Old Earth vs. Young Earth
 

I need to get something off my chest, and in doing so I hope to have a lively discussion about the topic on hand on please not go off course too much. I'll Start by saying that as of lately I am questioning the very religous teachings that I grew up believing. I guess I'm actually opening my eyes and coming to my own beliefs based on information I've gathered over my 27 years of being on this planet. But see, my trouble is that I am now conflicted about what I believe. At the core of my conflict is a simply basic question. How old is the earth/universe? How old? Weird how that one innocent question can raise so many questions and in doing so, carry with it implications that have shook my beliefs to the core.

I have always been facsinated with the stars and astronomy in general. Anytime anything is on tv that has to do with space, the universe, or the earth as a whole, I'm intrigued. The last few years I have fell in love with a series on the History Channel called the "Universe", and other similar shows/ documentaries. Everything that modern science can measure points to the Universe being about 14 Billion years old, and the Earth about 4.5 Billion years old. Everything I've seen to support this makes complete sense to me and I cannot see how we could doubt that.

Now for the counter agrument. My church teaches that God made the universe and everything in it in 6, 24 hr days, about 10,000 yrs ago. And their only evidence is a book written by man guided by the word of God.

So which is it? if the earth is indeed 4.5 billion yrs old, then it complety blows my churches teachings out of the water. But if they are right and the earth is only 10,000 yrs old, then EVERTHING modern science has observed, measured, and quanitfied is complety wrong. every theory, every scientific milestone, WRONG. I just can't wrap my head around that last possiblity. So here I am, left with my own understanding of the world, and coming to my own beliefs. I just want to go on record that I do in fact believe in a higher power, but not in the same light that my church has taught me since i was a kid. I really think there has to be a blending of the two. We still don't know exactly what, how or why the universe started with the big bang. I guess I think back to the idea that thousands of years ago people KNEW that lighting was an act of god because they could not explain it any other way. Now with science we know different.

Anyway I'd love to hear what other people think about this subject. I'm open minded either way and love healthy debate.

If you reject the literal interpretation of Genesis, then you have no reason to call the Bible an absolute authority on anything. Old earth advocates/devout evolutionists use science as a religion and have no problem here. It is the people who tout "theistic evolution" and the complete BS of "Intelligent Design" that frustrate and irritate me. How do you say the universe was designed then leave the who part a complete blank?

Children need to be fairly exposed to both viewpoints rather than be brainwashed in either camp. For the record, I am in the group that believes the earth is in the range suggested by Bishop James Ussher, and that the Genesis account is correct. The Bible is a very reliable source for dates and goes into exhausting detail with lifespans.

I was in your exact shoes one year ago. I can even link you to the post, if you like. Since then I've done a lot of soul searching (and internet searching) and I am no longer a young earth creationist. I am no longer a lot of things, but definitely not that.

Pasting this from my post at the bottom of the page for people just finding this thread: A Crash Course for Young Earth Creationists.

Science and religion are not incompatible. There's no need to choose between one or the other, except in cases of direct contradiction. In those situations, you need to make a decision as to which holds greater weight to you. Is it mountains of observed and (hypothetically, at least) verifiable data, or a book written close to two thousand years ago?

Young Earth creationism takes the Bible very literally. The problem with this is that there's absolutely no corroborating evidence. For some, that's not an obstacle. Me, I'm too much of a sceptic to take such things at face value.

Note that this doesn't make the Bible useless, as some might claim. It just means that a literal interpretation of every passage therein is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it. I don't see this as an obstacle, since such a thing is impractical at best anyway. I'm loathe to trot out the tired old Leviticus example; the point stands already.

As an aside, I have no problem with people teaching their children things like creationism and intelligent design at home or in church. Where I take issue is when people try to shoehorn it into the science classroom. Slapping the word theory on something doesn't make it scientific. It doesn't belong there.

I've never understood why there is this big debate on science vs religion. If you really believe god is all powerful he can make the universe look anyway he freaking chooses whether it be a year old or 4 billion. Obviously our scientific observations have worked, or we wouldn't have all this technology. And if you put that together with believing in god then that must mean that science is A OK in his book. So use it, become an astronomer, whatever, you can still believe in god.

I swear I have more faith as a non-believer than most of you religious folk do.

You might want to bear in mind that the literal interpretation of Genesis used by young earth creationists is the more recent interpretation. The more traditional interpretation is that the six days are allegorical, not literal (because of course God created the universe in an instant). I don't really see any contradiction between Christianity as traditionally understood and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Those people who approach the Bible... especially the books of the Old Testament, and especially Genesis... like it's a wiring diagram or some other documentation that gives entirely literal explanations and instructions, to be understood and followed verbatim... those people inevitably find themselves stumbling and falling all over it. And even worse, those people end up building religious institutions that are legalistic as well as fundamentalist, and ultimately materialistic and repressive.

This I agree with. I've come to believe, (on my own understanding and my own research) that you cannot take Genesis literal. But my church feels otherwise. And since that is the case, I really think that I will part ways with my boy hood church. Its too bad, as I live in a small community in the midwest where I grew up. My parents go to this church and a good part of my neighbors go to this church. I wonder do any of the other major denominations see Genesis in a more flexible light? I come from a Luthern up-bringing. At anyrate I will sometime have to explain this to my current pastor. Honestly I would love to get into a debate with him about such a topic and why he feels that the Bible is factual word for word. But in the end we will agree to disagree. Does anybody out here believe in the new earth view? I am curious about how you view modern science and all that we have discovered.

Quoted because I agree.

You're going through what I went through about 5 years ago.

Astronomy is awesome and makes you view your entire life differently and really makes you wonder why we're arguing over shit like the economy when there's bigger fish to fry: what's out there?

Youtube some clips of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and listen to what he has to say, particularly about intelligent design and religion.

The reason people should eschew a literal interpretation of the bible is not that it contradict what we know about science. Is that it contradicts itself. The two genesis, the four gospels, all describe different things. The only way they can be reconciled is if people don't interpret them literally.

I reject the position that it's "Old Earth vs. Young Earth", because it unfairly puts the belief that Earth is only 6000 years old on the same level as rational thought.

The unverifiable, inaccurate, archaic theory proposed by Genesis is not supported by other texts of the time period or any celestial research since. When something like this runs aground against the massive flood of observable, verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific research, it should never be equated in a way that implies identical credibility.

It's acceptable to believe in a "young earth," so long as one is aware of the inherent credibility difference.

I agree that an all-powerful God, who created the universe, could make the Earth appear to scientific analysis that it's very, very old, even though it's actually quite young. However, I do not agree that the God of the Bible has done this. Why would this one, true God do such a thing, to us mortals? To confuse us? To test our faith? To set the believers against the scientists?

