Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[shunyadragon]

Animal languages contain a few thousand words. The first Ancient Language speakers had only a few thousand words. Only humans had a language complicated enough to build directly on the work of previous generations. As such learning increased and as it did the language became geometrically more complex. By the time they used "The Theory of Change in Species" to invent agriculture there were ten or twelve thousand words including no abstractions and mostly just nouns.

Your information involving the nature of animal language and ability to communicate is limited, Yes humans evolved more advanced abilities to communicate, but you are misrepresenting the extent and nature of communication among animals.

Whales use a variety of sounds to communicate, including vocalizations, surface-generated sounds, and clicks:

• Vocalizations: Humpback whales make low grumbles and high chirps. Killer whales have different dialects within family groups, which can vary in tone or frequency. Sperm whales within a clan share vocalization patterns to communicate, but a mother and her newborn use a distinct pattern to identify each other.
• Surface-generated sounds: Humpback whales make breaching sounds and "pec-slaps".
  
  Clicks: Sperm whales make clicks called codas, which researchers believe are part of a phonetic alphabet. In a 2024 study published in Nature Communications, researchers analyzed over 8,700 codas and identified four basic components that make up the alphabet.
  

Some of the primates do carry on learned behavior to their of spring for generations. References available.

Not only does Ancient language break Zipf's law and Heeps Law (et al) but it also contained no abstractions making inductive reasoning impossible. These are facts and that you haven't seen them before is testament not to my being wrong but to the fact that all anthropological assumptions are wrong. Linguists failed you because just like you and me they saw what they believed instead of reality. You want to ignore all these facts because on some level you know that language is impossible without abstractions and our race can't function without induction. So you believe in Darwin, instinct, intelligence, and the old wives tales that underlie most modern science.

Your acrid pejorative attitude toward science reflects your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

Language evolves just like all life on earth and does not break of your imaginary notions of laws.

 

[cladking]

Can you cite any experts that back you up? I'm skeptical.

Have you ever noticed how I make fun of the term 'et al"? It is Latin and it means "and others" and is normally used only by educated individuals as a weapon against heresy or disagreement. It is chiefly a sign of recognition between the individuals who screech at heretics like the pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It is PC for scholars. When a scholar or a Peer is excommunicated he can no longer be an et al and is relegated to oblivion.

Nobody supports my work. I'm rather proud of it frankly. If anyone agreed with me I might have to change my mind anyway.

I never claimed anyone, any scientist, any layman, or any other crackpot supports anything I believe. I said all experiment supports my beliefs. I said all evidence can be interpreted to support my beliefs.

I doubt I'll ever get support because the world is divvied up between science and religion and they are both right but even moreso they are both wrong. The world is nothing like we imagine it to be. We were spoon fed nonsense that we used to invent reductionistic science and organized religion. Most individuals are firmly in one camp or the other and many who seem to straddle the line aren't really.

 

[F1fan]

Have you ever noticed how I make fun of the term 'et al"?

No. I just notice how you have your own unprofessional opinions, and can't cite any experts who back you up.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's common for sworn evidence of A to be met with sworn evidence of not-A ─ most civil and some criminal legal disputes are of that kind.

Civil suites also have to rely corroborating evidence. If not the judge may rely on Solomon's methods.

And as RF shows, you don't need to be in a courtroom ─ though we're not under oath here, merely on our honor.

As far as RF goes agendas rule outside reasonable dialogues with factual reliable references.

In the future AI may rule.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever noticed how I make fun of the term 'et al"? It is Latin and it means "and others" and is normally used only by educated individuals as a weapon against heresy or disagreement. It is chiefly a sign of recognition between the individuals who screech at heretics like the pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It is PC for scholars. When a scholar or a Peer is excommunicated he can no longer be an et al and is relegated to oblivion.

Nobody supports my work. I'm rather proud of it frankly. If anyone agreed with me I might have to change my mind anyway.

I never claimed anyone, any scientist, any layman, or any other crackpot supports anything I believe. I said all experiment supports my beliefs. I said all evidence can be interpreted to support my beliefs.

I doubt I'll ever get support because the world is divvied up between science and religion and they are both right but even moreso they are both wrong. The world is nothing like we imagine it to be. We were spoon fed nonsense that we used to invent reductionistic science and organized religion. Most individuals are firmly in one camp or the other and many who seem to straddle the line aren't really.

Huh?!?!!?

 

[cladking]

oh. So you believe it's a natural type mutation that gives humans the ability to teach language and differences, etc. (right?)

No.

It was a natural mutation that gave proto-homo sapiens the ability to suddenly change into home sapiens who all shared the exact same language which was metaphysical, binary, and representative but more importantly sufficiently complex to pass complex learning to each successive generation. I suppose some of these individuals might speak relatively fluent Chimpanzee or Zebra so could teach it to other humans. I don't know.

