Denial of Evolution VII (2015)
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
no big loss.
all nodding their heads over cups of tea.
this site will never be any kind of place where serious discussions happens.
the admins don't have the guts for it.
hey james,
big black barons wear frilly white lace.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
no, i haven't posted on sciforums in the past 10 years dude.
thank god.
a shitload of "yes men" repels me for some reason.
passed from one to the other, yup, i seen it.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The sounds produced by dolphins are quite complex. They may sound like "squeaking" to us, but what do you suppose our communication sounds like to other creatures?
I never mentioned the other apes, so your criticism is off topic.
Nonetheless, there is one species of ape that communicates with sounds: Homo sapiens.
There's more than enough evidence to support a speculation, which is all this is. It's taken millions of years for the first ancestor of the cetaceans (a primitive hippopotamus, as indicated by their DNA) to evolve into the dozens of species of whales and dolphins now in existence.
Huh??? You're spouting gibberish. Humans are animals! There are only five other kinds of living things that exist on this planet: plants, algae, fungi, bacteria and archaea. Are you suggesting that our species has been mis-classified? That we're actually more closely related to mushrooms or penicillin than to the other primates?
If so, please present your evidence!
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Indeed. It was humbling to discover that the technology of written language was invented by businessmen, not scholars, priests or kings.
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
It is clear you have no intention of answering the questions and citing some evidence, nor do you have any intention of retracting your misrepresentations of that article and of Ayala himself.
This is a hard science section of this forum and there are standards posters must adhere to. You have been trying to pull this stupid stunt for years now and frankly, enough is enough. We have had enough and this site has had enough of your abuse, insults for demanding you stop with this idiotic misrepresentation to the point that you now resort to threats against this site:
I do not know what you felt you were achieving with this kind of thing, but really, we've had enough.
So here is what I am going to do. I am going to ban you and while you are banned, I am going to petition that you be permanently removed from this site. Because you have gone too far, and you have now clearly indicated that you pose a threat to this site. You would have been luckier if James R had gotten to you first, because with him, you might have had a chance for a shorter ban. But not so for me, because as far as I am concerned, you have forfeited your right to post here.
Edited to add..
I have also removed your log-in information from post #724 of this thread. While editing people's posts is not something we do lightly, I felt that removing your personal information warranted an edit at this time. Please note that the only thing edited was your log in and password.
Okay, you're done.
It is clear you have no intention of answering the questions and citing some evidence, nor do you have any intention of retracting your misrepresentations of that article and of Ayala himself.
This is a hard science section of this forum and there are standards posters must adhere to. You have been trying to pull this stupid stunt for years now and frankly, enough is enough. We have had enough and this site has had enough of your abuse, insults for demanding you stop with this idiotic misrepresentation to the point that you now resort to threats against this site:
leopold said:
I do not know what you felt you were achieving with this kind of thing, but really, we've had enough.
So here is what I am going to do. I am going to ban you and while you are banned, I am going to petition that you be permanently removed from this site. Because you have gone too far, and you have now clearly indicated that you pose a threat to this site. You would have been luckier if James R had gotten to you first, because with him, you might have had a chance for a shorter ban. But not so for me, because as far as I am concerned, you have forfeited your right to post here.
Edited to add..
I have also removed your log-in information from post #724 of this thread. While editing people's posts is not something we do lightly, I felt that removing your personal information warranted an edit at this time. Please note that the only thing edited was your log in and password.
Last edited:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I couldn't care how "complex" you think they are, nothing matches human's capability of expressing themselves.
"Are you suggesting that our species has been mis-classified? That we're actually more closely related to mushrooms or penicillin than to the other primates?
If so, please present your evidence!"
was your post a prank or something? You(and others) don't seem to understand how much man has changed since the written word.
Supply evidence.
As you like. But lying, often taken as reason to think us different than the animals, is universal.
Bells
Staff member
That is very sweet of you davewhite04, but I think you should know that I do not see you that way at all.
Perhaps you should save such endearments for your loved ones instead of complete strangers on the internet.
Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were joking when you asked for examples of animals communicating with each other within the animal kingdom..
Have you never come into contact with animals?
What you put down as "dolphins squeaking" is actually language and the manner in which dolphins communicate with each other. Coupled with visual displays, it is communication and what we would classify as a form of speech if it were to occur among primates, for example.
Scientists around the world are trying to decipher 'dolphin language'. It is amazing research.
I think you are very short sighted if you believe that only humans have the ability to "speak". And you also approach it in very human terms while ignoring the reality of nature around you.
What deceit?
Are you offended that I do not buy into the 'god did it' argument?
