Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

No matter what you believe about it, the narrative says first was water, then vegetation, then animals.

As I understand it, there are two different stories, neither of which is based on evidence. Genesis is mythological folklore.
There have been hundreds of creation myths from cultures all over the globe. Without empirical evidence, what makes any one more believable than any other?

 

[cladking]

I'm trying to understand why you behave as you do, why you have no interest in what you're being told or suggested remedies.

Every single time someone has raised a legitimate argument or linked to a valid experiment I list the reasons it isn't persuasive or that it supports my theory and not Darwin's but these are just dismissed as well. This is the same problem all heretics have; they are dismissed preemptively. Instead of listening believers preach to us.

Unlike the Spanish Inquisition or the belief in modern science who are (were) correct by definition I could be wrong. You don't need to worry about being wrong about anything at all. This is the nature of being with the status quo and the majority. At least when the human race goes extinct all the believers in science will be in the best company and we heretics will still be outsiders.

What do you care about?

Many things but chiefly the upsetting of what are apparently incorrect assumptions about the nature of reality and life, especially about the nature of human thought and its impact on everything from the double slit experiment to an understanding of history. I believe the world is running out of time because our beliefs are wrong. We have had planned obsolescence for decades and now it's even being applied to people and longevity is crashing just as I predicted 15 years ago that it would.

I'm sorry if I seem to take it personally but what is more personal than decreasing longevity?

 

[cladking]

...when you began trolling earlier this month (at the bottom of the link, when you defined intelligence).

I should ignore this because I have no clue what to say.

"Intelligence is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. It is believed to be related to the one eyed flying purple people eater but this has not been established positively as of the time of this writing."

I simply do not believe intelligence as you define it is any more real than a unicorn.

You've seen my discussion lately with Cladking. It's clear to me (and probably you and others) that he will never define intelligence or will he address the question of why that is (cognitive blindness of some sort or trolling).

And this is after I've told you many times that "intelligence" if it did exist as you define it would be an event and not a condition. I don't know how to sum up the last 75 years of experiment more succinctly than this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see exactly what you're saying

I can now as well, but could you before when all you had was the riddle of the Sphinx?

I can't imagine a clearer or more succinct way of summing up the last 75 years of experiment. "We see not what's in front of our eyes but what's behind them."

I can. Actually, I can't think of a worse way for you to be understood. Maybe if you wrote it in Farsi.

Every experiment shows we see what we believe preferentially to what exists.

Is that what you meant? Right there is a clearer way of saying it. THAT's plain language. But you preferred a riddle first.

How many ways can I say the same thing before my meaning is taken?

Probably only one.

I simply do not believe intelligence as you define it is any more real than a unicorn.

Is that what you meant? Maybe you should have written those words first.

 

[cladking]

I can. Actually, I can't think of a worse way for you to be understood. Maybe if you wrote it in Farsi.

We're each different and I try to write for each individual reading the words and no specific individual. You seem to be right brained enough to parse such ideas. I'll try the left side in the future.

 

[ratiocinator]

Every single time someone has raised a legitimate argument or linked to a valid experiment I list the reasons it isn't persuasive or that it supports my theory and not Darwin's but these are just dismissed as well. This is the same problem all heretics have; they are dismissed preemptively. Instead of listening believers preach to us.

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."​

-- Robert L. Park​

I've also noticed the attitude you describe looks more like a description of your own, rather than others here.

 

[John53]

Scientists don't know what the "first cell" was either. They think maybe it came about as follows...

So what? Would you prefer they lied and claimed they knew it all?

"How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process." The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

OK great. I don't get your point unless you are complaining about people being honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I should give you credit for finally giving me some idea of what your alternate understanding of abiogenesis is. Water, vegetation, animal is by far more detail than anyone else has provided.

Actually, I was not referring to the theory of abiogenesis as considered by some to move on to the theory of evolution by physical means without a superior intelligent force behind it. I was referring to the succession that the Bible speaks of in part, culminating in life as we see it, including humans--water--vegetation--animals. I won't go any further with this right now. So take care, and hope you have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Would you prefer they lied and claimed they knew it all?



OK great. I don't get your point unless you are complaining about people being honest.

You asked and I told you what scientists say might be the "first cell," but of course they don't KNOW for real, namely for one basic reason -- they weren't there and privy to the action. Nevertheless I think I answered your question.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Would you prefer they lied and claimed they knew it all?



OK great. I don't get your point unless you are complaining about people being honest.

Not at all. I'm not complaining about the honesty somewhat therein. They're honest insofar as their recognizing their lack of knowledge as to what the first cell was and how it came about (by natural chance physical means, of course, per their belief and thought process). If you disagree with that, please -- (be my guest)...

