Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 447 by For_The_Kingdom]

Depends. I don't assume that there is a contradiction between killing and loving. So, if you had morally sufficient reasons for killing the flies, then I don't see any problem with that.

Morally sufficient reasons in my mind, but notice I said nothing about what the flies think.
Notice that there are always two parties. I may think and believe I had a morally sufficient reason to do a fly genocide, but what about what the flies think? Your reasoning does not factor in what they think. You don't even spare them a second's thought.
As long as the one who is doing the genocide believes he had a morally sufficient reason, then that's enough for you, he is not lying when he says he is loving and deserving of worship.

In the same way I don't see a problem with you killing an intruder of your home that broke down the door swinging a machete.

Do you say to a breaking-and-entering intruder that you are loving towards them, that you deserve to be worshipped by them, even while you have a gun pointed at their head?

It all depends, and all situations aren't the same. The question is, who is the judge of what is right or wrong? Who decides whether the reason is justified or not? That is the question.

Certainly not the one doing the genocide. At least, we don't ask only him who does it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 448 by For_The_Kingdom]

If it wasn't for the common language which was embedded into mankind from the very moment of our creation, it definitely would be impossible.

facepalm
What common language? When Abel Tasman reaches New Zealand for the first time, and meets the Maori for the first time, what common language does this Dutchman share with the Maori?

Ok, so you tell me what were the levels of progression, and how they would all eventually end up speaking/understanding the common language (whatever language it was). Tell me. It ain't happening.

Better yet, go to any foreign country where English is not the primary language, and tell me how far you'd get in society not being able to speak/understand the native language (and vice versa). For every single word that you utter, they don't understand..and for every single word that they utter, you won't understand.

There is just no way getting around the language barrier.

Readers, note that FtK believes people simply cannot speak and learn each other's languages. He is of the opinion that when a Dutchman is the first European to meet the Maori, there is no way for them to get around a language barrier, other than using some sort of nebulous "common language" that apparently everyone shares.
This is news to me, because I only speak English and have always been pants at other languages. I am completely unaware that I apparently have a nebulous other 'common language' that would allow me to communicate with what I guess would be anyone on the planet.

I don't make my presuppositions gospel.

Just imagine me laughing out loud. That is my response to this.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 448 by For_The_Kingdom]

If it wasn't for the common language which was embedded into mankind from the very moment of our creation, it definitely would be impossible.

facepalm
What common language? When Abel Tasman reaches New Zealand for the first time, and meets the Maori for the first time, what common language does this Dutchman share with the Maori?

Ok, so you tell me what were the levels of progression, and how they would all eventually end up speaking/understanding the common language (whatever language it was). Tell me. It ain't happening.

Better yet, go to any foreign country where English is not the primary language, and tell me how far you'd get in society not being able to speak/understand the native language (and vice versa). For every single word that you utter, they don't understand..and for every single word that they utter, you won't understand.

There is just no way getting around the language barrier.

Readers, note that FtK believes people simply cannot speak and learn each other's languages. He is of the opinion that when a Dutchman is the first European to meet the Maori, there is no way for them to get around a language barrier, other than using some sort of nebulous "common language" that apparently everyone shares.
This is news to me, because I only speak English and have always been pants at other languages. I am completely unaware that I apparently have a nebulous other 'common language' that would allow me to communicate with what I guess would be anyone on the planet.

I don't make my presuppositions gospel.

Just imagine me laughing out loud. That is my response to this.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Watchtower tells their followers that Hebrew was the original first language. Perhaps that is the common language that he is mentioning without evidencing?

Why anyone would believe such a claim, I don't understand.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No you have not. You have been saying over and over and over 'life cannot come from non-life'.

Hey Bust Nak, tell this character what the deal is with this..

I have lost count of the number of times I have discussed this with you.

Pull up the convos.

Whenever you and I do get to discussing that line, you then for some reason, start talking about sentient life, as if 'life cannot come from non-life' is a settled matter between us.

If you can simply scientifically explain the origins of consciousness, the whole conversation would be a dead issue, wouldn't it?

Depending on how one looks at it, yes. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, "From a different point of view". Physically, they are made up of components that are themselves not alive.

I am talking about the conscious part, though.

It would not be inaccurate to say that two collections of elementary particles such as oxygen and hydrogen reacted together in such a way that a third collection of elementary particles started forming.
If you dispute that, you'll have to explain what happens during conception and pregnancy in such a way as to ignore/not mention the chemical processes involved.