No, that sounds like the sort of thing a devious, and perhaps even mad, god of Greek mythology would do.

Read the entire book of Genesis, and you'll see that the "creation" takes up only a very small part of it, and is not really what the book is about.

Then, what is the book of Genesis really all about? It's about the original fall of mankind that led to his separation from God, and God's initial ministrations to reconcile mankind, and mankind's rebellion against God.

Yes, the word genesis means "the origin or coming into being of something". But, see, Genesis means to explain how it came into being not so much the universe and the Earth, as it does the fall of mankind and his separation from God, and thus this harsh world and this wretched situation that we're now living in, i.e. hardships, poverty, warfare, pain and suffering, sickness and death – Genesis means to explain how that came into being.

How old is the earth? How old is the universe? These are scientific questions, they cannot be answered with philosophy. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is a little over 13.5 billion years old. Religion doesn't even enter the equation.

Does god exist? Do I believe what's right? Is the Bible true, or mostly true, or a little true? These are philosophical questions, and only you can answer those questions for yourself.

That's a good way of putting it. Time can have both a scientific and a philisophical measurement. They just can't be used together. Time flies when you're having fun but the clock will tell you different.

So how many scientific units has the universe been around for? 4.5 billion.

How many Religious units has the universe been around for? Depends on your beliefs.

Using the latter to answer the former doesn't make sense.

I don't know that this is a denomination question. I'd have to think this is a church by church thing (though I can't say I've even been to a church that believed in a literal interpretation of genesis). Many mainstream Christians (at least the ones I know) think that a literal interpretation is kooky. I think you are ready for a new church - shop around, I don't think your current one is helping you.

I suspect that your minister will be intractable about his view and asking him might just end up in an argument. Personally, I wouldn't bother.

A caveat - I'm an atheist, so take my advice with a grain (maybe a pillar) of salt ;)

Well Cynosure, yeah, that's what I would expect if you believe in a christian type god. If there is that type of god (I should say I do believe in some sort of "god", just not one that has such a...personality). But if you believe in the christian type, then clearly faith is somehow important part of life, otherwise god would make it easy and do something more direct to each person.

Uncertainty and faith will always be a part of life. Now *why* its a part of life is up to the individual belief system. If you're an atheist, then it's because that's the nature of physics, if your christian, its because you must be tested or washed of sin, show your faith,etc. If you're like me then it's because uncertainty and faith enhance life, without it, life would be too dull and pointless.

Jesus taught primarily by parable and allegory and metaphor. He was one creative dude, in terms of approaches and methods for his teachings. Why is it that his followers have to be so bloody-minded literal?

I also find it amazing that the same christians (I refuse to use a capital C) who insist on a <10k-year-old earth also missed Jesus' core message, which was "Be good to people, including those different from you, especially those who need it most."

Blessed are the meek, bitches!

The part of the OT that deals with the age of the Earth wasn't written in a metaphoric narrative. "Jack son of Drew son of Rusty son of Charlie son of Rick..." was written as a line directly from Adam and Eve all the way to what was then the present. Either it's the worst allegory in history (worse even than Neo being an allegory for Jesus) or it was supposed to be literal.

But that's really not important. My understanding of Christianity, my experience even, was that all the lessons you need come from the retellings of the story of Jesus. His words and actions, retold in gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are supposed to be the entire foundation of Christian life, philosophy, and morality. The previous stuff, while not completely unimportant, was more about "Guess who's on his way? Jesus, that's who! But for now, here are some rules."

Anyway, Jesus never said "Oh, dude, you're not going to believe this: the Earth is only a few thousand years old! ROFL!" He never reiterated a lot of stuff from the OT. Why? You'd have to ask him, but my guess is that if he existed he didn't think it was as important as the stuff he did say.

Yes. Looking at the denomination is a good way to start, but it's true that you need to look closely at the individual church. If you were raised Lutheran, perhaps you'd be comfortable looking into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? They tend to be more liberal than Lutheran denominations such as Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Catholic Church also tends to defer to science on the issue of creation and evolution. The Episcopal Church is also quite progressive on issues of science, gender, and sexual orientation. The United Methodist Church is another which I'm pretty sure has a less literal view of the bible. Also can't hurt to check out the Unitarian Universalists if you're shopping around, though they're not strictly Christian.

It's reaching the point where the majority do not view Genesis in the literal sense, but the minority tends to be quite loud.

A lot of others have already said some of the most important things to be said on the subject. But I would really want to emphasize that, from a religious perspective, absolute literalism in reading the Bible not only is unproductive, I would argue that it doesn't exist at all.

Your church wants you to believe with 100% literalism and no external interpretation that God created the world 5760 years ago in six 24-hour days. Fair enough. In that case, I presume they also teach that you are forbidden from eating rabbit (Lev. 11:7), pork (Lev. 11:8), every kind of shellfish and crustacean (Lev. 11:12), or the blood of any animal (Lev. 19:26); that you are forbidden from wearing clothes that combine wool and cotton or linen (Lev. 19:19); that you must distance yourself from your congregation every time you have an emission of semen (Deut. 23:10 and elsewhere); that when you need to crap, you have to leave the city, dig a hole, crap into it, then cover it over with the shovel you brought for the purpose (Deut. 23:12-13); that you may not charge interest on loans (Deut. 23:19); nor can you remarry your ex-wife once you have divorced her, if she's had a relationship in the meantime, since that would be abhorrent to the same degree as idolatry or bestiality (Deut. 24:1-4).

You see what I'm getting at. No church teaches those things, because of a bunch of fancy theological footwork ascribed to the Apostle Paul. But they are there. There is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus didn't expect his followers to behave like fervently religious Jews, seeing as that's what they were. Jesus might have suggested reading the Bible literally-- although I doubt it, considering he was trained by the Rabbis of the Talmud, and they didn't-- but as soon as Christianity ceased being Judaism, it stopped taking the Bible literally.

If your church wants to teach literal creationism, I say they are welcome to do so. As long as they keep strictly kosher, follow all the laws of ritual purity, and the rest of the Mosaic code as well. Otherwise, there is no absolute literalism in reading the Bible: just double-talk.

I say this, by the way, as a practicing Jew, who does keep strictly kosher and so forth, and yet, following the Jewish tradition, would never consider absolute literalism an option in reading the Bible. We have always interpreted, and many of the early Christians did as well-- some of the later Christians, too. I see no reason (no Reason) in a church choosing to read Genesis absolutely literally and not other texts. It's just fundamentalism for the sake of plain cussedness, and to me, that does not seem theologically, philosophically, or religiously helpful. If that's your church, then with all respect to your childhood connections and feelings, I think you will be better off quit of them, from a purely theological standpoint.

