<p>Robert - my current church is E-free but my last was non-denominational, and I'm more Pentecostal than the E-free is, I guess.</p>
<p>Vinny, that argument is kinda overused. It's not like it's going to convince anyone...</p>
<p>To those who think proselytizing is totally wrong...I don't try to "force religion down people's throats" but I take the Great Commission seriously. I want to help people understand what Christianity is so that they can make an informed decision about it.</p>
<p>Vinny...youre wrong. Math coincides with language. one is one because that is what our language defines it as. one is not one because some being gave us his mathematical laws. Your opinion is very similar to that of O'Brien in 1984...</p>
<p>and yes, i do think we have gotten this far due to evolution.</p>
<p>well your a nut then.</p>
<p>we has math long before we had spoken language, so math is alot more likely to force what a langage is, compared to your theory of them equal or helping each other,.</p>
<p>Math and language are basically the same in that they are symbols meant to represent abstract concepts or concrete things -- these symbols also help formulate, develop, and clarify ideas, demontrations etc.</p>
<p>Also, there is such a thing as proven fact. There are many problems with what Vinny has said.</p>
<p>considering that animals have language but have to be taught math...i would have to say that language evolved before math.</p>
<p>Animals do not have language. Well, not really. Animals have a "language" that is not nearly as evolved as that of human beings. I wouldn't call their mode of communication "language." Do you really think that animals are able to understand nuances? or that nuances can even exist in animal communication? And you cannot teach an animal another language. Nor can you teach it math! </p>
<p>Language does more than merely represent something. Different words meant to refer to the same thing in different languages may very well (and often do) have different connotations. Also, language is a much more intricate and complicated notion that you make it out to be.</p>
<p>And which came first (math or language) is immaterial.</p>
<p>we and they also need to be taught language, animals just dont know it they learn the same way humans do. Throgh opbservation of there peers and elders.</p>
<p>I diagree that there is anything such as proven fact. How can you prove that somthing is a fact or true. It is impossible, just because you belive somthing to be true does not mean that I belive it to be true. I also need to mention that just because the majority belive something to be true does not make it a fact. Just because humans in general preceive certain things, does not make them true. We as Humans have come to relize what is true or fact as what our language dictates it to be. We have then associated this realization of fact with empiricle science, which has blinded the majority of us, to belive that what is seen can be proven, but it can be proven only to the language.</p>
<p>You also need to remember that Evolution has never been said to be fact, it is actually more of a theory if you do the research.</p>
<p>This argument will go nowhere, because you will niether belive me, not will you ever prove to me that there is such a object or thinking of fact.</p>
<p>To denote animals as not having mathimatical skills, is plan wrong, we as humans are animals, thus we have math skills. To say other animals dont cannot be proven, nor can it be proven that animals(non-human) dont have languages. How can you say that a mother giraffe, does not know that it just had 2 children, compared to 1 child. if it did which I think it would, that would be math.</p>
<p>Language does not have to be Vocal, It can be done throgh movement and artistic means as well. When a Dog pants, or a cat streches out, does this not mean its Hot. When a cat rubs againt your leg when your cooking fish or chicken or fish, does this not mean it wants some of it.</p>
<p>I don't believe in fairy tales (ie: the bible)</p>
<p>Vinny -- How old are you? Your argumentation is both extremely wrong and very juvenile. If you want me to point out all the faults in what you have posted, I will. But if you don't care either way, I won't waste my time.</p>
<p>And I agree that God is Santa Claus for adults and the Bible a fairy tale. But it's much more complicated than that.</p>
<p>please do, because well ya cant.</p>
<p>Vinny, an argument-to-the-death is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, no argument on CC is going to "get" us anywhere. If we choose to involve ourselves in one, the sole purpose should be to incorporate greater knowledge into our worldviews. It can give you some things to think about and further research. Nietszche is right in saying that your argument is "both extremely wrong and very juvenile," as well as being full of holes.</p>
<p>However, the perception of God as some kind of "Santa Claus," as if He were subject to human whims, is pretty silly.</p>
<p>The question of language is an interesting one...Even if I could bring myself to believe in all other forms of evolution (which would be darn near impossible), I could not possibly believe that the human capability for language could evolve.</p>
<p>You also need to remember that Evolution has never been said to be fact, it is actually more of a theory if you do the research.</p>
<hr>
<p>People always say that evolution is ONLY a theory...for something to be a theory in the science world, it must be supported by a myriad of data.</p>
<p>meanwhile, if evolution is ONLY a theory, than creationism is simply a hypothesis.</p>
<p>Bob - the way evidence is interpreted varies greatly. An evolutionist might take something and say "Hey, this supports evolution," while a creationist would take the same thing and say "If you look at it this way, it supports creation."</p>
<p>For instance, many fossils around the world seem to have been buried quickly, some of them still alive. This could support the Creationist flood, or it can be interpreted differently. It all depends on your presuppositions.</p>
<p>right...but the very fact that those fossils have been dated to past 6,000 years disproved the creationist argument...if you are referring to the precambrian explosion, there are a number of more plausible hypotheses that have been suggested, with some being supported, than the fact that the animals were dumped there. And even if they were dumped there, then that doesnt disprove evolution because all traits aquired after that flood would have still taken place through evolution.</p>
<p>im talking about evolution v. creationism. not the big bang theory v. creationism...although the stanley miller experiment and all so called "cross species" showed how evolution unfolded.</p>
<p>and primate to human evolution has been supported by the discovery in 1993 that 4 primate chromosomes fused to form 2 human chromosomes, which is known by the fact that the telemeres at the end of the primate chromosomes are found in the middle of the human chromosomes...unless this god likes to play tricks with us...there isnt really another way to explain that.</p>
<p>"An evolutionist might take something and say 'Hey, this supports evolution,' while a creationist would take the same thing and say 'If you look at it this way, it supports creation.'"</p>
<p>The difference is that the evolutionist is using evidence, reason, and the scientific method, whereas the creationist is using faith.</p>
<p>Regardless of your side of the issue, the Stanley Miller experiment doesn't prove jack squat. He used a chemical makeup that scientists now agree was nothing like the actual makeup on earth when life formed. When you redo the experiment using conditions as they actually were, you get what amounts to embalming fluid. And you must admit it's a heck of a long way from proteins to a cell.</p>
<p>Actually a Japanese research team in 1980 (or was it 1978?) successfully completed an altered version of the experiment.</p>
<p>"And you must admit it's a heck of a long way from proteins to a cell."</p>
<p>All you need is a self-replicating molecule. Improbable? Not when given a timeframe of hundreds of millions of years.</p>
<p>How does a self-replicating molecule lead to a cell? And yes, I would say that it is still improbable even given the large timeframe.</p>