I repeat: I am talking about the conscious part, though. Because after all, if it wasn't for the conscious part of it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about "elementary particles, oxygen, and hydrogen", would we?

And besides, you have a serious chicken/egg problem here. Which came first, the "elementary particles/oxygen/hydrogen" (EPOH), or the consciousness?

If EPOH came first, then you still have to explain where the consciousness came from...and if the consciousness came first, then that would explicitly suggest that consciousness can exist (and did exist) prior to EPOH.

So either way, it is a problem for the naturalist.

I have never, not once, in our discussions even alluded to a difference between the two of them. How many times have I written "consciousness/sentience" (i.e. with a slash) as if the two are one and the same?

That is actually what I do.

What I DO have a difference with, is the difference between 'mere' life and sentient life. I talk about life (in general, meaning life without sentience and life with sentience) as coming from non-life, in that we are made up of elementary particles that react in ways discoverable through the laws of chemistry and physics, and you immediately jump to talking about sentient life, as if sentient life quite simply cannot be made up of elementary particles that react in ways discoverable through the laws of chemistry and physics.

Bro, as I stated before, if you don't see the difference between Speed Buggy, and the car that is in your garage (one is sentient and the other one isn't), then I don't know what to tell you.

It is THAT difference that I am talking about.

Which raises an eyebrow on my end. Why is it that you do? How many times have you used the two terms interchangeably? I was merely following your example for the sake of discussion.

No, I am saying that they CAN be used interchangeably. I mean after all, I have a track record of using the terms interchangeably. Do you?

So why is it, whenever I try to pin you down on what is non-life, or non-living, you talk about something that does not have sentience, as if that is the sole qualifier for something to be in the 'non-life' box.

?

Neither do yourself, good sir. Quoting your creationist beliefs to us and saying your evidence is what is said in the Bible, is not being scientific.

I don't need to be scientific, because unlike you, my worldview doesn't depend on the infallibility of science. In fact, it is because of the LIMITATIONS of science which gives my worldview the viability that it has.

There are actually several different hypotheses vying for attention in the scientific community. Panspermia to name one.

LOL. Anything but the "G" word, right?

At this moment in time, none of them have won out.
Do you know what is NOT considered a scientific hypothesis? Biblical creationism.

I will take that as a compliment.

Whatever the processes for sentient life happen to be, they would have to be ultimately rooted in the same process that the very first life forms came from (whatever that process may be).

Right, if you rule out ID from the start, it must have happened some naturalistic way, right?

How so? The scientific community is looking in various different fields for the answer. It's not like scientists are sitting on their hands, scratching their heads in complete bafflement.

Of course. Again, anything but the "G" word.

Why is it you and some other theists try to put down or debunk the positions of others as being 'faith based', all the while ignoring that if I am to follow this train of thought of yours, it means your own faith based positions are also only so much bunk?

Well, if you can debunk my position, debunk it. By all means.

What evidence do you have for your own claims outside of the stories in the Bible?

There is nothing Biblical about any of my arguments, besides that fact that science, mathematics, and philosophy just happens to corroborate Biblical claims.

Still a conglomeration of chemicals that react according to the laws of chemistry and physics.

So what laws of chemistry/physics will give you consciousness?

Do you have an answer that doesn't rely on what some people a couple thousand years ago wrote down in a book?

So, because some people a couple of thousands of years ago wrote X down in a book, that makes it less credible?

Oh, but if those same people wrote down in a book that life originated from nonliving material and that a reptile evolved into a bird, that would suit your fancy, wouldn't it?

Wrong, unless you want to retract earlier comments from yourself where you AGREED that life is composed of elementary non-living particles?

No, because even the one failed scientific experiment that most naturalists appeal to (Miller-Urey), wasn't able to produce the desired results. So still. So, if things were so cut/dry as if you are making it seem, then how about writing to Stanley Miller (RIP) and telling him, "Hey man, you wasted your time trying to produce life from nonliving material...because after all, life is composed of elementary non-living particles".

And I'm sure he will say "You know what, you are right. Me and Harold wasted our precious time. If only you had been alive in 1953 to tell us that we were wasting our time in the laboratory, we wouldn't have wasted over 60 years of our lives conducting this meaningless experiment".