 

[Dimi95]

You asked and I told you what scientists say might be the "first cell," but of course they don't KNOW for real, namely for one basic reason -- they weren't there and privy to the action. Nevertheless I think I answered your question.

You were not there with Moses , but you belive..
I am just applying your logic

I don't know why do you insist on 'they weren't there' when we know that Science does not function like that..

 

[John53]

You asked and I told you what scientists say might be the "first cell," but of course they don't KNOW for real, namely for one basic reason -- they weren't there and privy to the action. Nevertheless I think I answered your question.

You obviously didn't read my 3 requests. I asked you what a first cell was, I didn't ask you what scientists think. If I wanted to know what a scientist thinks I would ask a scientist.

 

[John53]

Not at all. I'm not complaining about the honesty somewhat therein. They're honest insofar as their recognizing their lack of knowledge as to what the first cell was and how it came about (by natural chance physical means, of course, per their belief and thought process). If you disagree with that, please -- (be my guest)...

So what are you complaining about?

As a side note... what the heck does "somewhat therein" mean?

 

[Pogo]

You obviously didn't read my 3 requests. I asked you what a first cell was, I didn't ask you what scientists think. If I wanted to know what a scientist thinks I would ask a scientist.

It is all in service of the tiny little doubt argument that as long as no one else knows exactly I don't have to think about my totally unevidenced opinion of my favorite book, it might be correct. It results in a lot of seemingly ignorant JAQing but no actual engagement as you have noticed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are insisting on parsing my words according to your definitions and beliefs. You assume I don't make sense and then parse the words so they don't make sense.

I'd say the communication issue is a you problem and not a me problem.

Even though every rabbit is an individual and "rabbits" is an abstraction and doesn't exist, rabbits still do exist. Some things are difficult to separate into "rabbit" and "not-rabbit" and this is one of the reasons "rabbits" doesn't exist. For example one of the sudden changes in life is in the birthing process. At exactly what point does one rabbit turn into two? How ironic that no matter how you define this there is still no such thing as "two" either because no two things exist. The mother and baby are very different and the baby isn't even a viable individual without the mother. Even then it can not reproduce until it suddenly becomes sexually mature.

I'm not sure what you think this is suppose to support. The quoted material of mine that you are responding to regards your use of manufactured taxonomic nomenclature with no obvious value and secret definitions. Considering that I'm a member of the species of Homo sapiens, I'm doing pretty good for someone thousands of years dead according to you.

You are mistaking reductionistic science for reality and can not see its limitations. When you see things that are real yet can't be reduced to experiment or even defined (like consciousness) you just paint it over with a word and your own belief system. Then people don't even notice that the meaning of the word evolves (changes in fits and starts) over many many year. When I was a baby people didn't even believe babies were conscious and that they act on instinct. Now some people even believe dogs and whales are conscious. Soon enough as REAL SCIENCE comes to grips with experiment it will be believed that even single celled organisms are conscious. Everything alive is conscious and everything that is conscious is alive because it is consciousness that creates the experience that will keep that baby rabbit alive long enough to become sexually mature and suddenly give its mother a grandrabbit.

More rabbits. And rabbits mean rabbit holes.

I'm not sure what you think this is telling me or anyone else.

Such is all observed nature of life. You can't step into the same river twice because it is impossible and just as rivers suddenly change their courses and rise and fall with the rain life and "species" suddenly change as well.

This sounds more like a sermon. You have a strange theology, but I see nothing that would interest me in discussing it or reading more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ancient Egyptians didn't think like us. It is just this simple.

I have seen no reason to accept that you have any way of knowing or that this is a fact. They may have thought about different things, but I don't know that they didn't think in much the same way we do. Nothing you've offered would cause me to accept this revealed truth as fact.

Writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 1400 years later in 1800 BC. It is ridiculous to believe writing wasn't used to write stuff down. It was written down. Everything known by homo sapiens was written down for posterity. It isn't gone because the media didn't survive as proven by the existence of papyrus from 3200 BC found in a tomb. But it was blank. Homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio (all knowing man whom reason in circles)(our species) history begins far far later because the earlier writing from before the change in language can still not be translated.

There's that manufactured taxonomy with secret meanings. You reckon you intend this to mean something to others or do you just like writing it?

This language was a metaphysical language that was binary, representational, and universal that homo sapiens used to invent agriculture using the "Theory of Change in Species". Of course their theories can't really be translated either but this is the closest we can come. They understood the nature of sudden change in life and used it to invent dogs, crops, and livestock.

