Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jonesthecurl]

Evolution could not have happened if for no other of the countless reasons than the issue of speech. Speech is a learned behavior, so if man came from a lower life form, who then taught him to speak? (please save the "one grunt meant yes and two grunts meant no which later evolved to audible speech" hypothesis. It holds as much water as a fishing net)

So humans are the only species that transmit messages through sound?

They're the only ones that talk bollox on the internet.

[Timminz]

belief is your specialty.

Really? On what evidence do you base that statement? Oh wait. That's right. None whatsoever.

It's adorable that you believe you know anything about me, and/or my specialties. I'm flattered once again.

[xelabale]

Evolution could not have happened if for no other of the countless reasons than the issue of speech. Speech is a learned behavior, so if man came from a lower life form, who then taught him to speak? (please save the "one grunt meant yes and two grunts meant no which later evolved to audible speech" hypothesis. It holds as much water as a fishing net)

God f*ck no. You still believe in that argument?

Like seriously? Like, you don't believe that animal communication exists?

No animal has ever taught a human being to speak, with the possible exception of Snorri.

In addition, the science of linguistics adds much weight to Jay's point. Language historians know for a fact that, as time goes by, languages are getting less and less complex, and easier and easier to learn. Sanskrit, for example, is now basically impossible for any human being to learn and speak fluently, whereas it was formerly learned and spoken fluently by millions. Latin is also much more complex and difficult to learn than its modern descendant languages, and there are many more examples.

Even English is getting simpler, not more complex, as time passes.

Human beings are not gaining intelligence as historical time passes; they are losing it. Language is but one of the many clear examples, in easily provable, real-life terms, of the devolution of man, and evidence that "evolution" from lower forms to higher ones is an out-and-out myth.

Lol your argument that evolution can't exist is based on the evolution of language...

No, the devolution of language, which is the exact opposite.

There are many theories as to how speech evolved....

Each one BS.

In your oh-so-humble opinion. It is not a fact.

[KLOBBER]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

[KLOBBER]

belief is your specialty.

Really? On what evidence do you base that statement? Oh wait. That's right. None whatsoever.

It's adorable that you believe you know anything about me, and/or my specialties. I'm flattered once again.

You are the one who keeps making reference to belief, while I am making reference to facts instead. Therefore, belief is your specialty, and fact is mine.

[xelabale]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.
Klobber theory, not fact

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.
True, irrelevent

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.
Comedy gold, thank you!

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

You are of course right. Any group of people trying to increase their knowledge should all have the same theory and not doubt it. Having competing theories definitely is the mark of bad thinking. Especially when we know the answer! Much better to simply all just agree that Klobber's knowledge is fact even though it's unsubstantiated. Why do people expend all this energy and thought on something that's already wrapped up?!

Posting opinion as fact doesn't make you more right, Klobber. But then you already knew that.

[Timminz]

belief is your specialty.

Really? On what evidence do you base that statement? Oh wait. That's right. None whatsoever.

It's adorable that you believe you know anything about me, and/or my specialties. I'm flattered once again.

You are the one who keeps making reference to belief, while I am making reference to facts instead. Therefore, belief is your specialty, and fact is mine.

Obviously, logical deduction is NOT your specialty.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

So according to you "more complex = better" ?
The fact that it's becoming easier to understand means that it's getting better. Or do you think it would be an advantage to spend 10 years learning your ABC's?
Additionally, through the use of letters that create words, which have meaning assigned to them, instead of using symbols to represent sounds or even whole words we have not only simplified the language but actually made it a lot more versatile and useful.

Lastly, do you know how many words the english language contains now vs the number of words it contained in Shakespear's time?

[KLOBBER]

Sure it is.

[KLOBBER]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

So according to you "more complex = better" ?

I didn't say that, you did.

The fact that it's becoming easier to understand means that it's getting better. Or do you think it would be an advantage to spend 10 years learning your ABC's?

In the past, children learned more complex languages faster than we learn less complex ones today. This shows a decrease in brain capacity, not an increase.

Lastly, do you know how many words the english language contains now vs the number of words it contained in Shakespear's time?

Do you know how to spell Shakespeare?

[KLOBBER]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.
Klobber theory, not fact

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.
True, irrelevent

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.
Comedy gold, thank you!

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

You are of course right....

Thank you, yes. You can't even spell the word, "irrelevant," and you think anyone is going to take you seriously on the subject of language? I have posted facts -- you have posted opinions.

"Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all."
- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

[xelabale]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.
Klobber theory, not fact

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.
True, irrelevent

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.
Comedy gold, thank you!

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

You are of course right....

