Animals DO have speech. They communicate in all sorts of ways. However, unlike humans, they don't appear to have the capability of having novel conversations. (Probably due to a lack of prefrontal lobes.) The means of communication they have seem to be much more basic, since they are most likely used as means for survival.
Nevertheless, our ability to perform higher-level thinking doesn't separate us from the animals. Human beings are subject to the same needs as every other animal. Just because other animals can't do what we do doesn't mean that we haven't been evolving. I'm not sure if you have the right idea of what evolution actually is.
Question Technology
Is this another reason to believe that man did not evolve from the animal kingdom? LANGUAGE and SPEECH?
BillHill "In God We Trust" March 07, 2009 05:46:03
- 8 answers
- Read all 93 comments
- -1 raves
Could language have come directly out of some prehuman trait? No. Does it resemble forms of animal communication? No. . . . no ape, despite intensive training, has yet acquired even the rudiments of syntax, and many language acquisitionists insist that syntax is there even at infants' one-word stage.
Not only is there no animal that is capable of achieving anything like human speech, but also there is, at the other end of the scale, no human tribe that does not have a true language.
Not only is there no animal that is capable of achieving anything like human speech, but also there is, at the other end of the scale, no human tribe that does not have a true language.
Loading... 
Top Comment
-
None of the above
View thread
SodaHead Hot Trends
None of the above
None of the above
"It amazes me that people believe that man evolved from the very species that can not come close to what man can do in several different categories."
How is that hard to imagine? We can do it and our ancestors couldn't because we EVOLVED. The ancestors of birds could not fly, yet birds can. Same concept.
You say the ancestors of birds were birds. This is true, in a sense. All modern birds evolved form earlier species of birds. But before that, there was something that was almost a bird, but not quite. Before that, there was something slightly less birdlike. Keep going and eventually you'll get to something that barely resembles a bird at all.
You say that most every creature is the same as it was millions of years ago including plants. Here is where your lack of knowledge on the subject really shines through. While it is true that some species evolve slower than others (lifespan has a large part to play in this) and others, like crocodiles, evolve very little over millions and even billions of years, 99.X% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. In many cases, they simply died out because they were not properly adapted to changes that arose in their environments, but in many cases it is because the species evolved into something else. Travel back in time 500,000 years and look around. You would see a lot of species you wouldn't recognize, and a good number of species that exist today, you would be unable to find. Oh, you might find a lot of things that lo...
You say the ancestors of birds were birds. This is true, in a sense. All modern birds evolved form earlier species of birds. But before that, there was something that was almost a bird, but not quite. Before that, there was something slightly less birdlike. Keep going and eventually you'll get to something that barely resembles a bird at all.
You say that most every creature is the same as it was millions of years ago including plants. Here is where your lack of knowledge on the subject really shines through. While it is true that some species evolve slower than others (lifespan has a large part to play in this) and others, like crocodiles, evolve very little over millions and even billions of years, 99.X% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. In many cases, they simply died out because they were not properly adapted to changes that arose in their environments, but in many cases it is because the species evolved into something else. Travel back in time 500,000 years and look around. You would see a lot of species you wouldn't recognize, and a good number of species that exist today, you would be unable to find. Oh, you might find a lot of things that look vaguely familiar, but that would be because they are ancestors of modern creatures.
You ask me to explain the evolutionary path of various animals, knowing full well I cannot do so because I am not an evolutionary biologist. This is not, as you no doubt cleverly patted yourself on the back for, a "gotcha". It is akin to asking a psychologist to explain the theory of quantum mechanics, and then saying you're justified in decrying the theory as bunk when he cannot. I would, however, like for you to explain why you think those species you mention defy evolutionary theory. It could be interesting.
You say that man is the youngest of all species, when we clearly are not. We've been around for tens of thousands of years, and there are new species of bacteria around today that weren't around last Tuesday.