But that ancient language is practically gone. Now we have seven billion confused languages that are mutually unintelligible.

I suppose I should answer 'yes'. But bear in mind that I don't presume to assume that all things are "natural" rather than supernatural. I simply seek natural answers because I believe for some unknown reason that reality is a manifestation of logic.

But birds and bees do this instinctively without the ability to teach previous generations.

Bird and bee languages contain only a few hundred or thousand words so are too simple to pass down highly complex knowledge.

Once again -- the "gap" between the ability of humans and bees and birds in their understanding of life is outstanding

I believe this is principally perception. The complexity of bird behavior and thought is little less complex than a college professor. The difference is not in intelligence, awareness, consciousness, or innate ability, the difference is almost solely in language where we still have the connections between the wernickes area and higher brain functions. A bird understands what it needs to be a bird, to be conscious but we do not.

I believe it is a given from a Higher Power, namely God. But that's me and how I perceive it.

I don't know. It's as good a guess with as much evidence as any other but I don't know.

Yet you speak of the Tower of Babel.

I believe most of the Bible is literally true. Much of it is a confused translation from Ancient Language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've cited numerous facts about the brain but you can't seem to see them.

It hardly matters if you have. What you haven't done is show how you know certain things as fact with any means to have established that. You certainly don't provide anything.

There's also simple logic like why would humans need two speech centers and one isn't even natural since its exact location varies from individual to individual. I've also cited numerous things said by the brains (homo sapiens) I claim existed with a single speech center.

No. No you have not demonstrated anything. You have made claims without any reason for anyone to consider them. You don't even think that the current species of humans, Homo sapiens, currently exists. It doesn't even make sense to claims something like that.

Over and over I cite facts like the explosion in the number of brain cells at two years of age and the simple fact tht these tend to all fall into disuse/.

First I'm hearing about and the relevance of this 'fact' remains disconnected and meaningless.

In one breath you say the brain requires nature to do extra work to operate and maintain and in the next you simply ignore the fact that young children grow brain cells for nothing at all.

No. I've made no mention of any of this. It is something new that you came up with to divert from the fact that you haven't done anything except claim some crap.

I told you what these brain cells were for: They helped in acquisition of metaphysical language that our species,

Perhaps you claimed this thing you say here at some point in the past. It doesn't matter, it is just stuff you say that is a somehow a fact for you, but not anything you've connected to anything corresponding to what is known.

homo omniscirencis,

A species you made up. It is meaningless. It is recognized only by you. It possesses defining characters that exist only as your other unsupported claims. Nothing that tells anyone anything of any value or connects it to anything.

no longer can even understand when it's explained to us.

I agree. I don't understand when someone tells me some baseless claims and presents it as revealed truth.

ALL the facts and ALL the experiments fit my theory whereas only Darwin's assumptions fit his theory.

Tells us nothing. A claim without meaning.

I could go on all day with the facts and when I'm done you'd tell me that I have no facts.

I'm sure you could. I would say that you haven't established what you claim are facts to be facts. You have a revealed truth that is real to you, but there is nothing to make it real for anyone else. Your say so isn't good enough.

"Evidence" and "facts" mean nothing at all because every individual sees what he believes and then calls what he sees "evidence".

And your escape hatch. If this were a valid claim, then nothing you say has meaning even in your own frame of reference. It is contradictory.

You evidence is irrelevant to reality and only relevant to your premises and assumptions.

It isn't my evidence and reality that is in dire, desperate need for support. It is yours. You say much and say nothing at all from what I have seen. It is just the same claims repeated. The same excuses why those claims are rejected. You blame everyone else for failing to accept your revealed truth as fact without question. You go into this current mode when it is questioned and the glaring holes and emptiness is pointed out. I'm reminded of that fish out of water, flopping frantically across the beach hoping the next flop will be in water. I don't see any water for you.

There is simply nothing in what you promote as factual that can be the seeds of a rational discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

It was a natural mutation that gave proto-homo sapiens

What is a proto-homo sapiens? Show us.

the ability to suddenly change into home sapiens who all shared the exact same language which was metaphysical, binary, and representative but more importantly sufficiently complex to pass complex learning to each successive generation.

Show us all of this. Show us how you know it is fact.

I suppose some of these individuals might speak relatively fluent Chimpanzee or Zebra so could teach it to other humans.

Show us this chimpanzee and zebra language.

I don't know.

I agree.

But that ancient language is practically gone.

Is this 'ancient language' ancient Egyptian? Show us the evidence it is 40,000 years old or more. The language. Not some symbols scratched on cave walls.