I've seen no evidence that any of this is meaningful. It's just your say so and you haven't done anything to encourage any trust in your say so. You speak of these things like they are verified facts, but can't show anyone how you know that. I don't know what you expect reasonable, rational people to do. Just accept your claims and statements as revealed truth cuz you just think it's the ginchiest? That's a belief system guy.

They were very very very very different than we are or any Egyptologist. But this difference existed in their thinking and perceptions rather than anatomically. The difference was very natural because they used the exact same kind of science that bees and beavers use; natural science based on observation and the logic of the wiring of the brain. Homo sapien brains were operated differently because of a very tiny anatomical difference: They had only a single speech center called the wernicke's area. In order to learn language each of us must grow a second speech center which operates the brain in an entirely different mode. It might be more clear to say that we don't so much grow a brocas area as that all required wiring needed to learn modern symbolic language tends to occur in a tiny area of the inferior frontal gyrus. Just as a blind person's learning of braille usually occurs in the visual cortex at the back of the brain.

Life and reality are complicated. Deal with it. Science as well has become rather complex but people aren't dealing with that either. They ignore experiment and ignore every anomaly.


One thing that isn't complex is ancient science. It's more complex than a waggle dance because homo sapiens had a complex language that allowed the generational accumulation of knowledge but bees do not. This complexity of language arose suddenly as well in 40,000 BC. It was most likely a mutation in proto-humans (homo proto sapiens?) that tied the wernickes area more closely to higher brain functions. It allowed users to observe their own consciousness better and to invent more words and more observations.

Ancient science is simply looking at reality from the outside instead of the inside while viewing knowledge from the inside. I'm making some progress in understanding it but it is difficult to see things from such a perspective. It progressed very differently than reductionistic science because there were no experiments and even setting up observation was avoided. It flowed naturally based on what had come before. It began and ended holistically and failed only because its basis, its metaphysics (the language itself) became geometrically more complex as learning improved arithematically. At first (~3500 BC) it was only a few dolts who couldn't learn the language properly but every year there were more and more who had no choice but to use a pidgin form of the universal language until by 3200 they needed to invent writing to communicate since these pidgin languages were so "confused". By 2000 BC there were no longer enough Ancient Language speakers (remember homo sapiens with one speech center) to even operate the state so Ancient Language failed and human history was lost.

Reality is far more exotic than science believers can imagine and ancient science was very complex. But then the waggle dance is probably orders of magnitude more complex than we understand. We don't even know that bees are conscious and that they use this consciousness all the time and make decisions that are best for themselves and the hive.

None of this makes any sense or has any meaning except as somebodies science fan fiction run amok. I've no reason to consider this and you don't provide any such reason.

Again, I see it as coming off like a sermon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Life and reality are the same thing just as most biologists believe.

What? I'm a biologist. What science degrees do you have again? How many years have your worked in the field? Can you provide a list of your publications?

Life is reality on steroids.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Life is reality with free will.

OK. So what. I don't know what you think this tells us in the discussion.

Life is free will made possible through the "miracle" of consciousness.

Is there a point to this?

We are out of the loop because we see not what is there before our eyes but rather what is behind our eyes. We are like this because our language and mode of brain operation is confused and has been confused for 4000 years.

What questions does this answer? Is it of any real value in this discussion. Seems like a lot of rambling to no useful end.

 

[cladking]

I have seen no reason to accept that you have any way of knowing or that this is a fact. They may have thought about different things, but I don't know that they didn't think in much the same way we do. Nothing you've offered would cause me to accept this revealed truth as fact.

I have made accurate predictions based on my interpretation of Ancient Language. According to ancient science this actually raises my hypothesis that linear funiculars were used to build great pyramids to a "theory". Of course translation is impossible but if we still spoke metaphysical language this theory would be called a "neter" which is a word we mistranslate as "god".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

...Even when it speaks of the Tower of Babel.

What you have is a belief.

I think that a belief system is what you have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have made accurate predictions based on my interpretation of Ancient Language.

I don't think you did. I have no reason to believe it.

According to ancient science this actually raises my hypothesis that linear funiculars were used to build great pyramids to a "theory".

I don't care. I have no reason to consider it a theory. It appears to me to be part of your belief system. I don't know of any reason to accept that what you call Ancient Science is real, means anything or answers anything. It just like science fan fiction run amok and turned into a belief system.

Of course translation is impossible but if we still spoke metaphysical language this theory would be called a "neter" which is a word we mistranslate as "god".

I'm sure there a many, many, many, many, many...reasons that you can't provide evidence, explanation or example. We just have to accept your word that you are this great.