You say we outdid every other species on earth, but this is only partly true. Yes, our brains are superior compared to any other creature, but that's all we've got. The peregrine falcon can fly faster than any other species. The rhinoceros beetle can lift - proportionate to its bodyweight - more than any other creature. The blue whale can hold its breath for over an hour. Cats can see plain as day in conditions where we'd trip over our own feet. A leopard can carry twice its weight into a tree. A hyena can bite through hippo hide and bone with little to no effort. A polar bear can smell prey from up to three miles away in arctic temperatures. We are far from superior all the way around. We got one card to play, which is less than many other creatures got. We were just lucky in that it was a very good card.
Just because a species evolves into something else as you say, why would that be the reason the others became extinct? Yet when it comes to some species they are millions of years old without any changes. Just because a species would evolve into something else (as you say) isn't reason for the original species to die. Your logic and your fossil record doesn't compute.
The evolutionary path of some species that you can't explain or show you are taking for truth without challenging their findings. The very reasons I listed (differences between birds and reptiles) should raise a ton of questions regarding the path that was taken. One example: (Since the reptile had a completely different breathing system than a bird, tell me how the bird, still grounded due to evolution was able to evolve their avian breathing system without becoming extinct in the process). You can't have a partially developed breathing system cause they don't work. To me you can't have a bird that can fly without all the rest of the parts needed to sustain flight. And ...
Just because a species evolves into something else as you say, why would that be the reason the others became extinct? Yet when it comes to some species they are millions of years old without any changes. Just because a species would evolve into something else (as you say) isn't reason for the original species to die. Your logic and your fossil record doesn't compute.
The evolutionary path of some species that you can't explain or show you are taking for truth without challenging their findings. The very reasons I listed (differences between birds and reptiles) should raise a ton of questions regarding the path that was taken. One example: (Since the reptile had a completely different breathing system than a bird, tell me how the bird, still grounded due to evolution was able to evolve their avian breathing system without becoming extinct in the process). You can't have a partially developed breathing system cause they don't work. To me you can't have a bird that can fly without all the rest of the parts needed to sustain flight. And feathers don't come from scales. This is what I mean when I say there are tremendous gaps in the fossil record that aren't showing the half reptile and half bird species. The reptiles with wings that can't fly and the birds with solid bones that can't fly. They aren't there no matter how many drawings you show me.
And so you base the evolution of man totally on the luck of the draw. That's not even worth a comment. You have no problem giving mans superior traits nothing more than drawing the best card out of the deck. Again you give blindness all the credit for superior traits that require superior information to accomplish. Nothing within our being was created or came to be without the information required to accomplish it. Man creates based on information, data. Computers are built from data, information as well as its programs. You can't throw a bunch of parts in a corner and come back in a million years and see a creation of any kind. That's exactly why all of life had to have an intelligent designer because everything requires information. This is exactly why I believe that evolutionists have more blind faith than I when they believe in such things with no proof, evidence or scientific theory to back it up. Life cannot come from non-life.
You have absolutely no understanding of how evolution works. You think you do, and you use that false understanding as your basis for denouncing it. I would too. Evolution as you understand it is pretty stupid. You'll never bother to learn more though, because as it stands your poor understanding of the theory validates your antiquated world view.
And of course, I don't know how you think me being unable to properly explain the theory in any way discredits it. Again, I say to you I am a Linguist, not a Biologist. Find someone whose actual job it is to study this and throw your bullcrap at them. See how long you last.
My question to you is how you can take it all in without having ANY questions as to how they have arrived at their conclusions. You see science as the only answerable source which really limits your perspective. My questions I've stated above are legitimate and deserve a truthful answer. I realize you may not be the source and I didn't necessarily expect that from you. I just wanted you to know that there are many questions out there....unanswered and their explanations sketchy, with conjecture and assumption added for good measure. You are free to take that as your view. I think you will find in the near future that much of what is taught as truth and fact is a big lie. That's my take which my religion did have a determining factor in.
You say you'll always be skeptical (which is good), yet you do not question religious teachings at all? That doesn't make any sense to me.
And as for my reliance on science, it is because science has no ulterior motives. Science is devoted to discovering the true nature of the universe, and if it doesn't know something, seeks to find out. Religion thinks it already knows the answers and doesn't bother to go any further. Scientific theory is backed up by evidence and research. Religion is backed up by blind faith. How could anyone of reasonable intelligence select the latter over the former?
