Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my, even a million years is sudden in geologic time. You are simply not listening. You have no clue of what punctuated equilibrium is . How do you think that you can use it as a weapon?

A weapon of mass dysfunction?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course they are still E. coli. You are still a monkey. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. But they are a new species of E. coli.

Oops, sorry. I was a bit too quick there. I thought that you were referring to the Long Term E. Coli Experiment. My only mistake is that those are not a new species. Otherwise everything else that I said is correct.

I find it all rather amusing. Not once have we seen that a religious viewpoint has physical, objective evidence of being the correct answer to the evidence or that a personal view is the default.

What we see is a desperate attack on science. Using evolution to show that evolution is falsified. Hilarious! Empty claims without demonstration. All the tactics that have been used a million times yet used here as if no one ever saw creationists do that before. Feeble attempts to malign and belittle others when it is clear that the weak, worthless claims are failing.

No demonstration that specific personal religious beliefs have any validity in relation to observations of the physical world. The general creationist view always appears to be attack science poorly and the particular personal views will emerge by default. As if that has ever happened or has any logical basis to consider as an outcome.

It's amusing, but the joke is old. It is only amusing for a bit and growing less so with each creationist attempt/failure cycle.

Pigeon Chess.

 

[cladking]

I did talk about many things, see # 1864, yet gradualism is the most fundamental principle when it comes to evolution. And as I said numerous times, the predictions of gradualism are not limited to the fossil record, there are predictions that must be seen among living organisms if gradualism is true, yet we don’t see it.

Yes! The belief in gradualism leads straight to the belief in "survival of the fittest". The two feed off each other so every attack on either is an attack at the core concepts of Darwinism. There is no gradualism and every individual is equally fit. No individuals were hatched, born, or grew merely to be ground under the boot of the more fit. No individual ever came into existence just to be the main course at dinner.

All life is individual and consciousness is the means by which we are all provided to succeed. There is no "species" merely many collections of similar individuals. This is what the fossil record and every experiment ever performed by man shows. Darwin misinterpreted the evidence and we believe him because we want to believe him. We can't even see argument to the contrary no matter how logical or how many links are provided. Those who can't follow logic won't follow links.

 

[cladking]

I agree with it because it’s simply logical. My agreement with a logical statement has nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

Here's a concept believers won't understand.

An individual can hold any number of beliefs and still act rationally. Indeed, an individual can even hold incorrect beliefs like survival of the fittest nd still successfully breed dogs. It's hardly surprising some of the best scientists have all sorts of religions and sundry other beliefs. Now days almost all scientists believe reality can be expressed mathematically which is probably the screwiest idea ever invented by man!!!

Those who believe in Peers and the immutability of science usually believe that one must also believe in everything that is assumed by science and in the definitions and interpretations of fact. they believe tht in order to induce reality you must have all the "proper" beliefs. Homo omnisciencis.

People existed, thought, and made logical decisions long before science arose.

 

[cladking]

Of course, he means “it happened via a different set of evolutionary mechanisms” and again, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, not only with Gould but with all proponents of evolution such as yourself, they hold evolution as an axiom. Even if all fundamental assumptions/mechanisms or predictions are proven false, (see #781) they simply insist that it’s still somehow an evolutionary process; whether the mechanism is not known or if assumed mechanism is false, it doesn’t matter to them. They simply hold tight to a false axiom.

Their notion is "it’s evolution/must be evolution before the evidence, then let’s search and find the evidence that prove us right”, and if they don’t or if they are proven wrong, it doesn’t matter, it's still evolution. Do you understand?

No. They do not understand.

When something is definitional or axiomatic everything believed by the individual is built upon it. You can't remove any part of the foundation and this axiom is all of the foundation in "Evolution". Then most can't embrace the concept that religions are more accurate about the nature of life and how it changes than Darwin ever could dream. To most it sounds like you want them to destroy a wonderful edifice in favor of a ramshackle hovel to be built on its ruins.

In reality you are merely trying to destroy that which is impossible and causes convoluted thinking.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, because its logical, isn’t it? “Facts/data do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." I agree with it because it’s simply logical. My agreement with a logical statement has nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

Not at all, you’re the one who is evidently cherry picking right now, I gave you my logical reason for my disagreement, but you intentionally ignored it and focused only on my disagreement as if I didn’t provide any justification in # 2034. If you don’t agree with my justification, state your reasons rather that playing a fallacious trick.

LOL...you can try the childish "I know you are, but what am I" if you like, but the record is there for all to see. You cite folks like Gould as such important experts that we should heed their "declarations" when they agree with you, but as soon as the very same experts "declare" things you don't like you just wave it away.

Of course, he means “it happened via a different set of evolutionary mechanisms” and again, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, not only with Gould but with all proponents of evolution such as yourself, they hold evolution as an axiom. Even if all fundamental assumptions/mechanisms or predictions are proven false, (see #781) they simply insist that it’s still somehow an evolutionary process; whether the mechanism is not known or if assumed mechanism is false, it doesn’t matter to them. They simply hold tight to a false axiom.

Well duh....because we see populations evolve right before our eyes. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Scientists aren't going to ignore that just because you don't like it.

No, theoretical framework doesn’t explain evidence; it explains world's data.

