Login

Kousbroek · November 13, 2012 at 7:55 am

Denying that animals use language only shows our own inability to understand them....

**Aractus** · November 13, 2012 at 9:16 am

(November 12, 2012 at 9:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: When you say "we," do you mean Christians?

Yep!

(November 12, 2012 at 9:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who takes this for granted (other than you, apparently)?

Any serious evolutionist for a start.

(November 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm)Hovik Wrote: And no, gorillas do not use language. There are several criteria that define what a language is, and simply repeating lexical items in a way that can convey vague meaning does not make language. It's definitely language-like (it has some but not all of the criteria that make a language) and linguistically interesting, don't get me wrong, but it does not constitute a full language.

I agree with you now by the way.

(November 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm)Brakeman Wrote: I see you can really stretch it out to cover your religion's pure stupidity. Did you reply about how the tower was so high god was afraid man was going to get into heaven uninvited, or about how all modern languages resulted from that one instance of divine confusion? No, you didn't,

you dodged the question like a dodge ball. You started talking about the flood, which is equally ridiculous, but a subject that you have concocted some bizarre web of pathetic apologia.

The flood is only ridiculous if you make it ridiculous. The Ararat range spans a massive area complete with the basins required for the flood of Biblical proportions (you only need ONE basin by the way). Thus the area which flooded, although we don't know the exact area, could have indeed flooded as the Bible states and had the Ark end up upon one of the Mountains (as opposed to having the Ark drift the other way).

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 9:49 am by The Grand Nudger.)

Any serious evolutionist? How many time does it have to be said that evolution and abiogenesis are separate fields? Taking things for granted isn't how either field operates..

So, still nobody but you?

(you can take whatever you like for granted btw, no worries. I just don't think it's very good practice to indict others based upon your own incurious nature.)

Hovik · (This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 9:57 am by Hovik.)

(November 13, 2012 at 1:43 am)Rayaan Wrote:
(November 12, 2012 at 10:49 pm)Hovik Wrote: I believe we'd be arguing semantics if anything at all. I don't agree that animals use what we would describe as language because it isn't language. I should point out that a dictionary definition, while useful, does not match up with the linguistic definition of language. Dictionaries report usage only, and so it would be sensible that it reflects scientific as well as layman definitions of words. That's just how they're used.
Then yeah, I suppose we're arguing on the semantics only.

I find that the linguistic definition of language is narrower than the common, dictionary definition of the word, thus it is not complete.

According to the linguistic definition, yes, I agree that animals don't use language ... but I don't go by that definition.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's a less complete definition. The linguistic definition of language is precise, and for good reason. But I agree, we're really just arguing semantics at this point.

(November 13, 2012 at 12:48 am)Shell B Wrote: Sign is not the only language other great apes use. It is just an interesting example because we understand it and taught it to them.

From wiki's animal language page: "While the term is widely used, researchers agree that animal languages are not as complex or expressive as human language."

I can agree with that, to an extent, given that we don't understand monkey. However, no person in their right mind would argue that animals do not have languages as methods of communication. As I mentioned before, it appears that tossing out the definition of language and assigning it strictly human traits is how you, and others, come to the conclusion that only humans have language. I do believe there is a stipulation in the rules here about using definitions because so many people like to make up their own definitions and it provides for page after page of absolutely useless conversation. (I can't remember where that was or if it was moved/removed. I do recall it being a big enough problem that the staff talked about it multiple times.)

You seem to be under the impression that this is all something I've just made up. Linguistics has a very precise definition of language because language is a uniquely human capability for a number of reasons. All animals have a communication system of some sort, but only the human communication system is markedly different in that it allows us to precisely and, much more importantly, generatively convey meaning.

**Aractus** · (This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 10:06 am by Aractus.)

(November 13, 2012 at 9:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: Any serious evolutionist? How many time does it have to be said that evolution and abiogenesis are separate fields? Taking things for granted isn't how either field operates..

Evolution is entirely separate to abiogenesis. I didn't even use the term abiogenesis did I? It imagines one such possible way that life could self-arise, but it may not be the correct theory. I don't think they're on the correct path, because under the typical model you have to allow an eternity for life to start. Life began on Earth 3 billion years ago, it didn't take any lengthy period of time to arise, when conditions were right it started - that's called scientific observation of the facts. I'm not saying I know the theory that makes it work, I'm just making the observation. Why is that such a problem for you?

**The Grand Nudger**

You should have, since the whole life self starting bit is the purvey of abiogenesis. All "pathways" are abiogenesis as far as we can tell. Life arising from non-life, even your fairy engaged in abiogenesis. Why would we have to allow for an eternity for life? The odds of winning the lottery are hilariously small and yet the lottery is won. Similarly, talking about the probability of an event that already occurred and declaring it impossible (or implying that it is simply too improbable) is a bit strange..don't you think? Speaking of thinking.....I think 1.5 billion years qualifies as "lengthy"..personally. Note that we do not know the exact moment that life arose on this rock, so claiming that it arose "when conditions were right" is a bit of a "no shit" statement on the one hand, and a bit of a "bullshit" statement on the other.

**Aractus** · November 13, 2012 at 10:21 am

Abiogenesis imagines a specific way that life is created from chemistry alone. The laws of chemistry could work in unison with other laws of nature to produce life, this would make it far less difficult.

If you only had one person buy one lottery ticket per day then the lottery would never be won in our lifetimes. It would take an average of over 11,000 years to go off.

**The Grand Nudger**

Good thing alot of lottery tickets are bought eh - now apply that to emergence of life. Ding ding ding.

The reason, btw, that abiogenesis has become focused (it wasn't always) is that we've been steadily winnowing down the field of explanations.

(November 13, 2012 at 10:21 am)Daniel Wrote: It would take an average of over 11,000 years to go off.

OR- The very first ticket bought would be the winner. Thats how this works, and that's why your criticism falls flat on its face.
(the second and 5th might be duplicate winners btw, damn, gotta split the pot)

**Whateverist** · (This post was last modified: November 13, 2012 at 10:44 am by Whateverist.)

(November 2, 2012 at 5:10 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm only planning on being in London a week, Creed, and the Royal Gardens at Kew are slightly more important.

The newish alpine garden was my favorite among many favorite bits but this one was my favorite pic taken there:

If you would care to take in the slide show ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/serialplant...3040/show/

(November 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm)Shell B Wrote: Also, I was just browsing reddit and thought of all of us here.

Hey! I know that guy. Hmmm .. maybe I am that guy. Never wanted t be "that guy". Oh, well.

Kirbmarc · November 13, 2012 at 10:49 am

Quote:The Ararat range spans a massive area complete with the basins required for the flood of Biblical proportions (you only need ONE basin by the way). Thus the area which flooded, although we don't know the exact area, could have indeed flooded as the Bible states and had the Ark end up upon one of the Mountains

It's very unlikely that a flood could be massive enough to cover the entire Eufrate or Tigri basin. A local, more limited flood is not as unlikely (and probably a massive flood in the area is the origin for the Ark myth), but the idea of the Ark ending up one of the Ararat mountains is just a legend.

Even the shortest mountains are several hundreds meters above the sea level. A flood that massive is not only quite unlikely, it should have also left a huge amount of geological evidence.Which nobody found.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	What of mediums who somehow know family secrets?	mavis	6	2875	March 12, 2012 at 6:56 am Last Post: NoMoreFaith
	YEC'ers ask Darwinism: it was all in the family?	Justtristo	7	3658	February 5, 2012 at 1:35 am Last Post: Justtristo