Thank you, yes. You can't even spell the word, "irrelevant," and you think anyone is going to take you seriously on the subject of language? I have posted facts -- you have posted opinions.

Intentionally misquoting is LYING. It is a well known Klobberfact.

[KLOBBER]

I have never misquoted anyone.

[xelabale]

I have never misquoted anyone.

Ah semantiKlobber comes to the party. I am not saying "you are right" in my post, yet by cutting off the bottom part of my quote you are implying that's what I said. This is LYING. I have klobberposts saying that this is LYING, so it is an undeniable Klobberfact.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The reason why darwinists have so many different "theories" on a single subject is that they are all wrong.

In any case, no two of their theories could possibly be correct, as their theories are in direct conflict with one another.

Any party that can't get its act together obviously does not have valid knowledge on the subject, and this is the case with darwinists, regarding evolution, language, God, and so many other subjects.

The fact is that human language is devolving from more complex and more difficult-to-understand forms, to less complex and easier-to-understand forms, across the board. This fact flies in the face of any evolution theory that involves increase in brain capacity through natural selection, as brain capacity is clearly decreasing, not increasing, historically.

So according to you "more complex = better" ?

I didn't say that, you did.

The fact that it's becoming easier to understand means that it's getting better. Or do you think it would be an advantage to spend 10 years learning your ABC's?

In the past, children learned more complex languages faster than we learn less complex ones today. This shows a decrease in brain capacity, not an increase.

Lastly, do you know how many words the english language contains now vs the number of words it contained in Shakespear's time?

Do you know how to spell Shakespeare?

My bad for taking you seriously.

In the past, children learned more complex languages faster than we learn less complex ones today. This shows a decrease in brain capacity, not an increase.

Proof please.

So according to you "more complex = better" ?

I didn't say that, you did.

So which are more complex and which are better? Old languages vs. Modern ones.
And why?

Do you know how to spell Shakespeare?

Oh no, i made an obvious typo in the name of a poet from a nation different than my own. I'm sure your mastery of foreign languages is far superior to my own.

Or to summarize my argument in your own posting style.
Shut up Major.

[MeDeFe]

I was going to write a post explaining the difference between analytic and synthetic languages to refute one of the earlier posts, but I thought of something easier.

Let's just ignore the troll.

[MaleAlphaThree]

Didn't they have trolls in The Hobbit? The ones that turned to stone in sunlight?

[MeDeFe]

Didn't they have trolls in The Hobbit? The ones that turned to stone in sunlight?

Unfortunately this troll seems to have mastered the ancient technique of ignoring the sunlight to avoid its effects.

[KLOBBER]

You make no sense.

[morph]

Now i also ask of you this o god believers, why do you believe, do you fear going to hell, because tech if your only believing to save your own soul... well is that not selfish and something your god and bible try to teach you not to be? and if you were sick, can you not just think that maybe you got lucky, your body had somethin goin on, environmental or otherwise that kept you from dieing? I ask this of you and await your answer and will listen and wont judge you for it...

I believe because after first believing as "a child" my faith has grown stronger. To the point that I can safely say that I no longer "believe" in God but rather "know" there is a God. Something that can not be proven to another accept through witness. It's no so much the fear of hell that scares me but rather the separation from God. As for my healing, I might have considered this an 18 year remission, if I hadn't physically felt the healing that Spring day in 1991 as well as believe that God can indeed heal.

i Dont judge you, and I appreciate your faith and such, but imma quickly point out that ppl with schizophrenia (did i actually just spell that?) also "know" that the stuff is real that is happening to them... (btw i dont care about ppls faith, i just like to argue, and this is fun for me, i don't think anyone here is gonna change their views..) soooo... ya schizophrenia and "knowing" there is a god... hm k..

Yes, yes, yes that explains it. I'm schizo!

Yes, i already knew this, many others didnt, but dont worry brother i accept you

Evolution could not have happened if for no other of the countless reasons than the issue of speech. Speech is a learned behavior, so if man came from a lower life form, who then taught him to speak? (please save the "one grunt meant yes and two grunts meant no which later evolved to audible speech" hypothesis. It holds as much water as a fishing net)

God f*ck no. You still believe in that argument?

Like seriously? Like, you don't believe that animal communication exists?

No animal has ever taught a human being to speak, with the possible exception of Snorri.

In addition, the science of linguistics adds much weight to Jay's point. Language historians know for a fact that, as time goes by, languages are getting less and less complex, and easier and easier to learn. Sanskrit, for example, is now basically impossible for any human being to learn and speak fluently, whereas it was formerly learned and spoken fluently by millions. Latin is also much more complex and difficult to learn than its modern descendant languages, and there are many more examples.