Now we have seven billion confused languages that are mutually unintelligible.

A meaningless claim. It is not mutually unintelligible. I am able to see what you are doing with words.

I suppose I should answer 'yes'. But bear in mind that I don't presume to assume that all things are "natural" rather than supernatural. I simply seek natural answers because I believe for some unknown reason that reality is a manifestation of logic.

Show us that these things you claim even exist and have a natural origin?

Bird and bee languages contain only a few hundred or thousand words so are too simple to pass down highly complex knowledge.

Demonstrate this bird and bee vocabulary for us.

I believe this is principally perception. The complexity of bird behavior and thought is little less complex than a college professor. The difference is not in intelligence, awareness, consciousness, or innate ability, the difference is almost solely in language where we still have the connections between the wernickes area and higher brain functions. A bird understands what it needs to be a bird, to be conscious but we do not.



I don't know. It's as good a guess with as much evidence as any other but I don't know.



I believe most of the Bible is literally true. Much of it is a confused translation from Ancient Language.

There isn't any real point in continuing this. What you believe may be strange as beliefs go, but nothing substantial to discuss.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the difference is I don't believe in any supernatural forces. You might say that just as all people make sense so too does mother nature. I believe logic underlies nature, math, etc. Each homo omnisciencis despite being confused still makes sense in terms of his premises.



I said this and it does. The fact is that we see virtually identical versions of everything until a sudden change appears and usually at the bottoms of sedimentary layers.



I don't believe in punctuated equilibrium and never studied it. I've merely said several times that it is the least wrong of biological belief systems. I have no idea just how wrong it is. I know that I don't know much of anything except the formatting of consciousness, change in species, language, reality, etc. You'll have to ask an expert if you want details or perform experiment. Experts know everything. Ask a linguist why ancient writing breaks Zipf's Law and has no abstractions. They'll tell you.


Every single reader here knows I've provided dozens of these many many times.



There is no such thing as "species" because every individual is different, even identical twins. But "species" is a word, an abstraction that has facilitated communication since the Tower of Babel. It's a handy word despite having no real world referent. When someone is adding apples and oranges it especially comes in handy. When someone believes he has determined "The Origin of Species" based not even on reductionistic science but on wishful thinking and old wives tales it's also a very valuable word, if for no other reason to point out that it has no referent.

I've no more interest in attempting to further discuss science with you and I've no interest in your belief system. You are free to believe these things that you do, but I don't see any value to delving into the baseless and considering it valid. You don't provide evidence, reason or explanation in support of your claims. You just make them and get agitated when those claims are not accepted as universal truths.

There simply is no basis for us to have any sort of discussion.

Best of luck to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you ever noticed how I make fun of the term 'et al"? It is Latin and it means "and others" and is normally used only by educated individuals as a weapon against heresy or disagreement. It is chiefly a sign of recognition between the individuals who screech at heretics like the pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It is PC for scholars. When a scholar or a Peer is excommunicated he can no longer be an et al and is relegated to oblivion.

Nobody supports my work. I'm rather proud of it frankly. If anyone agreed with me I might have to change my mind anyway.

I never claimed anyone, any scientist, any layman, or any other crackpot supports anything I believe. I said all experiment supports my beliefs. I said all evidence can be interpreted to support my beliefs.

I doubt I'll ever get support because the world is divvied up between science and religion and they are both right but even moreso they are both wrong. The world is nothing like we imagine it to be. We were spoon fed nonsense that we used to invent reductionistic science and organized religion. Most individuals are firmly in one camp or the other and many who seem to straddle the line aren't really.

So in other words, if I understand your correctly, you are making your own rules and making things up. ?

 

[John53]

So in other words, if I understand your correctly, you are making your own rules and making things up. ?

We finally agree on something. It's a miracle.

 

[shunyadragon]

We finally agree on something. It's a miracle.

Lightning struck twice. First like ever for @YoursTrue

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

It was a natural mutation that gave proto-homo sapiens the ability to suddenly change into home sapiens who all shared the exact same language which was metaphysical, binary, and representative but more importantly sufficiently complex to pass complex learning to each successive generation. I suppose some of these individuals might speak relatively fluent Chimpanzee or Zebra so could teach it to other humans. I don't know.

But that ancient language is practically gone. Now we have seven billion confused languages that are mutually unintelligible.

I suppose I should answer 'yes'. But bear in mind that I don't presume to assume that all things are "natural" rather than supernatural. I simply seek natural answers because I believe for some unknown reason that reality is a manifestation of logic.



Bird and bee languages contain only a few hundred or thousand words so are too simple to pass down highly complex knowledge.