And lest you think what I say is anti-Christianism, there are some Jews who try to take the traditional Jewish teachings about the Bible just as literally, and be just as fundamentalist, and I have said the same to them, and would say it again at the drop of a hat.

BTW, regardless of whether you're a creationist or not, you should use kosher salt. It's just better. Also, kosher hot dogs. That's one subject where I'm a strict literalist.

Young earth creationism is bunk, pure and simple. It's probably also the single greatest assault on Christ's teachings in the world today.

Think about it. What better way to destroy the message of Jesus than to equate it with something completely ridiculous?

Not just a "christian type" god. The Old Testament – particularly its first few books, which is what I've been referring to – is at the core of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Even so, it appears to me that atheists are want to lump all gods together, whether it be the omniscient and omnipotent, all- and ever-present God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, who is perfect and peerless, or the anthropomorphic, physical (albeit immortal, though they can die or be destroyed) and limited (albeit super-powerful) gods of Greek, Norse and Hindu mythology, who are flawed, as well as many and competitive with one another.

If there is a God, it stands to reason that he/she (surely, such a God would be both and neither) would be an intelligent, sentient, and, yes, even caring being. Why? Because of the representation given by us human beings, who are like points of light – thinking, feeling, and caring – in a dark, vast and cold universe that operates like highly complex, yet utterly impersonal, clockwork. As for the other animals on our world: even the brightest of them are vastly inferior to us human beings in their ability to think, feel and care, for they are mostly if not entirely limited to their instincts and programming.

Well that's why I said christian type god and not christian god.

"If there is a God, it stands to reason..." I don't think that it stands to reason Cyn. Individually we're loving and caring but look at us as a whole. We're selfish and violent. And if god created it all then he's also responsible for that dark, impersonal, clockwork part of the universe too. So if we're going by percentages he's much more mechanical than human.

I'm going to allow Epicurus address this:
The point Epicurus makes isn't that a god or gods are either not omnipotent, are malevolent, etc., but that you can't apply standard reason to theology. You can't apply reason to the supernatural. You can't apply reason to god.

IMHO, Epicurus, in that oft-quoted observation of his – as logical, enlightened, and unbiased as it appears to be – was speaking out of ignorance and narrow-mindednes, and perhaps even out of personal bitterness and resentment toward religion and believers in the supernatural. (Yes, I'm saying that about Epicurus! LoL.)

We human beings (mortals though we be) can indeed apply our reason (limited and imperfect as it is) to God, i.e. to his existence, to his characteristics, and to his actions. However, when we do, when we consider or postulate what God is, and what God does or does not do, and the why's and how's thereof of his actions/inaction, we must look at not only the big picture (and I do mean the BIG picture, which includes all of humanity, throughout all of human history), but also the eternal scheme of things. Thus, it appear to me that Epicurus was being short-sighted and probably even sarcastic.

Vanity, truly my favorite sin.

If something exists capable of creating a universe as infinitely complex as ours is, I find it astonishingly difficult to believe that it cares about six billion members of one species on a small blue green planet orbiting a nondescript mid-phase star. You realize there are more than twenty times the number of galaxies (observable) in our universe than there are human beings on earth? "All of human history" is the tiniest blip in the "BIG" picture that it's hardly worth mentioning.

I'm willing to grant that the enormous complexity and variety of our universe suggests that something pulling the switch. I think the jump from that to he/she/it/they having anything invested in this planet is incredibly difficult, other than out of a desire to feel special.

In what way were his conclusions short-sighted?

That viewpoint sounds more nihilistic than humble, to me.

What if this great, big universe was created by God for the sole purpose of hosting mankind? Why, I once read a science article that theorized and gave evidence to support that our universe needs to be as enormous, and as teeming with stars and planets, as it is, in order to contain at least one solar system and planet suitable for human life. I've read other articles (again, scientific ones, not religious) that theorize and give evidence to support that we are probably the only intelligent life in this universe.

But even if we aren't, I see no conflict with a God capable of creating a vast and complex universe, and still deeply caring about the human beings on "a small blue green planet orbiting a nondescript mid-phase star".

Whatever, this very issue has already been addressed in the Bible, and more than once. Here's one example...

I've actually found the viewpoint soothing, to be perfectly honest, and it has nothing to do with nihilism. I didn't say that nothing matters because of the scope of the universe compared to earth, I just said that the argument that "god made all of this for us" holds very little weight to me, given how much "all this" encompasses and how very little of it we're likely to ever see.

I just had a shocking thought... what if that's as far in the book as they got??

I just wanted to mention that the concept of the age of the earth as based on the genealogy is Christian-denomination-specific. For example it is almost ironic that the Orthodox Christians do not take that literal interpretation but instead have no problem accepting the fact that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old. The age of the Earth does not negative or strengthen the argument for the existence of God. As others mentioned above, focusing on that and trying to extrapolate from that is missing the forest for the trees when it comes to Christianity. And overall, is a very weak argument against God since the explanation of it not being literal works perfectly well. The sun was created on the 4th day -- that alone tells you the first few days couldn't have been 'days' in our regular understanding.

For anyone that's wondering, the 6000 years is based on Gen 5 and 11, which supposedly give a perfectly accurate timescale for progeny:
Gen. 5: 1-8, NKJ
This starts at Adam and goes on quite some time. The idea is that these are a simple and unquestionable chronological link between the first week of existence and now. Even from a theological standpoint, I find this to be a weak argument. For example:
- There could be a gap of 4.5 billion years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
- Also, the first "day", often cited as evidence that "day" means a 24-hour period, could actually demonstrate the opposite. It's possible that the darkness was a period of about 9 billion years between the big bang and the formation of the sun, and that the light was the 4.57 billion years of the sun. This would establish context for the use of day (yom) for the rest of the chapter meaning "eon" (or long passage of time) instead of a 24-hour day and would thus completely void the young earth theory.

The true stumble is when you come to the order of development from Genesis 1:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-genesis...gic-column.gif
It's this, not the age of the earth, that creates the most substantial rift between creationism and a verifiable scientific history of life on our planet. Fish easily predate fruit-bearing trees by hundreds of millions of years. Reptiles predate birds because birds came from reptiles. And yes, stars predate fruit trees, too.

I'm surprised that people get hung up on the age of the earth instead of the order of evolution of life on the planet. It's the latter I've always found to be the most glaring inconsistency.

People who point to this and say, "See? Add up all these, and you find the earth is only around 6,000 years old!" are being technical and legalistic, and even superficial and materialistic.

