Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

Metaphysical language is "linguistic". Like "all" language there are non verbal components but Ancient Language was as dependent on words as are modern languages. It can not be translated.



Chomsky is wrong. Did I ever mention that all science is wrong and did I not list "linguistics" as one of the three "sciences" that is most wrong? Darwin was more right than Chomsky! Ancient Language was hard wired modern language is not. It is acquired when we are babies. All of its rules are acquired.

There is surprising variation in the structures of modern languages. Some actually have some similarities to Ancient Language such as Basque, Hawaiian, and Irish. Most of these similarities are superficial but they are interesting. My guess is that these similarities are the result of the hard wiring reasserting itself.



I don't know. My hypothesis is that the wiring of the brocas area is reflected in the way people think. I'd remind you that there is no understanding of "consciousness" and not even a working definition. I'm on my own here. I have a well fleshed definition but exactly how this is propagated in an animal brain is beyond my ken and it's virtually certain that it is more complex in homo omnisciencis. Even if I'm right some of this stuff will not be understood for decades.



Not quite. There is a gap where experience and knowledge come into play. But it's kindda like muscle memory so it's fast.



I have no clue what to say. Evidence is real even if it disagrees with our beliefs.

View attachment 76590
This is evidence for a universal, metaphysical, and binary language unique to homo sapiens. It was carried everywhere humans went for 40,000 years until the "tower of babel".

The symbols don’t tell us anything, cladking.

These are just list of symbols found in common in certain regions; the chart only displayed only the individual symbols, but they not displayed in any order and more importantly not grouped together in pattern of any symbolic language.

Even Egyptian hieroglyphs, there are recognized patterns and orders to them that you would know it is the language.

All your chart is showing, are individual symbols, found in 15 different regions. The chart is not showing, grouping of them into words.

If I remember correctly, there are database of about 5000 individual symbols in around 450 caves (not sure the exact numbers of caves and symbols). Since, I have not read any of the books, I don’t know what they think they had decipher.

But posting this chart here, is meaningless.

You need to show some of these symbols grouped together, IN A SINGLE CAVE, to show they meant something, preferably inscribed at the same cave wall.

For instance. It does no good to 4 different symbols in on cave, but 1 symbol near the cave entry, another 2 symbols about 20 metres away on another wall, and the last symbol in the deepest level of cave of yet another different wall. Seriously, how would say they are language, when they are grouped so far apart, and possibly not inscribed by the same person.

You cannot assume that a single cave with few symbols, were inscribed at a single time, by one person, if those symbols weren’t group together, using the same charcoal or ochre paint. If they weren’t group together, it is possible for 2 or more people drew them centuries or thousands of years apart.

If we looked at the Pyramid Text in the Unas’ pyramid at Saqqara (5th dynasty), you will see some filled with hieroglyphs, you would know they are written language, composed during Unas’ reign.

But the chart you posted in your reply, are just symbols found in common. The chart doesn’t which caves have which symbols, nor tell us WHEN each of these caves’ symbols were drawn.

Europe is a large region, with many hundreds of caves. It does no good to list 40 symbols, if you don’t know exactly which caves have which symbols. Europe’s 40 different symbols is just gibberish as it displayed in your chart.

 

[Audie]

Well, you start off with extraordinary claims that are not correct. And some of the standard creationist tropes about people getting fired for supporting alternatives. The evidence indicates that anyone that got in trouble was over teaching their beliefs as fact and it was very few.

There is a controversy in science regarding modification of the theory of evolution, but the legitimate scientists don't reject what Darwin founded. They are still going to go with a theory of evolution, just one modified to fit what they feel isn't explained by the existing theory.

Then you mention the views of lawyers on the theory of evolution. What a lawyer thought was what started the ID movement to get religion dressed up like science so they could teach Christianity in school at public expense.

The whole tenor of your post was talking down to us as if we don't know what scientists are.

It seemed very closed-minded to me and worthy of sarcasm.

ERO frubal. ( extremely right on)

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks to all for offering your thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Upon reviewing the posts and reflecting on the content as well as positions, I have concluded that the Bible is the best book in the world. So thanks again.