I believe this is principally perception. The complexity of bird behavior and thought is little less complex than a college professor. The difference is not in intelligence, awareness, consciousness, or innate ability, the difference is almost solely in language where we still have the connections between the wernickes area and higher brain functions. A bird understands what it needs to be a bird, to be conscious but we do not.



I don't know. It's as good a guess with as much evidence as any other but I don't know.



I believe most of the Bible is literally true. Much of it is a confused translation from Ancient Language.

I believe the Bible is true. I don't understand everything it says. Which means I cannot explain everything I read. Only that which God allows me to understand. I won't go into it right now but things like eternal torture in hell(fire) is something I have come to realize is a twisting of what the Bible says and is not true, as far as I am concerned in reference to what the Bible actually says. There are other things that religious people may believe that I also do not subscribe to. Whether or not animals have their own special language makes sense to me, but since I also believe mankind will inherit the earth I believe we will get to know creation well.

 

[YoursTrue]

@cladking -- I think I understand you to an extent. You are expressing your ideas. Some of them make sense to me; some of them do not. But anyway, you take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

We finally agree on something. It's a miracle.

I think I understand cladking's ideas. And she (?) makes sense in many of them. to me, that is.

 

[cladking]

Wait a minute. You believe the account about the Tower of Babel?

In our language that are an infinite numbers of ways to say anything.

Ancient Language had severe limitations on how anything could be said. I believe the story of the Tower of Babel is a confused translation of Ancient Language. As such it is literally true but must be parsed properly to be understood. Without context even proper parsing can not provide many missing details.

There was a single universal language that was mutually intelligible and thousands of local pidgin languages spoken by the illiterate. The various nation states were each led by individuals who spoke the universal language. About 2000 BC there were no longer enough AL speakers to operate the states so in every place the official language became the local pidgin language and chaos ensued. We still speak confused languages but vocabularies have expanded and science has taken the reigns. We don't want to notice the confusion so we delude ourselves into believing there is none.

 

[cladking]

I'm sure you could. I would say that you haven't established what you claim are facts to be facts. You have a revealed truth that is real to you, but there is nothing to make it real for anyone else.

I certainly get the impression you believe anything I say is false unless you can cite an expert whom agrees. So when I say kids grow brain cells that have no function because they are only good to learn metaphysical language it is impossible for that to be true. Ipso facto they grow no brain cells and "metaphysical" language is a contradiction in terms since we all know language is perfect. Never mind my definitions and nevermind you have no evidence children grow no such worthless brain cells. Nevermind experiment and facts that can be interpreted to support my theory. Nevermind my definition of consciousness and reality.

The thing is kids do grow brain cells and most go unused because the human brain no longer operates like a computer or a Chimpanzee. It can no longer make sense of things like "It is he who is come against N., (though) N. does not go against him, the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.". It wouldn't occur to us that this was actually written in a language that can not be translated even though the vocabulary is the same as is used today. It can never be translated because it is formatted according to the laws of nature instead of the beliefs of the speaker.

 

[cladking]

...but since I also believe mankind will inherit the earth I believe we will get to know creation well.

Indeed, it is the meek who will come to see the earth always belonged to us and the usurpers are the anomalies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some things are almost like figuring that Tiktaalik proves or certifies or verifies fish coming out of water little by little. By, of course, mutational situations by chance and then by confirmation by some scientists because -- (although there's no real true verification) it seems logical to them. As if -- it's true -- that mutations happened causing water dwelling fish to move to live on the land.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I certainly get the impression you believe anything I say is false unless you can cite an expert whom agrees.

I have no reason to consider anything you claim to be factual. You can't provide any support for your claims that isn't itself in need of support.

So when I say kids grow brain cells that have no function because they are only good to learn metaphysical language it is impossible for that to be true. Ipso facto they grow no brain cells and "metaphysical" language is a contradiction in terms since we all know language is perfect. Never mind my definitions and nevermind you have no evidence children grow no such worthless brain cells. Nevermind experiment and facts that can be interpreted to support my theory. Nevermind my definition of consciousness and reality.

It doesn't make any sense. It's baseless.

The thing is kids do grow brain cells and most go unused because the human brain no longer operates like a computer or a Chimpanzee.

This makes no sense. Just comparing a brain to a computer or chimpanzee as if that means something that stands on its own.

It can no longer make sense of things like "It is he who is come against N., (though) N. does not go against him, the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.". It wouldn't occur to us that this was actually written in a language that can not be translated even though the vocabulary is the same as is used today. It can never be translated because it is formatted according to the laws of nature instead of the beliefs of the speaker.

You don't offer anything to discuss. You don't provide any support for your claims in the form of evidence, reason or explanation. There is simply nothing there and no reason to continue. You can post whatever you want, but it is just you making claims. Nothing to discuss.