Do you think that would have ever happened?

So why go with an ancient book that at best merely claims to have the answers, but has no way of verifying its own claims (or is disproven in certain areas)?

I go where the evidence takes me.

Can you, without referring to a book that makes a claim that is ultimately untestable?

I can, and I did.

Hilarious. You describe me as a personal, moral agent, who comes up with a subjective morality (correct), then for some reason, you state that a personal, moral agent can come up with an objective morality.
How does that follow?

Easy. Either way, regardless of whether subjective/objective, it must come from a person (personality/personhood).

I see it the other way. I see an objective morality coming from a non-personal, non-agent (if there even can be an objective morality), in order to escape the problem of morality coming from a personal agent.

I don't see any logical justification as to how you can believe that subjective can only be rooted in personhood, and objective morality can only be rooted in non-personhood.

Makes no sense whatsoever (with all due respect).

So in both cases, God can send a demon to lure a little boy into an ice-cream truck where he will be raped/tortured/murdered and God will still be moral/just/good/compassionate/{insert-adjective-here}?

Which is not what I said nor implied. SMH.

God can send a spirit to a Christian's house, convince the Christian that Islam is 'true', and God is still moral/just/good/compassionate/{insert-adjective-here}?
How is the Christian supposed to 'know better'? He's listening to a spirit sent from God! Isn't God your barometer for what is true and not-true?
I'm going to SMH here.

We were already warned that there will be impostors and it should be obvious to any true Christian that being told that Mohammed is the Son of God and not Jesus Christ...that this is a LIE and whoever believes that nonsense deserves whatever they get as a result.

Not necessary. In both cases, we have spirits being let loose to do some sort of harm to humans, and in both cases, the one who lets them loose doesn't say outright to them do this harm.

You say it isn't necessary, yet the subject of debate is that of YOU claiming that God unjustly sent out lying spirits to individuals....yet the example you gave has no lying aspect to it.

I don't see the equivalency nor the point being made.

In your eyes, God letting loose spirits who deceive humans is okay because God doesn't tell them to deceive.

LOL. And God also doesn't tell us to be deceived by them, either. In a nut shell: strive to make the right decisions, and shun the wrong decisions.

What about Professor Lockhart? Is it OK for him to just open the cage door?

I don't know the context. Maybe he just wanted to frighten the kids because they were misbehaving. I mean, even if that is even remotely possible, that would make it morally justified to me.

Non-human animals do not share our level of sentience and/or consciousness.

So, what you are insinuating is; humans have a higher level of sentience/consciousness, so they should know right from wrong. Yet, there is no objective human standard as what is right and wrong.

Hmmm.

Are Blood/Crips still human?

Sure, human-animals, according to you.

I thought presuppositions had 'nothing wrong with them, in general'?

But you are making it gospel, though. Those that believe in evolution always like to argue this stuff about "survival". "Survival this, survival that"...I am asking for the foundation of this faith-based belief system, which is naturalism.

Can you describe for me where, in your own moral code, where rape/murder are bad? Your own code in my eyes, is not objective.

As a Christian, it is wrong because it goes against the will of God, and God's will is the objective standard. I don't have a knock-down argument for this, admittedly.

What makes counting the number of people in a kingdom a sin?

What makes any sin a sin? What makes killing a police officer in the line of duty against the law?

If God is that ready and willing to punish census-taking, how come similar disasters do not happen any time a census takes place?

That was an Jewish law in the theocracy of God.

A census takes place in my country every five years. Mass deaths do not happen whenever it happens.

Yeah, but you ain't living in Judea 3,000 years ago under the theocracy of the Almighty, who commanded your nation NOT to conduct a census.

So either God did punish David for his census (and didn't explain just what the heck is wrong with doing a census?)

Funny you say that, considering the narrative states that Job, who was to take the census, immediately knew that conducting a census was a bad idea and tried to talk the King out of it...and David himself knew he screwed up once it was completed.

So in other words; it aint about what you think wasn't so wrong, it is about what they KNEW to be wrong.

, and since then, does not punish nations whenever new censuses are carried out (and hence, this is not objective morality)...or I'll let you try to figure out an alternative.

Again, that was a law for the Jewish people only. If we were truly under God's law, there will be many things that will be outlawed, such as most movies, tv shows, cigarettes, etc.

The Jewish people were under strict theocracy. No King, no dictator...but GOD.