How do you define verbal language? Or are you going to restrict it to mere words? Do sounds that convey meaning not count? After all, words are mere sounds that do convey meaning. Just because they do not 'talk like us' does not mean that our ancestors and the animals around us did not have their own language.
We are part of the animal kingdom.
You are applying a human standard to such things. In the sense that you are focused solely on "man" and our achievements. They don't really matter diddly squat in the grand scheme of things. Is a spider web any less wondrous or marvel of engineering? Or how about giant magnetic termite mounds that stand at over 2 metres high and all facing the same direction exactly and aligned so perfectly?
And your point is rubbish.
You have no proof to substantiate the claim that any well developed verbal communication did not really exist prior to 6,000 ago, and how you previously attributed it since then to god.
And it is complete rubbish.
There is evidence of civilisations and even the building of granaries from about 11,000 years ago. There is also evidence of civilisations that predate that as well.
To determine that humans really transformed 6,000 years ago and attributing it to "God" is so short sighted that it is ridiculous.
I don't think you quite understand. We do not have even a minute amount of abilities that would allow us to communicate like dolphins and whales can. We do not have inbuilt sonar, for example, we are unable to communicate over great distances without external aids like phones, computers and other forms of technology. Blue whales for example, are not only able to communicate with sound and song across whole oceans, but research has discovered that their language may even have different dialects based on where they are from. And you think we are special in how we express ourselves? That is laughable.
And the problem with the Christian fundamentalists is they can't see any commonality between man and other animals. They deny the common links between humans and chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, dolphins, etc etc. They have to deny an awful lot of science to have that make sense, which is why science sometimes gives them problems in other areas.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
@DaveWhite: I have not read the entirety of the exchanges between yourself and other members, but I think I may have noticed a pattern that I have seen on other forums and that has troubled me for some time. A member makes a statement that may contain elements of Devil's advocate, or is offered from a novel perspective to open up discussion. Other members misinterpret its intent and assume it is anti-science in some way, so they pounce on it. Original member is amazed at the reaction and responds, as they see, appropriately. Everything then kicks off, with both sides taking positions towards the extreme.
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.
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.
I'm not in the habit of repeating myself, particularly when it comes to a public forum post that is readily available for your perusal. If you're having trouble comprehending simple English, then have one of your fluffers on the forum explain it to you.
The first step in positive change is acknowledging that you have a problem. My pointing out that you're behaving like a narcissist with control issues might assist you in recognising that you have negative personality traits that require correction. I'm not hopeful, though. Narcissists and control freaks are usually resistant to any form of correction or change.
No thanks, I don't feel any inclination to do so. Let me guess, is this the part where you give me a 24 hour ultimatum to answer your drivel?
Bells said:
Oh for Christ's sake, Leopold requested to be permabanned (a solution which would suit everyone involved), but instead of simply granting his request, James and his sycophants seem fixated on continuing this charade. And now you are threatening to petition to have leopold permabanned because he is... screaming and yelling that he wants a permaban?
By the way Bells, you've implicitly or explicitly threatened to ban me, what, four times now? What ever came of that?
tali89:
Ah, see what you've done now? You were flying nicely under the radar out there, and now you've brought yourself to my attention again. Couldn't help yourself, I guess.
You have a lot of unresolved anger there. This is presumably because of a prior bad experience you had on the forum. And that's what all this unrequested character analysis is really about, isn't it? It's about you, not me.
I would suggest that, instead of projecting your issues onto me, you might do better to turn your lens on yourself and to sort through why you are such an angry young man. It seems to me that you could use some professional help with that, if you're not already getting it. It must affect your life outside the internet (or do you keep it all bottled up and only let loose online?).
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. You imagine that because you judge yourself to be the smartest person in the room with the people you usually socialise with, that means that you're just pretty damn smart compared to the general population out there. I say you need to broaden your horizons, mix with people who know more than you do about stuff and who have more life experience than you do. You might even develop some healthy humility and a better sense of your place in the world.
Poor old leopold. For a minute there, he might have thought you cared about him, but this is all about you.
Shall we exchange some more personal analysis and advice, or do you want to leave it at that for now?
Ah, see what you've done now? You were flying nicely under the radar out there, and now you've brought yourself to my attention again. Couldn't help yourself, I guess.
You have a lot of unresolved anger there. This is presumably because of a prior bad experience you had on the forum. And that's what all this unrequested character analysis is really about, isn't it? It's about you, not me.
I would suggest that, instead of projecting your issues onto me, you might do better to turn your lens on yourself and to sort through why you are such an angry young man. It seems to me that you could use some professional help with that, if you're not already getting it. It must affect your life outside the internet (or do you keep it all bottled up and only let loose online?).