Considering that the Bible was written by many different authors over a period of ancient human history spanning some two thousand years, it shouldn't be at all surprising that at least some erroneous (yet ultimately trivial) stuff like what is found in that passage, quoted above, got into the Bible. For the Bible is an incredible and multifarious compilation of oral tradition, written history, poetry (mostly spiritual, but some of it romantic and even erotic), philosophy, folk wisdom, sagely observations and advice, spiritual revelations, dreams and prophecies, personal testimony, eyewitness accounts, allegory, etc. That some fundamentalists and/or fantatics take stuff like that passage and make it the focal point of a particular belief and argument... in this case, that ours is a young earth... when there is overwhelming and irrefutable scientific evidence that shows otherwise...

:shakehead:

Kosher salt isn't kosher, it's used to kosher meat.

i know, but it's still better.

I was watching a program on PBS yesterday, a real interesting one about the ice sheets. The ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland have layers, like rings of a tree, that can be counted. They are formed as snow falls and is compressed under new snow, but summer snow (with the sun on it 24 hours a day) looks different than winter snow, which falls in the dark, so you get annual banded cross sections that look like rings of a tree:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2mze7f8.jpg

These layers have lots of data in them--there are trapped air bubbles (down to a certain level, before the pressure becomes too great) so atmospheric composition can be measured, and there are different ratios of isotopes that tell us what the temperature was when the snow fell.

All of that is fine and good, the point to all of this is, in Antarctica they have drilled an uninterrupted ice core record going back to 400,000 years, and in Greenland it goes back to 100,000.

The United Methodist Church definitely has a less literal view of the Bible, and they're very progressive. They do have less ritual in their services, though, so if a person is used to that, it can be a bit strange at first.

Just found this: A Crash Course for Young Earth Creationists.


Each of these claims has scientifically valid sources if you click the video link.

Great video, twisted.

From the video:
ROFL

I believe that a literal reading is not only incorrect, but potentially damaging to faith. It forces you by implication to take the Bible word-for-word, when it is full of chronological inconsistencies, apparent philosophical contradictions, and a few outright fabrications. It pulls away from the message of Jesus, which sometimes must be read in between the lines. His message, aside from him being the Son of God and dying on the Cross for our sins, is that we must love one another as we love ourselves. Unconditional love is one of the most powerful things a person can feel.

He as many wise things to say aside from the Golden Rule. The Synoptic Gospels are a treasure trove of knowledge. He dines with the sinners instead of with the faithful. The devil's three-part challenge in the desert explains why we don't test God, why materialism is bad, and why miracles do not occur for their own sake. He teaches the value of spiritual humility, and balances it with the importance of sharing faith and doing good works.

A literal reading of the Bible is not really necessary to understanding the Christian way, and it introduces more problems than it solves.

It depends on what you mean by "are want to lump all gods together." If you mean that all atheist lump all gods into the category of fiction then yes, they do, by definition. If you mean that they think they're all the same, well that's simply untrue. They're obviously different, at least literally speaking...

Why did you even bring this up? It looks like a complete non-sequitur to your conversation...

This makes no sense.

If there is a god, he would be caring because... we can conceive of such a thing? Care to elaborate on that?

I also don't think we're nearly as smart as you think we are, relative to the other animals on Earth. The other primates are capable of surprisingly abstract thought and communication. They can even understand the concept of zero; an abstract idea that came surprisingly late in human history.

The thing that really separates us from the other animals is our capacity for complex language. Other animals clearly think and care about things. Some of them don't have nearly as much instinct as you might think.

What do you mean by "programming?"

The universe ain't getting any younger, nor are the stories we've used to explain it when we were.

Math beats mythology in my book, because it leads away from confusion.

Science matches the Bible
 

www,Reasons,org Reasons
You can have Several LITERAL translations of Genesis 1. And one of them allows for "YOM" to mean "long period of time" instead of "24 hours" (in the Day of david.. in the Day of the typewriter, in the day God Created Light)

www,reasons,org/resources/non-staff-papers/introduction-to-the-creation-date-debate
this page speeks specifically to the young earth-old earth depbate.

First, if you look at verse 1.. it is a summary that "God made everything in the Universe".
The rest of Genesis 1 is talking specifically from the view of on earth "and the spirit of God hovered over the water of the deep [on earth]"

There is biblical and scientific evidence that Light, the sun, and Stars existed BEFORE day 1 and day 4.

1) The word used when describing god creating light and the sun and stars is NOT the word for "Brand New". (The bible uses the Hebrew word for 'brand new' when talking about Man.

2) Scientific evidence suggests that the earth had a thick cloud atmosphere (like venus) except thicker because the earth is farther from the sun, and has a larger mass.

3) In the book of Job, it talks about how during creation God "shrouded the earth" with clouds.

4) 'Day 1' suggestes that God made the opaque sky turn Translucent. Thus there was light on earth.(there is scientific evidence fot this)
5) 'Day 4' suggestes that God made the Tranclucent sky Transparent. Thus the sun and moon and stars were visible in the sky.(there is scientific evidence for this)

.... (much more evidence exists)

When looking at different religions the order of creation in the Bible is by far the Most accurate. (i believe it had 14/14 of the order of major creation events correct, where the next best religion had 2/14 correct.)


Check that website.. or you can google "Reasons to believe" (they also have DAILY updates about NEW scientific evidence that supports a Creator)

pretty much. I grew up learning about dinosaurs, fossils etc. I later learned that people really believe the Bible stuff and man I find it a bit disturbing. no offence but it really sounds like flat earthers or the sun and planets orbit the earth.

this is completely ridiculous to me.

It's completely ridiculous to me that some people can't see (or refuse to see) the obvious. Animals are indeed vastly inferior to human beings in their intelligence.

Give me a break. Did these other primates discover the concept of zero, or was it taught to them? And what useful (if not enterprising) endeavors are these other primates able to apply their understanding of zero?

Show me a monkey who can be taught to, say, assemble a desktop computer (let alone design one, with all its complex and intricate parts), and on a consistent basis (that is, without the monkey quickly getting bored or distracted, and thus throwing computer parts across the room or smearing his feces over them), and maybe then I'll be impressed.

Dolphins have the ability to shut down half of their brain at a time. One half sleeps while the other half stands guard, for the most part.

And monkeys are the only hair or fur bearing animals (including humans) that do not get fleas.

As a lifelong UMCer (even went to a methodist university) I can attest to this but add, try Presbyterian USA. It may just be this area, but when I was with the UMC, all the sermons were about wellness and being good to yourself, kind of like a counseling session. When we joined the PUSA, everything is about caring for Gaia and other people.

And cookies. Cookies and coffee after the service.

There are many obvious things that people can't see. The reason for this, of course, is that we're just not that smart...

