Evolution is natural

[herushura]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Earth is also life, isn't it? Earth itself has a coming and a return in every symbolic system (including modern science).

Yes Earth is also Life, but a Stage of Life.

for example in genesis, Adam in hebrew means "Earth" Clearly Adam is a Certian stage of the Process of Life.

Eve in hebrew means Life, and "God (Sun - Fire element)" created Eve from adams ribs.

So the Sun Created Life from the Earth.

a Natural occurance

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

BTW, I don't think Chomsky even argues that language is completely innate. He argues that there is an innate system for the acquisition of language, but that it operates by interacting with the linguistic structures of the child's culture. It is a biological operating system waiting for some useful programs to be loaded into it, if that helps.

I'm interested in your views because I haven't got my head around these things.
What about his 'argument from the poverty of input' that Pinker developed through the work of Derek Bickerton where Hawaiian born children of immigrant sugar worker parents who communicated in pidgin developed a fully grammatical creole? I believe they found something similar in sign language.
I have read neither Pinker nor Chomsky first-hand, but the textbook I have most recently looked at puts forward both as strong nativists arguing for the innateness of language.
Again, based on my textbook, I understand innateness as they use it as being not in the strong sense - there is nothing in the natural world that is entirely genetically determned other than genes themselves. The definition put forward for innateness is

"something like 'affected by factors intrinsic to the developing organism rather than by factors that are external to it.'"

By that standard Chomsky and Pinker are presented as arguing that language is innate.
I also read elsewhere about a specific gene which may be a 'language gene' - FOXP2-that is involved in SLI.
If language is innate where does that leave "Spirit", does it make any or no difference to it?

Originally Posted by doppelgänger
"Spirit" is a shadow cast in grammar by the psychology of being self-aware and the attachment of attributes as self-identity.

[Runewolf1973]

Energy itself is life. Where did life come from? I believe it has always been here, just waiting for the right conditions to develop and the opportunity to manifest itself into material form. When we "die", a number of beliefs claim we achieve oneness with God one way or another. Well, that oneness just means we rejoin that pure energy in the previous form we were, living, existing, but not physically contained. In a way, we become God. Maybe though, there is not such thing as non-physical existence. Perhaps spiritual existence and physical existence are the same, we just can't wrap our fingers around it. It seems a notion that if you can't weigh it, measure it, or see it under a microscope, it must not exist. That simply is not true. I am interested in what YOU guys have to say about it. I don't really care what the ancient philosophers had to say about it. They're knowing seems too analytically contrived. What does the wellspring of life within yourself tell you of "existence"? Therein are contained the answers to all things. But that's just my view.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Runewolf1973

Energy itself is life.

Why do you think statements such as this are in the least credible? You accomplish little beyond bastardizing the English language. No. Energy itself is not life.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by stephenw

What about his 'argument from the poverty of input' that Pinker developed through the work of Derek Bickerton where Hawaiian born children of immigrant sugar worker parents who communicated in pidgin developed a fully grammatical creole? I believe they found something similar in sign language.

I'm not familiar with it. So I'm not in a position to comment.

Originally Posted by stephenw

I have read neither Pinker nor Chomsky first-hand, but the textbook I have most recently looked at puts forward both as strong nativists arguing for the innateness of language.

I've read Chomsky first-hand, and he can be easily excerpted to make his case appear greatly overstated. If you take a Chinese child and transplant him to America to be raised by an English speaking community, he won't grow up speaking Mandarin. And there are some structural differences from one language to the next. Some of these structural differences are truly profound as well, like languages that are not based on the sort of linear time concepts we use, or that don't have verb tenses like English or Greek, but exclusively use perfective and imperfective aspects (such as Ancient Hebrew).

So, no, it's easily demonstrated that language is not entirely innate. Chomsky argues as I said, that there is a built in language capacity that preconditions a child to acquiring language, but the forms and structures will vary with the culture and social conditioning.

"something like 'affected by factors intrinsic to the developing organism rather than by factors that are external to it.'"

And with language, it's a complex interplay of both intrinsic predispositions and extrinsic conditioning. So it is not "innate" by this definition. It's both.

Originally Posted by stephenw

If language is innate where does that leave "Spirit", does it make any or no difference to it?

Self-identity is the cornerstone of "spirit." Whether self-identity is completely hard-wired or not, "spirit" comes when identity is concretized.

[Sunstone]

If Evolution isn't natural, how come creationist preachers so closely resemble the moonbats from whence they evolved?

[Runewolf1973]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Why do you think statements such as this are in the least credible? You accomplish little beyond bastardizing the English language. No. Energy itself is not life.

Then how would you define life? I don't mean simply the act of being alive, but the essence of what makes us "alive", that which could be called God. Breath of life? To me it is a form of energy, just as our own thoughts are a form of energy. How do you define what is or is not "credible"? From what I've always understood, energy is everywhere, and it can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form, ie: it has always been and always will be. What is closer to defining what God is than that? How is the belief that life or the essence of life as a form of energy is not credible? It's my own personal theory. It is no less credible than anyone's "theories". Even scientists theorize that life is the result of a chemical reaction of sorts in the body. That chemical reaction is merely energy in motion is it not? Most would define Chi or Prana as Life Energy, to me it's also what I would consider God. That's just my opinion. I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to view God and existence. In the end, we're probably all wrong anyways. It just is what it is.

[logician]

"Scientist's I think can't thoroughly explain how evolution works"

This is simply a false statement. Many evolutionists have eloquently explained how evolution works.

[Runewolf1973]

Originally Posted by logician

"Scientist's I think can't thoroughly explain how evolution works"

This is simply a false statement. Many evolutionists have eloquently explained how evolution works.

You are right, there are always two sides to a story. I do believe in evolution, I just think there is more to it than what can be physically identified through scientific means. What I meant to say was, science gives us many answers and also many theories, but no one knows ALL the answers. Maybe I should have said....scientists can't thoroughly explain how "life" works. There is a lot even they don't know.