You say science has no ulterior motives. I disagree. Science alone doesn't but just like religion, if you put it into the hands of someone that does have ulterior motives then you have a problem. I will just lay out a few possible examples of how man can be motivated to give the findings that everyone is looking for. Money, prestiege, position, status, tenure and others. The problem with society today is it's not popular to go against the mainstream in any area. A good example is the "Global Warming" hype that has now simmered down to "Climate Change". This is another case of "follow the money". How many different companies, individuals, countries, etc are benefiting from the hype created by this. Another good example of not being politically correct to say anything against it. Yet here we are with three consecutive winters worse than the one before. You say scientific theory is backed up by evidence and research. That is true to an extent but many portion...
You say science has no ulterior motives. I disagree. Science alone doesn't but just like religion, if you put it into the hands of someone that does have ulterior motives then you have a problem. I will just lay out a few possible examples of how man can be motivated to give the findings that everyone is looking for. Money, prestiege, position, status, tenure and others. The problem with society today is it's not popular to go against the mainstream in any area. A good example is the "Global Warming" hype that has now simmered down to "Climate Change". This is another case of "follow the money". How many different companies, individuals, countries, etc are benefiting from the hype created by this. Another good example of not being politically correct to say anything against it. Yet here we are with three consecutive winters worse than the one before. You say scientific theory is backed up by evidence and research. That is true to an extent but many portions of evolution have not been proved and lack substantial evidence to back it up. The fundamental tenet of evolution theory holds that the natural selection of mainly random and simple small progressive changes in genes is all that was necessary to produce all living things including all their component parts. This is not provable by a long stretch. I can give you dozens of questions regarding evolution that can not be answered by you or anyone else other than another theory. There is as much myth as there is fact. I've given you numerous examples of "no proof" science and you ignore it, but I respect your views. Blind faith, NO Where I see intelligent design in all creation (my evidence) you see random chance happenings that was able to create organization and complexity out of chaos. That goes totally against the laws of science.
If you are ever interested in debating the truth of the Bible let me know. It's yet to be proven wrong.
No We are monkeys with vocal chords for speech
It's not really necessary to criticize my religious beliefs to try to make your point. That only takes away from it's potential impact.
Language consists of various aspects which people believe are more or less important, for example, grammar, symbol usage, the ability to represent real-world situations, and the ability to articulate something new. All of these can not be accomplished by apes on their own. Man can teach apes sign language but can an ape teach another ape that same sign language? NO They are not capable of conversation. Their method of communication is "primitive" to say the least and can not be even remotely compared to human language (over 6,000), speech and above all else writt...
It's not really necessary to criticize my religious beliefs to try to make your point. That only takes away from it's potential impact.
Language consists of various aspects which people believe are more or less important, for example, grammar, symbol usage, the ability to represent real-world situations, and the ability to articulate something new. All of these can not be accomplished by apes on their own. Man can teach apes sign language but can an ape teach another ape that same sign language? NO They are not capable of conversation. Their method of communication is "primitive" to say the least and can not be even remotely compared to human language (over 6,000), speech and above all else written test and verbal and written rules. Your videos although very interesting are not very good representations of the similarities between man and beast.
Apes lack the human brain structures that make language. And they have no vocal tract. Their ribs have a different structure, they can’t keep an even air pressure while blowing out, a vital necessity for human speech. Human larynxes combine a single passage for breathing and eating; in apes and other animals the two passages are joined much higher up so that humans cannot breathe and eat at the same time, as can cats, apes, or indeed small human babies.
The interesting thing about animals and teaching them word association is that it can be accomplished in many different animals, porpoises, whales, dogs and many others. Some scientific publications assert that chimps can be taught sign language and that dolphins use a conceptual "whistle" language. The evidence is sparse and inconclusive and that there is virtually no scientific support for the hypothesis that animals use or can be taught to use abstract language, whether with signs or noises.
None of the above
The complete taxonomic classification of mankind.