Even English is getting simpler, not more complex, as time passes.

Human beings are not gaining intelligence as historical time passes; they are losing it. Language is but one of the many clear examples, in easily provable, real-life terms, of the devolution of man, and evidence that "evolution" from lower forms to higher ones is an out-and-out myth.

imma pay attention to this last bit, if you believe in evolution, and many dont but some do and those that have studied it, would know its a theory that animals evolve according to their environment to better adapt.. now, humans evolved (*beats down the christian rage of me stating that* down i wanna point somethin out) from apes/monkeys and the way they evolved is the brains became larger, more complex and we gained the use of tools, and we had to keep evolving because have no claws or anything else... So intelligence is what we gained, now as a human race with intelligence we have created a environment where we do not need to be intelligent, there is no threat around us (like tigers, lions the shit that can literally bite our fuckin heads off) to force a evolution, and when we dont have a need, we stop adapting that ability to better it... so it can be put forth (because there is nothing stating you cant evolve backwards, in fact i think there is a few insects or animals that were more complex but they found them becoming simpler because it was better for them, it suited their needs better) that because we do not need our intelligence on a environmental level... we can stop gaining that ability, and start to lose it...

with all that said... evolution (like insert reference to Jays sexual preference or whoever you happen to hate/like/wanna mess with) can swing both ways, and neither is a out and out myth (unless of course you believe in god, but that is why this thread is still fuckin alive... iunno how jay manages to make these threads work)

[KLOBBER]

Was that even English?

Monkeys? Ridiculous!

There are no monkeys in my family tree, but perhaps there are in the above poster's family, judging by his grasp of human language, or lack thereof.

[Balsiefen]

In terms of language being easier, you may want to check out the thread for that klobber, I'd be interested in seeing what your ideas on that are.

Besides, simpler language has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Language will develop organically until it is standardised (which happened in Britain about the time of the industrial revolution). The fact that a Linconshireman can now understand a Cornishman due is to a shared dialect. Language is not really getting simpler as much as standardised due to communications improvements.

Latin is in no way a more complicated language than any of it's successors. I personally find it a lot easier than French and more logical. As for Sanskrit, I think you will find the reason of its difficulty to learn is that it has been developed largely separately to western languages: It's much easier to learn a language such as German of which your own language has largely developed from one of its dialects mixed around with a few other languages.

[KLOBBER]

Besides, simpler language has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

Latin is in no way a more complicated language than any of it's successors. As for Sanskrit, I think you will find the reason of its difficulty to learn is that it has been developed largely separately to western languages....

ALL reputable linguists agree that language is getting simpler and easier to understand as time goes by, across the board. Those whose personal intelligence is very low will insist that language has nothing to do with intelligence, as that is a fact in their particular cases.

However, those with sufficient intelligence can understand quite easily that intelligence and language do have an undeniable correlation -- language requires a certain level of intelligence, in order to utilize it at all, and the less intelligence a person has, the less general capacity he will have for language as well. This is common sense.

Latin is certainly more complex than each and every one of its successor languages. This is a historical fact, not an opinion. It is no longer spoken fluently by nearly as many people who formerly spoke it because it is too complex for the present state of the human brain to do so. Its successor languages are all much easier to understand, and that is why they are spoken instead of Latin. You are absolutely wrong about Sanskrit as well: Even those who are very familiar with its most closely-related languages must undertake an intensive study of the language for 12 years or more, in order to even begin to understand it on any significant level. In former ages, when the human brain was more capable of learning and could hold more information, people learned it and spoke it quite fluently before they were 8 years old.

Historically, it is an undeniable fact that language is getting simpler, easier to understand, and easier to learn as time passes, all over the world. This is a clear indication that human intelligence is on a similar decrease, and this fact directly and undeniably contradicts every nonsense darwinist's ridiculous theories about human intelligence increasing as time passes.

The facts clearly show otherwise, despite the "scissor logic" (the desperate tendency to overlook clear facts and plod on with a premature and unscientific conclusion) employed by the less intelligent members posting in this thread.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is a clear indication that human intelligence is on a similar decrease, and this fact directly and undeniably contradicts every nonsense darwinist's ridiculous theories about human intelligence increasing as time passes.

Says the guy on the computer.

[KLOBBER]

Hey, speak of the devil! I just mentioned "scissor logic," and Juan the bottom-boy immediately shows up! LOL



In past ages, the intelligence levels and memory capacity of humans beings were so great that they could memorize all the information needed, without having to rely on external devices for memory storage, such as computers. This is more evidence that the human brain capacity is decreasing historically, not increasing.

This is like shooting fish in a barrell!