Confronting Friends and Family

[Whateverist]

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.

I don't doubt that what you say exactly aligns with what experts in the field think. But in my role as 'comment man' I try always to take what the experts have to say with a grain of salt.

Also, on some superficial level, one has to wonder if we are just in a better position to appreciate human speech given that we are human. If I was a dog, a growl or whoof or sharp bark might mean the whole world to me. [Pulling your leg, man. I get that the apparent purposes to which language is put is pretty different for us .. so far as humans can tell.]

[Kirbmarc]

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.

The laws of chemistry are laws of physics, expressed on a different level. Abiogenesis simply claims that life arose from non-life.

Organic material are spontaneously created by inorganic material. This a is fact and an easily testable one. Life, of course, is more than just organic material, but there are many theories abou the development of life that do not necessarily require a tremendous amount of time.

Not to mention that self-replicating organic material probably developed over a span of 1.5 billion years. I'd say that's more than enough time for such structures to rise and evolve.

The details of their origins and evolution are still not entirely clear, but the paradigm of abiogenesis is accepted by practically any expert inthe field. Panspermia, by the way, is a form of abiogenesis that simply allows for a longer time span.

[Darkstar]

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.

That and:

---

Genesis 7:17-23

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

---

Local, riiight...

---

---

[Shell B]

You seem to be under the impression that this is all something I've just made up.

What gives you that idea? I said you and others like five times. I know you're not the only person who assigns these traits to language.

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.

You realize that the reason it is uniquely human to you is because linguists use a different definition. That was a bit circular.

[Brakeman]

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).

Why do you keep dodging the Tower of Babel questions?

[Hovik]

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.

Never mind the fact that Ararat isn't sitting in a basin. It's sitting in the middle of a huge highland.

---

You seem to be under the impression that this is all something I've just made up.

What gives you that idea? I said you and others like five times. I know you're not the only person who assigns these traits to language.

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.

You realize that the reason it is uniquely human to you is because linguists use a different definition. That was a bit circular.

Are you seriously telling me that the definition of what constitutes a language that's used by scientists whose job it is to define language are using a definition that's somehow less viable because it doesn't match what the layman would call a language? That's like saying astronomers who define what constitutes a planet are using a "different definition" when they say Pluto's not a planet. It doesn't meet the criteria of a planet even though the layman definition of a planet might include it.

I mean, let's just borrow the quick definition from Wikipedia. The very first thing on the page about language reads: "Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any example of such a system of complex communication." The "complex" part is notable because it refers to the specific type and degree of complexity found in human communication (namely its ability to generate infinite novel utterances from a finite set of units) that isn't found in any other system of communication.

[Darkstar]

---

A nice blog post by Steve that discusses the answer to this letter:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index...nd-family/

So my question is; how far do you go to defend the science behind a theory – such as the theory of evolution- when you know full well that no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to ‘convince’ non-believers to change their outlook?! Sure, we must continue to profess the truth and what is fast becoming scientific fact, but when your relationships with those around you are at stake, where do you draw the line in such arguments?! Afterall, you could end up alienating half the people you know, right??

I’m completely torn between keeping the peace with those around me, and calling them all freaking morons for believing something with no evidential underpinning.

Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated, I’m sure it’s something you’ve considered before and maybe it would make an interesting talking point for the show.

Love what you do, stumbling across you guys on iTunes 3 years ago has completely changed the way I think about science.

Kind regards

Nick

---

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.

---

The laws of chemistry are laws of physics, expressed on a different level. Abiogenesis simply claims that life arose from non-life.

Organic material are spontaneously created by inorganic material. This a is fact and an easily testable one. Life, of course, is more than just organic material, but there are many theories abou the development of life that do not necessarily require a tremendous amount of time.

Not to mention that self-replicating organic material probably developed over a span of 1.5 billion years. I'd say that's more than enough time for such structures to rise and evolve.

The details of their origins and evolution are still not entirely clear, but the paradigm of abiogenesis is accepted by practically any expert inthe field. Panspermia, by the way, is a form of abiogenesis that simply allows for a longer time span.

---

Why do you keep dodging the Tower of Babel questions?

---

---

I'm not an Englishman, but:

---

---

Nothing to see here folks. It got derailed within two pages, anyway. Might as well be a whole other thread, but I don't care. I just found it kind of funny.

[Shell B]

Viable is the wrong word.

It is not less anything, Hovik. It is meant to be used within the scope of your science. You realize that other scientists use a less exclusive definition? A biologist is much less likely to go all, "We're going to apply all of these criteria to language that only apply to humans, thus making it an exclusively human behavior." Animals communicate using sounds and gestures that are specific to their species' or even their own groups. That is good enough for me and quite a few others. By necessity, you have to make more of language than the average bear or you would be out an educational endeavor, would you not? Well, the truth of the matter is that a doctor may look at a liver and see all of the things it does and is made up of, while a layman looks at it and sees a bloody wad of tissue. Both are right.

---

that isn't found in any other system of communication.

How do you know that? That is my point and a number of other people's points. Can you understand monkey? I've always found that it takes quite a bit of hubris to assume human superiority in any endeavor. Frankly, you're the first atheist I have ever seen cough up this argument. I thought it was strictly a creationist boast.

[The Grand Nudger]

I geeked out about this years ago (I like to amuse my children imitating chimps and they like to amuse me right back...trick is to make sound on the in and out breaths...as opposed to our habit of producing sound on the out only).

This gentleman has made it his career to "understand" a variety of primates. There are some others, but I figured I;d throw him out there in case anyone was interested.
https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/e...0c85).html
(iirc, he doesn't consider their communication language either, but does pay special attention to how complex it can be. when you asked "how do we know" the answer would be, we observe)

[liam]

No one's ever threatened to kick you out of the house for having different beliefs, obviously.

No one's ever threatened to kick you out of the school for having different beliefs, obviously.
To be fair, the idea of 'different beliefs' implies that there are different beliefs of equal validity and evidence. This, as we know well, is not the case. The idea that a belief can be justified simply as a belief, even if wrong, is an abhorrent part of modern society and there is now a social derision towards claiming truth in such matters as these.
As you may all imagine from my short time here, real world arguments appear to follow me rather devoutly, but there is such a ridiculous reaction (I hate, in the first place, to generalise from my own experience but I thought you would sympathise). The problem is that, during debates regarding religion and its clear falsity, condemning a view which has no evidence or logical argument (that of the theist) is condemned as being close-minded, whereas denying the tenability of the atheistic position is regarded as a virtuous and spiritual virtue. What the fuck is wrong with people?

I think I'm blowing off steam, but it is on topic.