In fact, reading the story in 1 Chronicles reveals that it is a human, Joab, who says to David that it is a sin. David is NOT told by God or an angel that census taking is a sin.

In fact, in earlier books, such as Exodus, other censuses take place, and no disaster-as-punishment occurs.
Exodus 30:11-13
Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel,[c] according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord.

What I see here is what you call God saying at one point in time to take a census, a count, of the Israelites, and for each person to pay a ransom. Then later on, we've got King David who takes a census too, and for some mad reason, some reason unexplained (oh but we've just got to trust that the reason is good, according to you!) taking a census is now punishable by mass death![/b

Maybe David took the census without requiring the people to pay the shekel to the Lord as he commanded them. It is obvious when it states "Then no plague will come on them when you number them". Obviously there was a right and a wrong way to do it, according to God...and the fact of the matter is, they apparently did it the wrong way, and they knew it was wrong (according to the context).

The very fact that a plague did come on them after being warned to take certain actions, otherwise, no plague....and the fact that Job knew that it was wrong and David later repented, should tell you that the consensus according to the way that it was conducted was WRONG and that when someone repents of their actions, they knew that they were wrong (David).

Wow...how is this a description of an objective system of morality?

On naturalism, so what?

So rather than admit that the being whom you now call God actually does fail, has done actions that if it were any other entity would cause them to fail at your system of moral evaluation, you say about this God that he cannot 'cross the line', that it is not even possible for him to fail.
Do you know what I call this? A cheat, rigged.

SMH.

Really shows what you know about Islam. Do you honestly think that Muslims don't say about Allah that he is morally perfect?

Muslims say a lot of things. The fact of the matter is; Christianity is historically supported and premises of Christian theistic arguments are backed up with science, philosophy, and mathematics.

Cannot say the same thing for Islam. So a person can "say" what they want about the virtue of their religion, but I simply go where the evidence leads me.

Great. So God can be as destructive as he wants, cause as much pain and suffering as he desires, and no matter how bad he gets, he can never be described like a Dark Lord from a fantasy novel?

The way you carry on reminds me of the Hell's Angels motto:

When we do right, no one remembers.
When we do wrong, no one forgets.

Not to say that God does anything wrong, but the fact of the matter is, all of the parts of the Bible at which God blesses people, shows mercy, grace, forgiveness, rewards, kindness, protection, etc...this is hardly EVER mentioned by the skeptic.

But once God is angry, conducts discipline, and casts judgment...all of a sudden, the skeptics are out on the prowl, ready to pounce.

It is a double standard.

My sisters were sexually abused.

Sorry to hear that...and according to the Christian worldview, justice is coming.

Such as when they did the horrible horrible deed...of taking a census. That in their own holy writings, as passed down from Moses (supposedly), is fully allowed.

Then David would have said "But Lord, up until this point, we were allowed to take censuses. Since when was the law changed?".

But he didn't say that, did he? He felt sorry for what he did (1Chron 21:7-8). Case closed.

This word has no meaning whenever you apply it to your God. You NEED to have something about your God that falls under the heading of 'unfair', in order for the word fair to mean anything at all.

Nonsense. So if I am a perfect free throw shooter, I need to have something imperfect about my free throw shooting in order for the word "perfect" to mean anything? Non sequitur.

You, however, need to have an objective standard/guideline as to where this values and duties stem from before you can make these moral judgements as if they correct and have more virtue than any other judgements.

My argument is that God IS the standard and anything less than him falls short.

Imagine if you had the word 'hot', but you never once described anything at all as being 'warm' or 'luke-warm' or 'cold'. What does the word 'hot' mean then? When does something become not 'hot'?

What do you mean "never once"? God is the standard, and anything contrary to that standard misses the mark. Just like "hot" has a definition, and anything contrary to this temperature misses the "hot" mark.

So tell me...what is fair about God telling Moses to take a census, to collect ransoms, and then later on, to punish David for doing a census? In fact, it's not David who's punished, but the people, who would not have known that taking a census is now apparently "wrong".

1Chron 21: 7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.�

If David admitted he was wrong, then he was wrong. It doesn't matter whether a skeptic some 3,000 years later on a debate forum can see it or not.

Okay, I'll admit to a small error. Catholics do not believe the part about 'for some reason unbeknown to mankind'. If we strike those particular words out, Roman Catholics generally speaking have no problem with the two statements.
Need I remind you that I grew up Roman Catholic?