Now, we're a good deal smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom but you make it sound as if other animals hardly think at all. They also feel and care. To what degree we'll never know 'cause these things are subjective and not well defined...

Your examples aren't very good. While other primates were taught the concept of zero, what you're ignoring is that you were also taught that concept. I find it highly unlikely that, left to your own devices, you would have figured it out yourself. I'm also willing to bet that you have as much hope of designing a computer as a monkey. I'm not even convinced that I can train you to design one!

Individual humans have been smart enough in particular ways and helped by particular circumstances to figure certain things out. When they did, they told someone else about it. This information went on to help someone else figure something else out. This is how mankind discovers things but make no mistake: you do very little.

What sets us apart from other animals, more so than our intellect, is our unique ability for language. With that, we can learn from other people without having to do everything that other person went through to learn it themselves. This accumulation of knowledge even traverses generations so I may learn from people who died long before I was ever born. We even rely on each other 'cause no one person can know all that much. That's why some of us design and build computers while other have no hope of doing so...

You want to see how we're not so much smarter than other animals? Visit any church or talk to any Creationist...

We should remember that the Church persecuted Galileo for having the audacity to suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe - something we now know to be 100% true (and the church admits this as well.) If the church was wrong about that, then it stands to reason that it could be wrong about any of the theories of the universe which it puts forth. Take that logic into consideration with the mounds of scientific evidence that show that the earth, not to mention the universe, is far older than that, and it is difficult to find merit in the church's claim.

Additionally, if the universe were only 10,000 years old, we should only be able to see stars that are 10,000 light years away. any further than that, would mean the universe is older, since a light year is the distance light travels in one year. In fact we can see on the order of 12 billion light years away. this would take quite an elaborate trick by God to make something that's only 10,000 years old look like it emitted light 12 billion years ago.

I feel inferior to a lot of cephalopods.

Things I can't do that an octopus can:

Survive under water
Regrow limbs
Fit through 1" diameter pipes (even a very large octupus can fit through very small spaces if motivated properly)
Emit prey-customized venom (one opens clams!)
Strangle a shark to death
Camoflage myself completely to blend in with my surroundings
Change the pigment of my skin at will

Did you know cuttlefish communicate with sign language?
Did you hear about the octopus who would sneak out of his (locked) tank, eat crabs from an aquarium a couple rows over, then return and relock his tank to remove suspicion from himself? The ONLY thing that keeps cephalopods down is their short lifespan, which makes their intelligence even more amazing.

Well. . You were taught the concept of 0. You didn't have to discover it. Does that mean you're dumb? I would say, no.


1) Humans don't design computers anymore. They're designed by other computers.
2) Monkeys have been taught to fly simulated airplanes, and real space capsules. They may not be as smart as us, but they're quite a bit smarter than you give them credit for. Koko the gorilla even comes up with her own concepts and signs them to her caretaker.

I never said animals are unintelligent. I said human intelligence is vastly superior to animal intelligence.

If I say a human adult is vastly more capable of complex thought than is a human toddler, does that make it sound like a human toddler can hardly think at all?

Methinks this – that ol' ax of yours, that you love to grind – is what's keeping you from conceding here that human beings are vastly superior to animals in intelligence.

So, seriously... If for some reason you had to save either a church full of Creationists, or a barn full of animals, and it had to be one or the other, which would it be? Seriously.

But, of course, it's a rhetorical questions, because we already know the great lengths a rescue team will go, and the enormous costs a society will bear, just to rescue a single human being in peril.

Meh. I'm not impressed. Most of those things, human being are able to replicate through their technology. And with that technology, they're able to do far, far more and greater things than an octopus can do. Besides, just on a physical scale of things, an octopus is far more limited and far less adaptable on this earth than human beings are.

Still not impressed. But then, I've witnessed the many and wondrous things that a mere human toddler can do.

1. Big deal. Today's computers are designed by computers that were originally built by humans, right? And anyway, no computer of today is able to design a new computer all by itself. Humans have to provide the goal and its requirements, and the impetus to achieve those, as well as provide continual imput and guidance throughout the design process. (Not to mention we provide the required manufactured parts, operating power, manual labor, etc.)

2. Why is this so impressive? What's far more impressive is, those simulated airplanes and real space capsules were designed and built by humans!

Okay but, looking back on these posts, my original point is that I don't think we're nearly as smart in relation to other animals as you think we are. Have you been paying attention to my emphasis on language? It's hard to tell 'cause you've been cutting it out without a response.

Speaking of which, I can't believe you edit my sentences in the quoted context. It's like you're trying to remove context to emphasize your point of view...

How so? What does our intellect as a species have to do with Creationism?

How serious could your question have been if it's rhetorical?

Would you be surprised if I saved the idiot filled church instead of the barn? How is this question at all relevant?




By the way, here's another YouTube gem for the discussion:

did you ever consider that humanity's (or maybe just some humans)shining intelligence just may not be good enough to perceive some of the various capabilities of animals ? humans have a habit of assuming 'others' are lesser and they are superior. superior to other 'different' humans and animals.

maybe there is a quality some animals possess that's more valuable than intelligence ? why is it so great to be 'intelligent' ? a lion outwits a gazelle in the chase, it's not necessarily instinct, it a skill taught by it's parents. lions social structure allows for times of less prey, humans on the other hand populate like maggots and foul their environment to the point of disaster -for all life- how intelligent is that ?!? :thumbsup:

I get the feeling "intelligence" is some kind of licence to ownership...of the world for instance. personally I'd say if humans were not on this planet the animals would be doing just fine. some species would die off, some new would evolve (if you believe in such a crazy concept) but none would die just for the fun of killing them...and humans love killing animals and other humans just for the fun of it. not to mention killing other humans cause they feel they are 'lesser' and are obviously of lower intelligence. honestly, this is how slavery, torture and war comes about.

humans are only superior in certain ways. in some ways humans are more foul than can be imagined. plenty of humans make me ashamed to be human, but all animals just do what they are born to do. as god(?) made them, did god make humans to rape and cannibalise his own children ? I must assume he did cause some humans do this. or did satan ? but wait ! god made satan too !

all religions are just stories invented by ignorant humans trying to make sense of a world they don't understand. over time these stories have been used as a tool to control population. more and more it seems to me religious organizations are just havens for perverted sexual deviants who've ran away from society due to fears of their own inner horrors, or a magnet for megalomaniacal sociopaths, or just a way to use population as a cash cow.

