhrangkur wrote:I recently spoke to someone who claimed that the theory of evolution couldn't be completely factual because of maturational constraints on learning language. They argued that the vast majority of the population at the time of the first epoch would have been too old to properly learn a first language and, as such, couldn't help contribute in any way towards creating a first language, and that therefore language must have some other unknown origin.



It's the linguistic equivalent of 'what good is half a wing' and possesses the same faulty understanding of selection pressures and benefits.

It's also empirically naive.

We can already see a wide gradient of language throughout the natural world. Most species of mammal, reptile, bird, fish, and many insects and crustaceans employ a simple language, both physical and vocal, for a variety of reasons; whether it be signalling territory, finding a mate, exhibiting aggression, or other more subtle social cues.

No evolutionary model posits a bunch of newly minted humans popping out of nowhere with no predecessors, and with no behaviors inherited through millions of years of evolution, so while our behaviorally pre-modern ancestors may have had very little linguistic skills, it's not like they were mute. Plenty of monkeys and all apes can use vocal signals to warn against predators or to express their feelings (anger, pleasure etc.) to their social group, so there's no reason to suspect that our predecessors lacked this ability. If anything given the nature of evolution, it's likely they were quite proficient comparative to other species - we were a very tight social species.

But as for the advent of complex, symbolic human language, we obviously don't and can't have a fossil in which we can point to early instances of the complex kind of language we use, just as we obviously don't and can't have a fossil brain to study the function of. While it's true that a genetic rewiring of the brain has been posited as one explanation, I don't think it's really necessary.

To find clues as to how this symbolic language came about, we can look at material culture, and sociobiological factors, such as behavior.

Humans have been anatomically modern for nigh on 300kya, but didn't exhibit a dramatic progression over their pre-anatomically modern forebears either in terms of material culture or behavior until approximately 80-100kya. This transition is known as 'behavioral modernity' and can be seen by complex material culture necessitating trade, a rapid expansion of H. sapiens into wholly new environments exploiting new niches and with abilities such as coordinating as forest fires to create hunting grounds, plus the rapid expansion of symbolic behavior such as art and burial rites. We can be confident that these behaviorally modern humans employed complex languages suited to their environments and needs.

So the question thereby must be 'what was the pathway to that' and there are 2 models which aren't necessarily in competition, but could themselves ratchet up off each other. The two basal types of language used by a huge number of species and genera are the imperative (e.g. SNAKE! / OUCH! / STOP!) and noises signalling grooming, and intraspecific submission, and dominance (called the gossip model). Humans were middle-sized apes with basic stone tools in a world populated by large predators and prey. They succeeded only in a group - going it alone was not an option. To work better in that group and to survive as a group, they would have used a suite of vocal mechanisms both to produce social cues and to protect the group.

Saying SNAKE when there is a snake right there in front of someone is useful. It's potentially even more useful to be able to communicate having seen a snake before, perhaps adding another simple word to indicate a direction. This then becomes a model snake, an archetypal snake communicated from one brain to another purely by language, not by direct observation - it relies in memories and on a shared word, but it's actually very complex behavior. Much of the most complicated grammar used by humans today employs the same modality - a representation we hold in our mind conjured up by the usage of a particular set of sounds.

Signalling pleasure or displeasure may be a vital function to maintain group cohesion, but it's potentially even more useful to be able to extend that signal of pleasure beyond the instant moment of confrontation with another member of the group and talk about them behind their back. This treads a very gentle pathway towards the expression of complex sentiments, and the notion of individuals, subjects, and agency.

None of these pathways have any problem with 'maturational constraints' because they're all learned sounds, and factually, beginning language at a younger age makes the speaker more competent through practice. The brain's neural circuitry aiding in the production of language is most effectively made while young; neural plasticity, which is why it's so much easier for kids to learn multiple languages.

I think language was a run away. Once it started, it was just so obviously useful to add to it. Very Biblical - go round tossing nouns at everything, and even the most basic of prepositional sense and you've got a highly flexible way of expressing both what is observably there and what you can observe in your mind.

Perhaps there was an amusing first moment in history when grandparents still held to the old ways of using just a small suite of words in mostly imperative and grooming sense, while the kids were manufacturing words on a routine basis as with verbal fads today. Sadly for the old geezers in that scenario, they wouldn't have been able to express the concept of 'kids these days!' or 'if grunting was good enough for my dad and his dad before him, it's good enough for me'.

Whatever the case, the proponent of that argument has fallen foul of the exact same problem at the heart of the 'what good is half a wing'; an argument wholly based on that person's ignorance of the requisite details to even begin thinking about the problem at hand, expressed only through their naive incredulity. Just because one cannot imagine X, that doesn't mean X is false. Half a wing is good for a number of things, just as half a language is better than no language at all.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu May 10, 2018 7:33 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

Greetings,

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Carbon monoxide, to name but one substance that's indetectable to our senses, can kill us.

The hell are you talking about? Of course we can detect it with our senses, we wouldn't be able to study it scientifically if we couldn't...

:facepalm:

After I've had a lie-down and recovered, I'll answer this and the rest of his latest reply to me.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:05 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

My mother very nearly died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to crows nesting in the chimney.

You can't see it, you can't smell it and you can't taste it. Under normal circumstances you can't hear it (unless it's being released under pressure like any other gas, but you wouldn't know which gas it was even if you could hear it) and for the same reason you can't feel it.

We can detect it with scientific instruments, I have two of them in my house, but it can't be detected by human senses alone.
Image
Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:31 am
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

Greetings,

*SD* wrote:My mother very nearly died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to crows nesting in the chimney.

You can't see it, you can't smell it and you can't taste it. Under normal circumstances you can't hear it (unless it's being released under pressure like any other gas, but you wouldn't know which gas it was even if you could hear it) and for the same reason you can't feel it.

We can detect it with scientific instruments, I have two of them in my house, but it can't be detected by human senses alone.

I know.

He's finally made a howler of an error, which shows just how ignorant he is - and it's not the only one in his latest response to me.

I'll respond in a few days as I have some things to do.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:36 pm
Bango SkankPosts: 216Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:15 amLocation: Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

This one creationist brought up the evidence of Ark of the Covenant containing Ten Commandments tablets in Jerusalem. This supposed discovery made by infamous Ron Wyatt. I used secular & creationist sources to debunk it. Heck, even the admission of President of the Wyatt Archaeological Research against the discovery. He ignores it and says he trusts Wyatt, because he talks about the "discovery" so convincing way in his seminar and that he wouldnt lie, because he is follower of Christ.

He also makes contradictory statements and when i point them out, he just shrugs them off. Finally he says i should go to see the cave myself, but threatens me that i don't have the guts and my life would be in severe danger if i'd try see the ark.

He is the stupidest creationist i talked this year so far.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."
Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:40 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 64 of 64
 [ 1268 posts ] 
Return to Creationism/ID

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
cron