No need...because as long as one admits that God was behind the scene, even though we disagree, we are still closer in proximity to beliefs than someone who just says "Nature did it" (a mindless, blind force that can create eyes and consciousness".

So why do your own claims regarding origins just get a pass?

Um, probably because my own claims have more explanatory power to explain the effect (origins) than its competitors.

I do not give your claims a pass, precisely because they are beyond 'the scope of observation and experiment'.

Um, the reference of observation/experiment was made because your position, science, is a methodology based primarily on observation and experiment. If you can't make any observation and/or conduct an experiment to either confirm or falsify your hypothesis, then it is UNSCIENTIFIC.

Obviously, questions regarding origins are unscientific, so we have to appeal to other tools of knowledge and methodologies if we are going to get to the bottom of these things.

Meaning it would not be illogical for me to want to emulate God and thus go out and cause as much harm as I could.

Where in the Bible does God cause as much unjust harm as he could? Nowhere.

Oh wait...that would be one rule for me, one rule for thee (thee = God) wouldn't it?
Again, how does that describe objective morality?

If objective morality exists, its foundations rests on behalf of a personal, necessary being.

Yes...because when it comes to personal moral agents, they CANNOT give objective moral standards, and this INCLUDES the character you call God.

Then you obviously don't agree that objective moral values and duties exist. I beg to differ.

how I, as a personal moral agent can in fact have an objective moral system all of my own.

You don't. What you call an objective moral system is really a subjective moral system.

[For_The_Kingdom]

facepalm
What common language?

How will an Arab man who doesn't speak a lick of Chinese, and a Chinese man who doesn't speak a lick of Arabic, ever get to the point of not verbally understanding each other at all, to understanding each other perfectly?

Now of course, I am using the two most difficult languages to learn (by most accounts) in this example, but that is only to drive home the point.

If you can answer this seemingly simple question, then I'm sold.

When Abel Tasman reaches New Zealand for the first time, and meets the Maori for the first time, what common language does this Dutchman share with the Maori?

When I go to China for the first time, and meets Huang Ji (arbitrary Chinese name) for the first time, what common language does this African American (me) share with this Chinese man (him). None.

So how far will we get in conversation? Nowhere.

Readers, note that FtK believes people simply cannot speak and learn each other's languages. He is of the opinion that when a Dutchman is the first European to meet the Maori, there is no way for them to get around a language barrier, other than using some sort of nebulous "common language" that apparently everyone shares.
This is news to me, because I only speak English and have always been pants at other languages. I am completely unaware that I apparently have a nebulous other 'common language' that would allow me to communicate with what I guess would be anyone on the planet.

Simply answer my questions and the case will be closed.

Just imagine me laughing out loud. That is my response to this.

I make my facts gospel, not my presuppositions. That was the implication. Not so amusing now, is it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Watchtower tells their followers that Hebrew was the original first language. Perhaps that is the common language that he is mentioning without evidencing?

I actually don't know what the original first language spoken by mankind was. Never even thought about it. Don't know. But whatever it was, the language had to be set as an initial condition when man was created.

I mean, just think about it; that is the way it had to have happened, and coincidentally in the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were created with a common language that was embedded in them without some long, trial and error process over hundreds of thousands of years.

Why anyone would believe such a claim, I don't understand.

Me either.

[Neatras]

I mean, just think about it; that is the way it had to have happened,

Boy, you'd think there would be physical or linguistic evidence to back up your assertions, but I don't see anything remotely resembling that.

But don't worry boo, I got you. It ain't exact science, but some researchers believe there was an original language developed by East Africans some 50,000 years ago.

Ooooh, oh my gosh. That doesn't agree with the assertion that Adam and Eve were literal human beings at all. I'm so sorry. It's almost as if they took the evidence they had and built a hypothesis based on that, and didn't just conclude your fairy tale was real history before plugging in the data. How embarrassing.

On the bright side, I learned some really interesting stuff today. Word order in sentences as they differ throughout the world, the means by which language evolves, as well as how isolated communities further develop them. It's a shame, though. No Tower of Babel at all; then again, that myth never stood a chance at being real. But I'll gladly accept any admission that languages have evolved throughout history using well-known linguistic methods.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 452 by For_The_Kingdom]

No, because even the one failed scientific experiment that most naturalists appeal to (Miller-Urey), wasn't able to produce the desired results. So still. So, if things were so cut/dry as if you are making it seem, then how about writing to Stanley Miller (RIP) and telling him, "Hey man, you wasted your time trying to produce life from nonliving material...because after all, life is composed of elementary non-living particles".