I was hearing about hasidic jews in NY complaining about women in short skirts on NPR the other day...they seemed to blame these women's mode of dress for their own "evil" thoughts ??? please, give me a break.

if a christian dies, and goes to heaven, does he look down at the jews and say HAW HAW ya dumb asses ! you don't believe so yer goin to HELL and burn forever !! or what about the muslims ? are the dead muslims sitting in their heaven with virgins, glasses of milk and honey and thinking heh heh, retarded christians, your not getting any virgins or milk and honey ? or what if the jews are right ? they just think when your dead you're dead so they won't be saying ha, ya dumb goya ! your just gonna be worm food !

oh, and I'd save the farm animals, or any animals before some creationists.

and wtf is so great about enterprising ventures ? most of this human endeavour is destroying the planet. most animals are at least smart enough not to shit in their own bed. some of humanity makes a fetish of it, smearing all over their bodies shit, vomit and general bodily waste has been fetishized by lots of humans. pritty smart ehh ?

sorry :oogle: guess I wanderd off the (edge?)of "old earth"

Dude, you're preaching to the choir, here. Did you read my post in the "Why can't anyone prove ghosts?" thread? I've had my own "close encounters of the ghostly kind", on numerous occasions, and yet I'm still skeptical about ghosts.

BTW: What I saw, on several, separate occasions, was definitely not floating dust particles or flashing lights from outside or anything like that. No, I saw extraterrestrial if not supernatural forms or shapes. However, I am scientific minded enough to admit that what I saw was more than likely due to sleep paralysis dreams (even though I was in no way paralyzed during my experiences).

Whatever, I know I'm not crazy. :p (Although, I do question the power and makeup of my subconscious.)

So you're saying that before computers or, to be generous, any modern electronic technology, that humans were no smarter than the animals?

Because you said:

So apparently your sole measure of intelligence is whether or not a creature can stick a video card into a slot. Monkeys can fly airplanes which is much more complicated than throwing together a PC. Your logic is breaking down. The ability to assemble things does not mean you're as intelligent as a human. Monkeys can assemble things. They use tools. Hell there are birds that use tools. The use of tools may be impressive, but it's not an absolute measure of intelligence. One of the failings of humans is that they base their measures of intelligence on the assumption that humans are themselves the smartest things on the planet. That's a fundamentally flawed and circular basis of comparison. 'we're the smartest because we rate a species' intelligence based on how similar to us it behaves."

Eh? Man, you come to some far out conclusions.

It was just an example I gave, and was not meant to be the focal point of my entire argument here.

But tell me: If assembling a desktop computer is so simple, why can't monkeys be taught to do it, and on a consistent basis?

And I suppose you're confident enough in a monkey's intelligence, that you would allow one to fly a plane with you in the passenger's seat?

:shakehead:

What a foolish line of argument you're taking. Look at the things human beings have invented, designed, built, and modified on this world, compared to what animals are capable of. Compare the likes of the Hoover Dam to what dams beavers can build. Compare the likes of a modern-day skyscraper to what nests birds can build. Compare the likes of New York City, with its subways and infrastructure, to what tunnels and structures that the smartest of burrowing animals are able to build. My God, the difference between what humans can create, compared to what animals can create, is astronomical! (And, as you know, we humans can destroy, too. We could destroy practically all life on this planet, if we chose to.)

I don't measure an animal's intelligence based so much on how similar to us it behaves, as I do on what that animal is able to create and achieve with its intelligence. And in that regard, for sure, animals are far, far inferior to human beings.

Because they lack the nerve connections required to use their muscles on a prolonged low force fine motor skill. A desktop computer could easily be designed to be monkey-assembleable if there were some incentive to do so.

I would have no problems with this. You are looking at intelligence all wrong...simple feedback loop problem solving, like flying a plane, is easy for neural networks like brains. It's much much harder computationally to fly a bird than fly a plane. A thin layer of brain cells in a dish can learn to fly a plane, so a monkey is practically overengineered.

You should look into the uses of animals in industry before you make sweeping generalizations. In many cases, it is cheaper to train pigeons to sort parts than it is to built robots to do the same (and much cheaper than hiring humans), and they have better accuracy.

The only thing that separates us from other animals is our communication ability. That's it. Without our advance level of communication, and the ability to build up a repository of knowledge, and not have to start from scratch every generation, we'd be hosed.

OK, one beaver vs one cynosure in a dam building contest. No tools allowed that you don't make yourself on site. And....FIGHT!

I find the nests more impressive

The extremely well engineered passive heating and cooling systems and complex passageway organization of termite mounds still baffles us, and is lightyears ahead of our city (and building) designs.

We will probably not achieve that level of widespread architectural sustainability in my lifetime.

Here's the thing: Humans are animals. We're pretty successful ones, by a lot of measures, but there isn't anything that actually separates us in any sort of meaningful way. We are a collection of useful abilities that have allowed us to survive and thrive, but we don't really have anything unique about us....just about every single thing we can do, some animal can also. We share 100% of our anatomy with various animals, we share brain areas, although some are more developed in humans than other species. Saying humans are superior to animals is ignoring the fact that WE ARE ANIMALS.

Smart ass. I'm comparing the intelligence of all human beings to all other life forms on this planet.

But, so, what? A beaver could build a better damn than me. I bet you I could draw a better picture than any beaver could. I could also write a better essay, compose a better song, and solve mathematical problems far, far better than any beaver could. Hell, I could take on all the other animals in this world, combined, when it comes to picture drawing, essay writing, music composition, and mathematical problem solving.

Furthermore, if I chose to pursue a dam-building contest with a beaver, I could acquire the know-how to build tools on-site, along with the know-how to build a primitive dam with those tools. As for the beaver and his dam: I could build a spear to hunt him with, and once he was dispatched, I could tear down his dam. And then there would be no competition – Cynosure (i.e. a human) takes all!

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

Then why does it take so darn much training (which is not only trying and time intensive, but also pretty costly) to fly a plane? Why is the user manual for Microsoft Flight Simulator so darn thick?

Is it because, oh, there's a whole lot more to flying a plane than maintaining the joystick, throttle, and pedals, and keeping the plane airborne?

Just about every thing, huh? Because, we both know that no animal can fly to the moon unless we send it there.

If that were the case, China would surely be employing animals to do assembly-line work, and the animal-rights activists be damned.

Our advance level of communication, and our ability to build up a repository of knowledge, are parts of our intelligence.

More impressive compared to a sky scraper, how? Aesthetically?

:orly:

Insect intelligence, eh? Lightyears ahead of our own, huh?

:rolleyes:

I see where this debate is going. I'm done, here. (I'd just as soon be debating with the kooks at PETA.)

:shakehead:

Ah, I see that my debate skills are no match for your advanced hybrid strawman/texas sharpshooter/"you are a liar!" technique. Glad to see you are done, maybe now an actual conversation can take place.

:lol:

Yeah, well, you know the adage about arguing on the Internet...