 

[Audie]

Thanks to all for offering your thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Upon reviewing the posts and reflecting on the content as well as positions, I have concluded that the Bible is the best book in the world. So thanks again.

Maybe you never read anything else

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe you never read anything else

LOL, now that made me laugh. Anyway, have a good one. Bye for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The symbols don’t tell us anything, cladking.

These are just list of symbols found in common in certain regions; the chart only displayed only the individual symbols, but they not displayed in any order and more importantly not grouped together in pattern of any symbolic language.

Even Egyptian hieroglyphs, there are recognized patterns and orders to them that you would know it is the language.

All your chart is showing, are individual symbols, found in 15 different regions. The chart is not showing, grouping of them into words.

If I remember correctly, there are database of about 5000 individual symbols in around 450 caves (not sure the exact numbers of caves and symbols). Since, I have not read any of the books, I don’t know what they think they had decipher.

But posting this chart here, is meaningless.

You need to show some of these symbols grouped together, IN A SINGLE CAVE, to show they meant something, preferably inscribed at the same cave wall.

For instance. It does no good to 4 different symbols in on cave, but 1 symbol near the cave entry, another 2 symbols about 20 metres away on another wall, and the last symbol in the deepest level of cave of yet another different wall. Seriously, how would say they are language, when they are grouped so far apart, and possibly not inscribed by the same person.

You cannot assume that a single cave with few symbols, were inscribed at a single time, by one person, if those symbols weren’t group together, using the same charcoal or ochre paint. If they weren’t group together, it is possible for 2 or more people drew them centuries or thousands of years apart.

If we looked at the Pyramid Text in the Unas’ pyramid at Saqqara (5th dynasty), you will see some filled with hieroglyphs, you would know they are written language, composed during Unas’ reign.

But the chart you posted in your reply, are just symbols found in common. The chart doesn’t which caves have which symbols, nor tell us WHEN each of these caves’ symbols were drawn.

Europe is a large region, with many hundreds of caves. It does no good to list 40 symbols, if you don’t know exactly which caves have which symbols. Europe’s 40 different symbols is just gibberish as it displayed in your chart.

There is actual research being done about this by experts in paleoanthropology. My curiosity is aroused, so I'm looking at work by scholars that study these things and don't imagine a fan fiction version where an ancient super society existed with special powers of the mind or whatever. It makes sense that there would an evolution to the origin of written language in humans. It isn't like anyone believes that the earliest language sprang fully formed into existence or that there is the need for some sort of special superhuman to develop from a spoken language to a symbolic series of pictographs that, while untranslatable, likely represented things that our primitive ancestors encountered regularly. Probably beliefs as well as things they though about and things they had to deal with on a practical basis.

But if I want to satisfy that curiosity, I'll go to people that present evidence and give reasoned arguments for their conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ERO frubal. ( extremely right on)

I've come to expect being talked down to by creationists that have stopped learning, believing they know everything. They can believe in God and still learn about the world around I do. I do it. Others can too.

I think all this rationalization about claiming to present evidence that no one can is just a neat little word game to cover up the fact that there is no evidence to present and never will be. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to provide brain scans or sections of the brains of ancient people from 40,000 years ago to support wild claims about the conditions of the brains of those people. Claiming the existence of some physical aspect of ancient human brains without ever seeing evidence of those brains is ridiculous.

Any of us can make wild claims with no evidence, but there is no value in doing that.

 

[John53]

You can ask for evidence. But how often do you have to ask and get nothing before it is clear that is the only thing you will get.

Yes. That seems to be the way. You can make a post that talks down to others, but don't dare be sarcastic in response.

I suspect they are here to proselytise and cry martyr if anyone dares not to believe without question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've come to expect being talked down to by creationists that have stopped learning, believing they know everything. They can believe in God and still learn about the world around I do. I do it. Others can too.