Kingdom Animalia
Subkingdom Metazoa
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Mammalia
Subclass Theria
Infraclass Eutheria
Order Primates
Suborder Anthropoidea
Infraorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Subspecies sapiens
It is rather a beautiful thing, and it's natural. No Imaginary Invisible Sky Wizards involved. Just pure Nature.
We are of the animal kingdom, we communicate, and animals communicate to their kind. Just because another speices does not have HUMAN communication skills does not mean that it does not have speech. Just because our species doesn't speak Dolphin, doesn't mean that WE don't have speech. It is rediculous to hold other speices to that measure when we'd find that measure outrageous were it applied to us.
Bill wants to promote the unfounded and laughable idea that an Invisible Imaginary Sky Wizard made everything, because a Bronze Age scribe wrote a simple story for simple minds. That simple Bronze Age story nolonger applies as it is not valid -and we know it.
I am glad that "...
The complete taxonomic classification of mankind.
Kingdom Animalia
Subkingdom Metazoa
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Mammalia
Subclass Theria
Infraclass Eutheria
Order Primates
Suborder Anthropoidea
Infraorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Subspecies sapiens
It is rather a beautiful thing, and it's natural. No Imaginary Invisible Sky Wizards involved. Just pure Nature.
We are of the animal kingdom, we communicate, and animals communicate to their kind. Just because another speices does not have HUMAN communication skills does not mean that it does not have speech. Just because our species doesn't speak Dolphin, doesn't mean that WE don't have speech. It is rediculous to hold other speices to that measure when we'd find that measure outrageous were it applied to us.
Bill wants to promote the unfounded and laughable idea that an Invisible Imaginary Sky Wizard made everything, because a Bronze Age scribe wrote a simple story for simple minds. That simple Bronze Age story nolonger applies as it is not valid -and we know it.
I am glad that "<--that guy" made best efforts to educate those who have been brainwashed with middle-eastern mytholgy.
Once, folks thought the Earth was flat, that we could fall off of it, they were genuinely afraid to sail the seas for fear of it. There were folks that defended the superstition with the Babble, quoting from it, and projecting their versions of faux-science to defend the absurd.
Thus, we find ourselves today in conversation with Sky Wizard Creationists, and the reality of Science.
Everyday, Science pushes "Gods" further and further out of the picture... there is little place left for Invisible Imaginary entities to hide.
Reality and Truth will be the Death of all Gods.
Let that light shine, and brightly so.
They came later.
I conceed many stories may have been passed along orally from the Stone Age.
But, over the Centuries, men, where bound to get those stories most assuredly screwed up. The fables are just that -childish superstitions- and are not to be trusted.
No We are monkeys with vocal chords for speech
Animals are eukaryotic and are multicellular, which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic, generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae (some sponges are capable of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation though). They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking cell walls. All animals are motile, if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals.
None of the above
Nevertheless, our ability to perform higher-level thinking doesn't separate us from the animals. Human beings are subject to the same needs as every other animal. Just because other animals can't do what we do doesn't mean that we haven't been evolving. I'm not sure if you have the right idea of what evolution actually is.
I'm not quite sure how you figure that higher level thinking doesn't separate us from the animals. Even though we have the same needs we have the "higher" capability of filling them which we do on a daily basis. We can reason out our problems where they pretty much use "trial and error". We can document our successes and failures where their next generations have to figure things out on their own. There is absolutely no comparison between animals and humans and speech and language are two of the most important reasons for that. Take away speech and language from man and where would he be today. No literature, history, mathamatics, etc.
Here's something to think about. I'm a diabetic, and so is my friend's cat. Since both of our pancreases don't function properly, we both take insulin. However, her cat takes the same insulin as some other human diabetics do, so if we wanted to, Boots [the cat] and I could swap insulin and maybe not even notice a difference. How could we do that if we both weren't mammals?
But even if humans weren't capable of speech and language, not having math or literature wouldn' make us any less "human." Things like math and literature don't actually exist because they have no inherency. We made them up. They're just abstract concepts which we've labeled as "math" and "literature." Do they enrich our lives? I certainly think so. Do they divorce us from the animal kingdom? Not at all.
