I ask for a citation supporting a couple of specific claims, and I get:
Language arose suddenly 40,000 years ago. Since we know from experiment and observation that there are no gradual changes in life then it follows that something in humans suddenly arose making complex language possible. The most likely possible change was a (sudden) mutation in the human brain and the most likely mutation is just something simple like the ability to use higher brain functions in communication. I'm all ears if you have another hypothesis but I'm sure you don't because you already believe in evolution, the power of trial and error, the efficacy of superstition, and the omniscience of science. You believe beavers invented dams genetically and termite cities are the result of genetics despite the fact such beliefs are illogical and based almost solely on inductive reasoning rather than experiment.
Everything in existence had to come from things that already existed. Yet we still ponder whether an egg or a chicken came first. We can't see the forest for the trees and can't really understand the trees because all life is consciousness which is fundamental to its understanding. So instead of seeing experimental results and observation we see our beliefs.
What exactly do you think made humans unique? Do you believe we are more intelligent than rabbits and pigs? Why do you think we have such difficulty learning even the simplest animal languages? My theory is the simplest explanation for everything and it is nearly a perfect fit with what ancient people said. It explains evidence, logic itself, science and history. It is mostly a different perspective.
As I said earlier in this thread we'll probably never know the causative events of any change in major species. Oh sure, we can be witness to some by causing them and have seen the results of population bottlenecks imposed on dogs and farm animals etc, We can deduce and even show how homo omnisciencis arose but showing the cause of homo sapiens is going to remain impossible even though we know the name of the first individual which is preserved in a confused form right in the Bible. We'll probably be able to show the growth in the brain that defines our species in children between two and three years of age. We probably in time could even recreate homo sapiens except there are ethical concerns with doing so.
If you want citations it will be necessary to do the work. Until then I can only refer you to every observation and experiment ever made as well as the known facts and history. It is your job to find an observation or fact that contradicts this theory. Find something illogical about it. Don't ask for citations because biologists are wrong and believe in gradual change despite the fact they can't show it. I can show that all change is sudden and that ancient writing is in agreement. I have provided endless "citation" from logic and and experiment yet you simply choose to see something different. All change is sudden and all individuals are equally fit.
So this dude cannot produce a SINGLE citation to a published, recognized work of any kind in support of his simplistic, unscientific mere assertions, Then he has the hysterical gall to write:
"Until then I can only refer you to every observation and experiment ever made as well as the known facts and history. It is your job to find an observation or fact that contradicts this theory"
Despite NOT PRESENTING A THEORY and NOT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS THEORY. This is not how science - or logic - works. You cannot just toss out some autoerotic gibberish and then pretend it is TRUTH until someone proves the opposite. This is how children think.
This is the sort of absurdist nonsense that is the product of the Dunning-Kruger effect and a clear lack of education.
And then this knee-slapper:
"I have provided endless "citation" from logic and and experiment yet you simply choose to see something different."
You have not mentioned a SINGLE experiment. Not one. You have been asked - FOR YEARS - to provide "experiments" that supported your claims, and on the rare occasions that you actually tried to do so, you completely undermined your position due to your clear ignorance of the subject matter - like 'choosing to grow a broccas [sic] area'??? NOT ONE tidbit of support - so surprise since you are so spectacularly ignorant of such things that you claimed - repeatedly - that there is a 'bifurcated' speech area in the 'midbrain.'
My biggest question is why do creationist sites tolerate your nonsense, for it can only serve to make their 'big tent' look like a circus in which the only acts are bad clown ones.