No Child Images

You're concentrating too hard on one particular aspect of the video; that of ghosts. The point I was making with the video is that we're just as superstitious as those brilliant animals: pigeons...

In many respects, we're still very stupid animals...

I had a whole wealth of interesting questions posed to you that could have been the start of some interesting dialogue. Why did you quietly ignore them?

Now we're getting into a semantic argument; something I find deeply uninteresting.

However, I'm curious to know if you would still consider language a part of our intellect if you knew it was instinctual and not something we figured out?

Which questions? In the "Why can't anyone prove ghosts?" thread?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Whatever, we humans have surely – through research and invention, i.e. via our intellect, not our instincts – advanced in leaps in bounds in our ability to communicate with one another, e.g. engraving, writing, printing, telegraphs, signal flags, telephones, televisions, the Internet.

For humans, superstition is a state of mind. It's not so much linked to our intelligence as it is, our emotions and our subconscious. Superstition can also be due to cultural influences, and individuals who know better may participate in superstitious beliefs and acts just to get along with their peers. Whatever, an individual can rise above it, if he chooses to. (Unless his superstition is a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and then it's a deeply rooted psychological problem that's not so easily left behind.)

The questions I posed to you in my response to you in this very thread. Really, I have no idea how you can miss them. I'll reproduce the dialogue, here:

Is your inability to predict where I'm leading with a question causing you to avoid it? I asked you whether or not you would consider language an aspect of intelligence if you knew that it was instinctual instead of something figured out? In case you can't answer the question without knowing why I asked it, I'm going to show you that it is not something invented by ourselves but rather an innate ability we've evolved over time...

I'm not convinced that people can just "choose" to "rise above" their superstitions. It inconveniences their lives and yet they still persist. Cultural influence just means that we are swayed more by our society than we are by reality. I wouldn't consider that a trait of intelligence. That's just the heard following their heard instincts...

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Wow, you have come a long way!

I think we're very special animals but, of course, I'm biased. However, the notion that some (religious) people have that we are somehow not part of the kingdom Animalia is just sheer stupid denial...

I used the word "serious" in that question because I wanted to point out that I was describing a literal (albeit hypothetical) situation, and not using hyperbole or something like that.

But then I said the question was rhetorical because I (and probably everyone else here) already knew what your answer would be: If it were a literal situation, if you really did have to choose between saving a church full of Creationists or a barn full of animals, then you would choose to save the Creationists. Of course you would. You'd be inhuman – or at least, crazy – if you did not.

So, no, I would not be surprised if you saved the Creationists.

Because, when it comes right down to it, even a church full of "idiot" Creationists, who you hold in such great contempt, are more worthy of saving than a barn full of animals.

There. I answered those questions. (Really, I thought the answers to them were rather obvious, and thus not worth my while. Already, I've spent too much of my time in this thread, which I saw nearly two days ago was becoming pointless. And yet still I'm here. Groan.)

Not at all. If anything, I think I pretty much know where most if not all of your questions are ultimately leading. It's become obvious to me what your agenda is, here and in other threads of a topic similar to this one (i.e. any thread involving belief in the supernatural and/or the divine). As I said in this thread and elsewhere: You have an ax to grind.

Interesting example. The dams beavers build tend to be fairly ecologically sound. They don't heat up the water, they don't kill fish - in fact they create places for fish to live, and they're not made of gobs of concrete which leaches harmful chemicals. They don't have to form a committee to study the feasibility and cost/benefit analysis of building the dam, they don't have to deal with contractors, lawsuits from the Sierra Club, or other beavers jumping off the top of the completed dam to commit suicide. In short, they build the damn dam and do it much more peacefully, efficiently, and ethically than we possibly can. Doesn't sound so stupid to me.

Why the hell would a bird need a skyscraper? Part of the reason we invent what we invent is because we perceive a need for it. The needs of a bird are simple. Food. Basic shelter. Someone to mate with. If that's all we needed, then we wouldn't build skyscrapers.

Additionally, comparing intelligence solely on what something has built has some unfortunate implications - - "gee, I've built more stuff than you, and therefore you're a moron."

Clearly. I'm not positing that animals are smarter than humans by our standards. But, by the dolphin's standards, we're probably pretty fucking moronic. We run around scrabbling for resources, fighting each other over little green pieces of paper, getting fat because we sit in front of glowing boxes and argue with each other, shooting each other because we want something that someone else has, poisoning the air that we must have in order to live, destroying our food in contraptions that poison the air while conveying us to places where we either collect or divest ourselves of more green pieces of paper, and meanwhile the dolphins are messing around in the ocean, playing and eating, and only occasionally having to fight off a shark.

The fact that we got together and decided to create devices which can destroy us and everything else on the planet, points more to our abject stupidity than to our intelligence.

Your ability to miss my point entirely, amazes me.

A man who builds more stuff than, say, a monkey, is not necessarily an indicator of mankind's higher intelligence. However, a man who builds stuff that is far more complex than what a monkey can builds, is.

Oh, if only animals were in charge of the world, instead of humans! Then the world would be a much better place. Oh, wait... There are no animals on this planet capable of taking and maintaining charge, like we humans are.

Dolphins, if they were able to create and channel nuclear fission, would not use that for destruction, right? Because, unlike mankind, dolphins are entirely peaceful and altruistic. Or are they... ?

There is a difference between missing your point, and rejecting it as arrogantly asinine.


Again as I said, I'm not saying that animals are smarter than humans. I am, however, saying (and you have proven my point with all of your examples) that when you create a test, knowing that you will have to take the test, the tendency is to create the test such that you will score highly on it. We do not, for instance, base our estimation of intelligence on the ability to find food in the wild, otherwise squirrels would outscore us. We do not base our estimation of intelligence on the ability to survive a global catastrophe, else cockroaches would have it all over us. Of course we are the smartest creatures on the planet. I'm not saying that we aren't. But I am saying that it is convenient that the factors making us more intelligent than the other animals happens to be the only factors that are applied in the intelligence tests that we invented.

We are quite intelligent in our environment, but tend to be dumber than the other animals when we go to theirs. This is why tigers and sharks and crocodiles are dangerous - they're much smarter about stalking and killing us than we are about avoiding them.


While I, again, do not dispute our superior intelligence to the rest of the animals, this bias has led us to underestimate the abilities of other animals. We are firmly convinced that we are the only species with language (We aren't) or that if other species have language, it's not complex (it is).

When did I say I wished the animals ran things?