I'm afraid that you are assuming a lot to think that humans just made up language and speech without being created to do it. We are different from the animals for that very reason, we can and they can't. You can't make up math, it's an exact science. Language wouldn't be a language if it were an abstract concept. There's nothing abstract regarding over 6,800 distinct languages.
Do they enrich our lives? Are you kidding me? We wouldn't have any of the modern inventions were it not for language, math, science, the ability to write and reason, etc. We may not even have the wheel for that matter.
I will agree we are animals, although not in the sense that we evolved from them, only in the regards to science and our biological make-up.
No, I'm not making assumptions at all. I'm going by the data that's been uncovered.
Yes, math and language still are abstract concepts. As I already mentioned, there isn't anything inherent to them. Words and numbers don't exist on their own; they're just symbols we've constructed to stand for certain amounts and ideas.
I already said that these mental constructs of things like math and literature have served us well, so there's really no point in arguing that with me since we agree on that.
This question might seem off-topic, but I promise that it isn't; do you get or have you ever gotten a vaccine?
Your head is wobbly. You're on drugs. Mathematics are about as precise as you can get. A concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. Math, language and speech are well past the concept stage. They are reality.
Yes, I've been vaccinated?
And no, my head is connected to my neck just fine, and I don't do drugs. (Not recreational drugs, that is.) But even if I was, that's not an argument. You're just getting personal now by trying to pick a fight with me.
Yes, I understand that mathematics is a very precise and clear-cut process. That doesn't make it any less abstract. It's a process, not a thing. Numbers don't really exist. If you think they do, go find me a number 5.
If you've been vaccinated, then that's evolution at work. The reason you get vaccinations is because lifeforms like viruses mutate, adapt, and evolve into new strains that your body doesn't recognize. The flu is really good at this, which is why many people get flu shots every year. If it didn't evolve, you wouldn't need a vaccine because once you caught it, your body would always recognize it. However, that's not the case.
Of course they don't know why the big bang happened. It's because they are relying on science alone for their answer. It's not in science. They will never find it there. No magic man, just the creator of all things. I guess you have an alternative choice?
There is a number 5 in your reply above and here's another. 5
Viruses are a very poor example of evolution. That is called adaptation. Everyone always gives a bacteria or a virus for proof of evolution. All bacteria or viruses are doing is trying to survive and will adapt to do it. One thing I will guarantee is that a bacteria will never turn into a mammal or a reptile.
Mutations are not very favorable to the human as well since there are approximately 4,500 genetic dieases presently and growing every day. Man is on a slippery slope of extinction just like the earth, planets, sun and moon are. They all have a ticking clock to end one day. Man and his science can't do anything about it.
The Big Bang Theory isn't in science? It's one of the biggest scientific theories there is! If you ever take Physics 101, the Big Band will most definitely be covered.
You also said that they can't find out more about it because they're only relying on science, but it isn't science...? What are you talking about?
No, no, no. That's not what I'm talking about. Typing the number "5" is just showing me the symbol for what 5 stands for. I think I'm going to drop this one because I don't think I'm getting my point across.
Everyone uses bacteria as an example of evolution because it's a good one. When you said that a virus will never turn into a mammal or reptile, you clearly don't know what evolution is. Evolution has no goal. There is no ultimate species of animal that is meant to arise from evolution. It's only a description of how living organisms change over time.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your last paragraph, so I guess I'll just let that one go.
If you think about science and all the laws of science they were already there before man ever existed. Man in his superior intellect was able to find something that was already there and built on it since. You can't tell me you believe that not only all creation but also all of it's precise laws governing it were a chance happening. That's just not logical. That's like believing if you wait long enough a Boeing 747 will appear out of a junkyard ready to fly. That can't happen and neither can something even more difficult like the creation and all of it's laws.
You 5 scenario was really losing me. There is concept, design and reality. An automobile is first made out of clay as a c...