I think all this rationalization about claiming to present evidence that no one can is just a neat little word game to cover up the fact that there is no evidence to present and never will be. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to provide brain scans or sections of the brains of ancient people from 40,000 years ago to support wild claims about the conditions of the brains of those people. Claiming the existence of some physical aspect of ancient human brains without ever seeing evidence of those brains is ridiculous.

Any of us can make wild claims with no evidence, but there is no value in doing that.

I surely don't "know everything." Your remarkable put-down is interesting to say the least. Bye again -- thank you again, by the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

I suspect they are here to proselytise and cry martyr if anyone dares not to believe without question.

Not true about me. I was questioning why people believe in the ToE. And from what I have seen AND read, I have been convinced thanks to many here that not only can "science" be wrong, but the theory doesn't add up. Bye for now and take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've come to expect being talked down to by creationists that have stopped learning, believing they know everything. They can believe in God and still learn about the world around I do. I do it. Others can too.

I think all this rationalization about claiming to present evidence that no one can is just a neat little word game to cover up the fact that there is no evidence to present and never will be. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to provide brain scans or sections of the brains of ancient people from 40,000 years ago to support wild claims about the conditions of the brains of those people. Claiming the existence of some physical aspect of ancient human brains without ever seeing evidence of those brains is ridiculous.

Any of us can make wild claims with no evidence, but there is no value in doing that.

Facts are facts, by the way. Facts can be misrepresented to be as if they are true, but philosophizing about this is not my forte in life. I've seen enough here to convince me that I can understand how "science" has helped people in various ways, but projecting about how we all got here is not one of them. And, as said so many times, there is no "proof" in science, particularly ascertaining what happened looonnnggg ago without a major intelligent force. Yup, that's what I have concluded from reading the posts here. Thanks again. Have a good one. Claims + presumed evidence do not "prove" a theory*. Bye again. *Want to argue that?

 

[John53]

Not true about me. I was questioning why people believe in the ToE. And from what I have seen AND read, I have been convinced thanks to many here that not only can "science" be wrong, but the theory doesn't add up. Bye for now and take care.

Science is often wrong, to quote The Myth Busters "failure is an option". The difference is science works to find and correct its errors. Religion is dogma that could never admit its failings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true about me. I was questioning why people believe in the ToE. And from what I have seen AND read, I have been convinced thanks to many here that not only can "science" be wrong, but the theory doesn't add up. Bye for now and take care.

And yet you cannot support that belief. Meanwhile creationism keeps losing court cases because though judges may not understand the science fully, they do understand the concept of evidence. There is none for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is often wrong, to quote The Myth Busters "failure is an option". The difference is science works to find and correct its errors. Religion is dogma that could never admit its failings.

Science being wrong is one of its strengths at times. When we find errors in science we learn from them A "failed experiment" quite often has the keys to success. Dogmatic beliefs fall are generally held in contempt because they strive to make their claims untestable. Making them "Not even wrong". There is nothing to be learned from creationism as a result. It is just a waste of time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is often wrong, to quote The Myth Busters "failure is an option". The difference is science works to find and correct its errors. Religion is dogma that could never admit its failings.

Not every religion has God's approval. Many are loathe (here) to admit that. Only God can lead a person to what He wants. Marie Curie was adamant in her search and she literally gave up her life in order to get to the bottom of what she was seeking. God is the judgment maker. He is the Judge.

 

[John53]

Not every religion has God's approval. Many are loathe (here) to admit that.

Like you

 

[YoursTrue]

Like you

So you think all religions have God's approval?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think all religions have God's approval?

Only one:

 

[John53]

So you think all religions have God's approval?

I think every religion believes they are the only ones who have it right because of some special esoteric ability. Show me the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think every religion believes they are the only ones who have it right because of some special esoteric ability. Show me the evidence.

I'm not sure -- did you say you are an atheist? OK, I see you say you are an atheist. Here's the thing about evidence. There is evidence that smallpox vaccines or polio vaccines are effective in controlling the transmission of those diseases. There is no evidence other than conjecture in placing fossils and moreso about the traditional way of looking at the theory of evolution. Yes, it has been an interesting discussion. Thanks for taking part in it.