by StopTheTears 59 Replies latest jw friends
Us Kiwi's have always known we're further up the evolutionary scale than you guy's . . . that's why so many of us come over there to go on the dole and interbreed with you . . . we're trying to help.
And here were we Aussies thinking you were here for the endless summers and hot women!
Understandable error BP . . . truth is we're a truly selfless and altruistic lot, dedicated to our task, regardless of the conditions we operate under.
You know, what astounds me about the original post is that STT apparently thinks that, among all the immense diversity of aspects of life on this planet...somehow....it's the diversity of *language* that triumphantly proves creationism.
uhhh....
Yeah, we can believe that all those millions of species of plants, animals, bugs etc were the product of biological evolution. But when confronted with human language...boy...we just have to admit *that* has to be a product of supernatural intervention.
Only someone who had either never been around animals or made a concerted effort to not pay any attention to them whatsoever, would claim that animals don't communicate with each other. Just because they don't have the physical apparatus we have for vocal communication we do doesn't mean they don't have communication skills.
Thanks Murray,
As it happens I have done quite a lot of research over that last year or so. And I still think that to say it evolves is to imply that it is improving or getting better. This is not the strict definition of the word evolve. But this is what the word implys.
When the word evolve is used to describe humans it implys that we have improved. Personally I don't see this as the case otherwise we would be naturally eliminating diseases not dying from them with no improvement other than the supposed help from scientific research.
All I am saying is that language changes. Some would even say that it is deteriorating. All a matter of opinion really.
There is no doubt that language is different now from the times of Shakespare. But in whose opinion is it better or worse? I would say it is just different. Humans are intellilgent beings, of course language is going to change and develop
Language can "evolve" over time within a culture. Doesn't mean God can't change it or that He didn't create it.
On the subject of "evolution", there is no logical reason why a single cell organism would grow into anything else. There is no logical reason why a more advanced creature just above that would ever "evolve" eyes, not knowing what light was in the first place. Assuming single celled organisms have no eyes, and that was a starting point for the argument here, there is no reason whatsoever for any one organism to evolve eyes. And it has never been shown that mutations, accidental as they may be, have ever created on organ of any kind. There has to be intent. Even the leading evolutionists admit all of this.
bumped for research
I haven't read anything by him, but does not Stephen Pinker write on this ?
The ignorance of people on this board never ceases to amaze and sadden me
So many fallacies in the statement by witnessdater...
On the subject of "evolution", there is no logical reason why a single cell organism would grow into anything else.
It called mutation
There is no logical reason why a more advanced creature just above that would ever "evolve" eyes, not knowing what light was in the first place.
The process is well established and is evidenced by the phylogeny.
Assuming single celled organisms have no eyes, and that was a starting point for the argument here, there is no reason whatsoever for any one organism to evolve eyes.
Photo-recption / senistivity impart an enormous advantage over organisms that do not exhibit it - surely that's reason enough.
And it has never been shown that mutations, accidental as they may be, have ever created on organ of any kind.
You need to educate yourself on how mutation leads to evolution the meme below may help you understand the basic premise of your fallacy here.
There has to be intent. Even the leading evolutionists admit all of this.
Evolution is a blind process with no intent. Who are the "leading scientists" you allude to that would disagree with this?
*edited for correction of some appalling grammatical errors on my part.*
Whatever happened to still thinking? Is she ok?