If you think about science and all the laws of science they were already there before man ever existed. Man in his superior intellect was able to find something that was already there and built on it since. You can't tell me you believe that not only all creation but also all of it's precise laws governing it were a chance happening. That's just not logical. That's like believing if you wait long enough a Boeing 747 will appear out of a junkyard ready to fly. That can't happen and neither can something even more difficult like the creation and all of it's laws.
You 5 scenario was really losing me. There is concept, design and reality. An automobile is first made out of clay as a concept model, then the manufacturer completes the design and from there the reality is what you pick up at the showroom. Math, speech, language is the reality of an original concept which was probably drawings and hand motions. Understand?
It's amazing how one can believe that man, animal, virus, plants, earth, minerals, oxygen all happened by random chance. To me it takes much more faith to believe that than any religious person has. Not only does eveything come into existence all by itself but it also randomly create perfectly functioning living creatures that all seem to fit together as if it were planned. So, let me ask you a simple question. Biogenesis: is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms. How did the original lifeform come about?
And no, the appearance of order or a complex organism is not evidence of a god's existence. I already know that when it comes to the way the universe changed after the Big Bang, if one thing had been slightly different, we probably wouldn't even exist here today to be talking about this sort of thing. Just because fortune smiled upon us doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened as a matter of happenstance. I know that isn't a very attractive notion, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Before I forget, here's something that goes from chaos to order: a storm.
I don't pretend to know what caused the Big Bang. Even Stephen Hawking, arguably the most renowned cosmologist in the world, has said that it would be pointless to even bother trying to figure out what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang since the laws of the universe were completely different from what they are now.
Do you know why a Boeing 747 won't ever fly out of a junkyard? Because it's mechanical. It needs to...
And no, the appearance of order or a complex organism is not evidence of a god's existence. I already know that when it comes to the way the universe changed after the Big Bang, if one thing had been slightly different, we probably wouldn't even exist here today to be talking about this sort of thing. Just because fortune smiled upon us doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened as a matter of happenstance. I know that isn't a very attractive notion, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
Before I forget, here's something that goes from chaos to order: a storm.
I don't pretend to know what caused the Big Bang. Even Stephen Hawking, arguably the most renowned cosmologist in the world, has said that it would be pointless to even bother trying to figure out what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang since the laws of the universe were completely different from what they are now.
Do you know why a Boeing 747 won't ever fly out of a junkyard? Because it's mechanical. It needs to be constructed because Boeing 747's do not exist on their own. Living organisms, however, are organic. They don't need to be constructed because they spring from reproduction. If you want to make a human, you can't take non-organic materials, put them together and create a life. The only way you can achieve this is by having a sperm fertilize an ovum and let it develop naturally.
The point I was trying to make with "The Hunt for 5" was that you won't find a concrete, tangible number 5 out in the wild somewhere because it's only a symbol. Since symbols refer to intangible ideas, you cannot demonstrate them. All a symbol can do is represent the idea. (But that's neither here nor there at this point.)
It's not faith that makes me believe that things can happen without needing a higher purpose. It's skepticism--the opposite of faith. Faith is blind trust, and I'm not trusting anything. I'm doubting everything. I would have no problem believing that there is a greater purpose to everything, but until evidence can be provided that this is the case, I have no reason to assume that there is. You, on the other hand, do take things on faith because you can't demonstrate the existence for the things you believe, but you believe in them anyway because they give you comfort or because they just feel right to you. If you want people to share your beliefs, you can't throw all objectivity out the window when making your case.
To answer your last question on abiogenesis, I don't know how life came about, and that's the most intellectually honest answer I can give. However, YOU'RE the one claiming that you do know how life was formed. You don't really have an explanation because you don't actually know, but since you can't think of anything else, you just give credit to the god you believe in just so you can give an answer--even if it's incorrect. But it doesn't really matter if we do find evidence that would shed some light on how it really happened because you've rooted your beliefs in faith, and nothing is going to shake you from your position, no matter how overwhelming demonstrable the evidence might be.
No, a storm is not chaos to order. Remember what the storm left behind. And it was order before the storm arrived. Bad example.