As to your "we build shit and therefore we're smart" measure of intelligence, that doesn't even conform with the already human-specific measure of intelligence used by the scientific community, which is generally defined as "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience."

i'm confused. it seems to me that twistedmosaic basically ended the discussion in an abstract sense by pointing to communication skill as what differentiates human modes of practice from that of other animals. it'd probably have been a good idea to specifically say language. all the various abilities pointed to above concerning human being and it's particular forms of intelligence rest of the ways in which cognition is mediated by language--regardless of the framework that one deploys in order to talk about how language is knit into the forming and collapse of various neural networks (which are obviously ways of talking about cognition as a bio-system functionality, which in the end loops back onto the properties of language not as an object but as a system of mediations that shape practical activity, opening up certain options, foreclosing others)....

you could say that the central capability language enables is recursion. since recursion entails a separation between action and statements about actions, it is in a sense a device that enables consideration of the roles of distancing, formalization, decomposition of a whole into parts, recombination of parts into a whole, etc. recursion is itself a highly rule-bound operation, so to talk about it you're also necessarily talking about rules or constraints. so language is a repository of constraints in a sense. but that would mean nothing--and not be possible--were it not for memory and the way it is organized, which presupposes language (in the human being context it seems)...at this point, things start to get more complicated, not so much in themselves but at the level of generating accounts which are stylistically consistent, given the constraints of a messageboard.

ANYWAY...this is not at all to say that other bio-systems do not have forms of intelligence, but rather that the nature of language and of our relations to the world mediated through it is---so far as we know--what differentiates human from other forms.

that's enough for now,

Arrogant, how? Because I believe mankind's intelligence is unequivocally superior to that of all animals on this planet? And that the matter should be beyond dispute?

Why talk about creating and taking rigged tests? (Who would create and administer such a test anyway? Only mankind could.) Mankind does not need to take any tests – rigged or not – to prove his intelligence is superior to that of all the animals on this world, no more than a man needs to arm wrestle a toddler to prove his strength is superior. Our superior intelligence is self evident.

Well, duh! If we were to include and consider other factors, we wouldn't be testing for "intelligence", now would we? We'd be testing for something else (albeit perhaps something related).

Quite intelligent, only in our environment? Tell me, what environment on this planet have we not already moved in to and subjugated, due to our superior intelligence?

We're not in any way less intelligent than tigers, sharks and crocodiles, we're just not as naturally adapted to, and equipped for hunting in, their environment as they are. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for humans to move in to a predatory animal's environment, and to completely take over. And then, even an animal that is physically better for hunting than a man is, becomes the prey of men because of mankind's superior intelligence.

Ah. Is this how you think I'm being arrogantly asinine?

I never said that animals don't have language, or that if animals do have language, it isn't in any way complex. I have said (or at least, implied) that mankind's language is far more complex than any animal's.

Again, it is the complexity, and the enormity (in scale as well as in power and ability), of what we build, that is a measure of our superior intelligence. That is indeed a measure of our ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.

It looks like "literally" would have been a better word than "seriously..."

Oh, okay. A lot more could have been said if you had thought differently...

...and do you think this is a testament to their intellect? I'd save them so therefore they're smart?

Those ones, yes. You still edited my post and selectively answered questions...

You say that like it's a bad thing...

You said all this while still evading the question. What the hell?

I highly doubt you know where this is heading since my axe to grind is against Creationism and this is not heading there. I asked you about language being instinctual 'cause your opinion on that would determine whether this was a semantic argument or not. This is valuable information in terms of the debate but you persist on pretending the question was never posed. I have no idea what this sort of denial is about...

Looks like.

Then, why don't you quit beating around the bush and just give us (me) that information?

Oh, very well... I'll answer your bloody question. (Really, at first I merely overlooked it. Then, after I saw you getting anxious because I didn't answer it, like it was your trump card or like you were dangling it out in hopes to ensnare me, I began to purposely ignore it. Because, I've learned to be on guard against trolls, on these message boards.)

Is language instinctual for mankind or did we figure it out? Hmm... I never really thought about it, and I haven't read any information on the subject, but I suppose originally language was the product of mankind's instincts. But eventually, mankind discovered – i.e. we figured out – new and more powerful ways to communicate; the first big one being "writing", but before that, there were ways like oral tradition and story telling and cave paintings; ways to express complex thoughts and ideas, ways to transmit information over time and space, and ways to preserve knowledge. And that, for sure, is due to mankind's intelligence.

The reason I posed the question is that I don't like semantic debates. Therefore, if your meaning of the word "intelligence," in this context, matches mine, we may continue the discussion. However, if we mean slightly different things, like whether instincts are part of it or not, then the only disagreement would be semantic and I'd be done. Pretty sinister, eh?

While I'm also wary of trolls on random web forums, the reason I like the TFP is that definite lack of trolls here. Have you noticed any? Perhaps more to the point, have you noticed me trolling?

You're sort of walking the line here with your opinion.

I haven't studied the subject but there are telltale signs that language is innate. It's easier for us to learn language while we're young even though, as you've suggested yourself, we're much smarter as adults. This shows that there's some hardwiring in our brains for the acquisition of language. This is also evidenced in how, as adults, we can speak a new language for 50 years and still not get the pronunciation right. Also, I'm no linguist but I'm pretty sure that every language on Earth is based on a sequence of nouns, verbs and adjectives. This commonality suggests that grammars and the parsing thereof are part of our biology. Finally, I think I've heard somewhere that there are specific parts of our brain dedicated to language processing...

Obviously, many parts of language are learned, such as the particular language used and their written forms but all this follows from the initial ability for language. Any discovery or ingenuity made by some lucky and gifted individual may be preserved and propagated by the population to aid in further discoveries or ingenuities. It's a feedback loop and I think it's vain to think that this alone is a testament to our intelligence.

Judging by some of your other posts, you may find this opinion "nihilistic." I find this term to be far overused by pious people who find anything short of self worship (which I regard deity worship to be but that's a subject for yet another thread!) to be "nihilism..."

Finally, you have a funny habit of not completing your thoughts. For instance, you tried to create an implication between our value for human life and the intelligence of said life but when I questioned you on that you just ignored the question. This is not the first time you've done this, even in this thread alone. I just wanted to point that out to you...

I wouldn't have used the word "nihilistic" in this case. However, I do find that you and others like you, here (and, no, I'm not referring to the atheists collectively, here at TFP), have a tendency to reduce the greatest qualities of mankind – e.g. intelligence, free will, love, faith – down to their most base elements, thereby making those qualities seem small and maybe even insignificant. IMHO, you guys come off sounding all brains and no heart, all intellect and no soul.

Methinks you over-analyze my posts. You shouldn't be so anal about catching me in a contradiction, or spotting some factual error in my posts, upon which you can pounce. It's like you're looming over my posts, waiting for a chance to say, "Ah ha! Caught you... !"