Indeed. The first step in positive change is acknowledging that you have a problem. Easy advice to give somebody else, but so hard to apply to oneself, eh?
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. You imagine that because you judge yourself to be the smartest person in the room with the people you usually socialise with, that means that you're just pretty damn smart compared to the general population out there. I say you need to broaden your horizons, mix with people who know more than you do about stuff and who have more life experience than you do. You might even develop some healthy humility and a better sense of your place in the world.
Poor old leopold. For a minute there, he might have thought you cared about him, but this is all about you.
Shall we exchange some more personal analysis and advice, or do you want to leave it at that for now?
Last edited:
Well said....I will have you know I have spoken to Dave privately he is an extremely special wise an intelligent young man.
What I notice about the discussions of evolution, are the evolutionists always seem to lump all opposition to the consensus history theory of Evolution, as Creationism. It is like an on-off switch. After the blanket is thrown over everything in opposition, then tries to contrast itself to only Creationism. Nobody wants to addresses the reasons why the history of evolution leaves out physical chemical data like the global impact of water.
The analogy is the out of shape jock bragging how good he as at baseball, by comparing himself to the members of the chess club. He uses this contrast to create an illusion of rising above, by comparing himself to those who he believes are standing in a baseball talent hole. He will not compare himself to the varsity baseball team, because that is not a favorable comparison needed for the history illusion.
Creationism is misunderstood. Creationism is symbolic of the evolutionary change into modern humans; civilization. It was not a biological change. The change was connected to the impact of an invention of written language on the brain; the word.. Language has an impact on thinking, with written language allowing a fixed set of collective thoughts that do not change.
Spoken language is not the same as written language when it comes to study and learning. This is why we have text books in school and not just lectures. The filters of the mind, created by written language, made the new human mind much more versatile and intelligent, leading to the needs of civilization. This was not due to changes in the DNA, but due to light/energy reflected off paper and stone.
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.
Spoken language appears earlier than written language. The pre-humans had spoken language and could pass forward knowledge by words of mouth, but that is not as effective, on a large scale, as being able to read, write, and study. Spoken language allows some coordination among the brightest members who are good at language, but places it places limit on who can participate. Civilization and some inventions appear, but they don't persist. The next generation may not have the best people. Once the invention of reading and writing appears, there is more time to think, organize and reflect, allowing the social coordination to expand. Now civilization sticks. Adam and Eve were among the first modern nerds. This will not show up in the DNA but only in the filters of the mind; spirit.
As civilization forms due to coordination and invention, this begins to uproot the pre-humans from their more natural environment and their natural ways, from which they had evolved. The result is the instinct within the DNA becomes repressed due to the new range of choices. The bible also discusses this repression and various stresses placed on the DNA, as willpower leads to unnatural behavior.
This is an important part of evolution in that now the brain is leading the DNA. In modern science, the brain allows us to slice and dice the DNA down to individual genes.
The analogy is the out of shape jock bragging how good he as at baseball, by comparing himself to the members of the chess club. He uses this contrast to create an illusion of rising above, by comparing himself to those who he believes are standing in a baseball talent hole. He will not compare himself to the varsity baseball team, because that is not a favorable comparison needed for the history illusion.
Creationism is misunderstood. Creationism is symbolic of the evolutionary change into modern humans; civilization. It was not a biological change. The change was connected to the impact of an invention of written language on the brain; the word.. Language has an impact on thinking, with written language allowing a fixed set of collective thoughts that do not change.
Spoken language is not the same as written language when it comes to study and learning. This is why we have text books in school and not just lectures. The filters of the mind, created by written language, made the new human mind much more versatile and intelligent, leading to the needs of civilization. This was not due to changes in the DNA, but due to light/energy reflected off paper and stone.
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.
Spoken language appears earlier than written language. The pre-humans had spoken language and could pass forward knowledge by words of mouth, but that is not as effective, on a large scale, as being able to read, write, and study. Spoken language allows some coordination among the brightest members who are good at language, but places it places limit on who can participate. Civilization and some inventions appear, but they don't persist. The next generation may not have the best people. Once the invention of reading and writing appears, there is more time to think, organize and reflect, allowing the social coordination to expand. Now civilization sticks. Adam and Eve were among the first modern nerds. This will not show up in the DNA but only in the filters of the mind; spirit.
As civilization forms due to coordination and invention, this begins to uproot the pre-humans from their more natural environment and their natural ways, from which they had evolved. The result is the instinct within the DNA becomes repressed due to the new range of choices. The bible also discusses this repression and various stresses placed on the DNA, as willpower leads to unnatural behavior.
This is an important part of evolution in that now the brain is leading the DNA. In modern science, the brain allows us to slice and dice the DNA down to individual genes.