Just because Stephen Hawking decides that it's pointless to even bother trying to figure out what the universe was like prior to the big bang doesn't mean we should just roll over and play dead. Actually there was no universe before the big bang.
" If you want to make a human, you can't take non-organic materials, put them together and create a life." This is exactly how scientist said that life originated, from non-living materials. Read your evolution.
"You, on the other hand, do take things on faith because you can't demonstrate the existence for the things you believe" You are correct but that's exactly what we are asked to do: "Now ...
No, a storm is not chaos to order. Remember what the storm left behind. And it was order before the storm arrived. Bad example.
Just because Stephen Hawking decides that it's pointless to even bother trying to figure out what the universe was like prior to the big bang doesn't mean we should just roll over and play dead. Actually there was no universe before the big bang.
" If you want to make a human, you can't take non-organic materials, put them together and create a life." This is exactly how scientist said that life originated, from non-living materials. Read your evolution.
"You, on the other hand, do take things on faith because you can't demonstrate the existence for the things you believe" You are correct but that's exactly what we are asked to do: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed" . Now you also take things on faith everyday of your life and never think twice about it. When you step on the brakes of your car you have faith that they will work, or in an elevator, taking perscriptions from a doctor, crossing the street with traffic heading your way. You actually have faith in all the scientists information because you have no idea if they are right or wrong. Faith isn't a bad thing, you just have to be careful where you use it. Faith in an intelligent designer is a harmless faith that really doesn't effect anyone other than me.
When it comes to my belief in how life came about has nothing to do with whether I could think of something else or not. What I did do was weighed all the evidence existing and drew my own conclusion. It's actually a pretty normal process for determining truth. It's no different than a court room where all the evidence is laid on the table and you have a jury make a verdict. My verdict is that life couldn't have happened on it's own. There is no evidence that it's even possible but that's exactly what evolutionist want us to believe. That, in my way of thinking, is no different than me believing that there was something or someone else that gave this all a beginning. It's just as valid as any reason. Your belief is based on theory that can't be proved so where do you see the difference of our belief systems? The bottom line is that science can never go backwards to find the answers they are looking for. It's a hugh jig-saw puzzle of UNIVERSAL porportions and the answer happened too many years ago.
I said that I'd be more than willing to believe that there is a god and that this god has given us a purpose to serve.
HOWEVER, until any evidence can be provided to support that case, what reason do I have to believe in it?
I'm open minded regarding science as well. There is much of it I believe and even more that I don't. We are at the mercy of whatever they tell us because they are the experts. If they are incorrect there isn't anyone to tell them differently.
The best to you in your life.
Actually, we're not at the mercy of experts as much as you might think with science. If they're incorrect about something, they operate in a way that's capable of resolving those mistakes.
Besides, anyone can do research. As long as you utilize the scientific method--the most objective process possible--you can go discover things for yourself.
One field of science typically has no idea what the other fields are accomplishing. There are many times when a "fact" will be represented by some scientists regarding something that's not even in his field. There are many times when scientist do complain about reporting for scientists out of their field. They are not all in the same room exchanging information. For instance many scientists disagree with Al Gore regarding global warming. There's an example of how someone out of his field makes claims that aren't true. In fact they renamed "global warming" to "global climate change". I guess my point is that since you and I aren't trained in the many fields of science then we pretty much have to take what they give us as truth. We...
One field of science typically has no idea what the other fields are accomplishing. There are many times when a "fact" will be represented by some scientists regarding something that's not even in his field. There are many times when scientist do complain about reporting for scientists out of their field. They are not all in the same room exchanging information. For instance many scientists disagree with Al Gore regarding global warming. There's an example of how someone out of his field makes claims that aren't true. In fact they renamed "global warming" to "global climate change". I guess my point is that since you and I aren't trained in the many fields of science then we pretty much have to take what they give us as truth. We find out on a daily basis that what many doctors regard as good or bad for the human body can change in a matter of months for years. There are hundreds of different science fields. They can't all be right all the time.
I'm personally not trained to go discover for myself. I can find what others have already discovered and read it but can I make a professional decision as to it's validity? NO