And I'm sure he will say "You know what, you are right. Me and Harold wasted our precious time. If only you had been alive in 1953 to tell us that we were wasting our time in the laboratory, we wouldn't have wasted over 60 years of our lives conducting this meaningless experiment".

You're way out on this one (as with most of the other points, like not understanding that consciousness developed progressively in animals that have it and did in fact arise after molecules had assembled into living things). The Miller-Urey experiment (done in 1952, not 1953 ... the results were published in 1953) is not "one failed scientific experiment", and just one of many that naturalists refer to.

It is known now that the highly reducing atmosphere they assumed is not likely correct, but the point of the experiment was not to produce life, but to test what would happen if a few simple molecules (water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen) were exposed to electrical sparks (to simulate lightning), and heated/cooled through many cycles. They wanted to see if any complex organics could be formed, and they did in fact form several amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, in this simple experiment. So it was a successful experiment (highly referenced because it was the first of its type), and many similar experiments have been carried out since using more appropriate starting atmospheres.

The bit about consciousness arising before/after "EPOH" is not even debatable. Consciousness is simply the result of normal brain activity (neurons interacting with sensory inputs, memory, etc.) and is nothing special or "magic" in and of itself. Without a brain (EPOH) it would not exist, and brains like all physical matter on Earth are made from elementary particles. So obviously this is not a chicken/egg problem ... EPOH came first, brains came later, and brains create consciousness. Not a problem in the least for a naturalist, only for people who "refuse to believe" anything scientific that suggests their religious dogma may be incorrect.

[Clownboat]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Watchtower tells their followers that Hebrew was the original first language. Perhaps that is the common language that he is mentioning without evidencing?

I actually don't know what the original first language spoken by mankind was. Never even thought about it. Don't know. But whatever it was, the language had to be set as an initial condition when man was created.

I mean, just think about it; that is the way it had to have happened, and coincidentally in the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were created with a common language that was embedded in them without some long, trial and error process over hundreds of thousands of years.

Why anyone would believe such a claim, I don't understand.

Me either.

All I'm getting out of this is that 'you don't know' (which is commendable) and therefore 'it just had to happen this way'. This is not a logical approach.

Saying 'I don't know' should start an investigation, not lead you to a conclusion that is based off of 'I can't think of another way, so it just had to have happened this way'.

I believe that you are ignorant here, but your ignorance will not shape my beliefs. Facts and evidence will.

Consider this. When we were born, we knew no language. So, using your logic, how did we learn to speak the languages we now use? What is the common language shared between infants an adults that you claim must be there in order to learn a language?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Boy, you'd think there would be physical or linguistic evidence to back up your assertions, but I don't see anything remotely resembling that.

My assertions are backed up by observational/experimental evidence. Simply go to the heart of any primarily speaking Arab country, and see how far will you get speaking English.

But don't worry boo, I got you. It ain't exact science, but some researchers believe there was an original language developed by East Africans some 50,000 years ago.
Ooooh, oh my gosh. That doesn't agree with the assertion that Adam and Eve were literal human beings at all.

It also doesn't "agree" with the idea that a person who speaks one language can go to a country where his language isn't known/spoken, and wind up, somehow, speaking their language fluently and vice versa at some point.

It aint happening. You have to be able to understand what you hear, say, and read. Three different aspects of learning a new language, and there is just no way to learn a "new" language without having someone who reads BOTH languages (yours and theirs) to interpret it for you.

I'm so sorry. It's almost as if they took the evidence they had and built a hypothesis based on that, and didn't just conclude your fairy tale was real history before plugging in the data. How embarrassing.

Well, tell "them" to go to a foreign country where English is hardly spoken, and go around trying to hold conversations with people and see how far they get.

On the bright side, I learned some really interesting stuff today. Word order in sentences as they differ throughout the world, the means by which language evolves, as well as how isolated communities further develop them. It's a shame, though. No Tower of Babel at all; then again, that myth never stood a chance at being real. But I'll gladly accept any admission that languages have evolved throughout history using well-known linguistic methods.

Go to a foreign country and...