Oh my...you just get funnier and funnier. Data isn't evidence?

I doubt you appreciate it, but you're really destroying your own credibility here. You should probably stop, but I'm betting you won't. More's the pity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL...you can try the childish "I know you are, but what am I" if you like, but the record is there for all to see. You cite folks like Gould as such important experts that we should heed their "declarations" when they agree with you, but as soon as the very same experts "declare" things you don't like you just wave it away.


Well duh....because we see populations evolve right before our eyes. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Scientists aren't going to ignore that just because you don't like it.


Oh my...you just get funnier and funnier. Data isn't evidence?

I doubt you appreciate it, but you're really destroying your own credibility here. You should probably stop, but I'm betting you won't. More's the pity.

I would say that was destroyed some time ago for me.

Sure, sure, sure. Data is that guy from Star Wars. Didn't you know that?

 

[LIIA]

No that is merely al link to someone that has no clue. To refute it read the posts after it.

What post after #1245? Do you mean your post # 1258? Seriously?
Here is your response #1258 below
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Wow! Do you copy and paste this? The papers do not support your conclusions you are misinterpreting them at best.
By the way, where are you? Why do you only post in the dead of night?

If you consider that ridiculous nonsense to be a debate, you are really pathetic. it's nothing but some meaningless denial. Go back to #1245, debate properly or stop your nonsense. here is the link.
#1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

I seek the best information available.

I used the same info many times before, see # 1245 in case you forget. It's not about the source or credibility, it's about the relevance of the info to your argument. Go back and read #2090. It’s very obvious and clear. I’m sure you get my point. Why do you deny it? Don’t answer me, I know. Answer to yourself.

What you have to say is unimportant and I do not see your words.

Sure, you see it, but you chose to act as if you don’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What post after #1245? Do you mean your post # 1258? Seriously?
Here is your response #1258 below
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



If you consider that ridiculous nonsense to be a debate, you are really pathetic. it's nothing but some meaningless denial. Go back to #1245, debate properly or stop your nonsense. here is the link.
#1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

You lost all of your past debates. That is not my problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used the same info many times before, see # 1245 in case you forget. It's not about the source or credibility, it's about the relevance of the info to your argument. Go back and read #2090. It’s very obvious and clear. I’m sure you get my point. Why do you deny it? Don’t answer me, I know. Answer to yourself.



Sure, you see it, but you chose to act as if you don’t.

Instead of spending all of this time spouting nonsense why not spend a day or two learning the basics of science? It will make you a better debater.

 

[LIIA]

It's amusing, but the joke is old. It is only amusing for a bit and growing less so with each creationist attempt/failure cycle.

Pigeon Chess.

Do you know what the real joke is? It’s when a monkey assumes the role of a sleeping dinosaur and plays chess with pigeons! The outcome is hilarious

Please don’t get me wrong; it’s only a joke. I know that evolutionists typically accept the idea that they’re monkeys, cousins of horses and turkeys and descendants of a fish (tiktaalik). see # 2101. Were there ever transitional forms from tiktaalik to homo sapiens? I'm just curious.

Have a good night.

 

[LIIA]

No. They do not understand.

When something is definitional or axiomatic everything believed by the individual is built upon it. You can't remove any part of the foundation and this axiom is all of the foundation in "Evolution". Then most can't embrace the concept that religions are more accurate about the nature of life and how it changes than Darwin ever could dream. To most it sounds like you want them to destroy a wonderful edifice in favor of a ramshackle hovel to be built on its ruins.

In reality you are merely trying to destroy that which is impossible and causes convoluted thinking.

Very true, you actually reminded me of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016. See # 911
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

 

[LIIA]

LOL...you can try the childish "I know you are, but what am I" if you like, but the record is there for all to see. You cite folks like Gould as such important experts that we should heed their "declarations" when they agree with you, but as soon as the very same experts "declare" things you don't like you just wave it away.

Didn’t you get it yet? Al the scientists that I’m quoting are evolutionists, no exception, simply because evolutionists like yourself wouldn’t accept otherwise and yes, the record is there for all to see who is cherry picking which you again continue to do by ignoring my response in #2034.

I never claimed that Gould is not an evolutionist, did I? I can quote others as well and I did but I’m intentionally quoting Gould as one of the most famous proponents of evolution. Even if Gould or others held the false axiom “it must be evolution one way or another” but as a prominent paleontologist, his knowledge of the facts of the fossil record cannot be disputed. I’m not disputing the facts (the world's data), I'm disputing the interpretations. Do you understand?

Well duh....because we see populations evolve right before our eyes. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Scientists aren't going to ignore that just because you don't like it.

False, we see species adapt as a result of directed mutation all the time. We never see a species transforming into another. Species adapt they don’t evolve. We never see millions of random non-beneficial mutations emerging among species to get filtered by selection. There is no evidence of such nonsense. You know that don’t you?

Oh my...you just get funnier and funnier. Data isn't evidence?

Absolutely not. Mere data is not evidence. Try to understand what you read before you talk. It may save us some time and thanks for your concern. I appreciate it.

I had the exact same discussion here before. Below is a quote from my post #331
Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

“a causal relationship between the observations (the world's data) and hypothesis does not just exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence but rather provided by the observer seeking to establish observations as evidence. Background, experience and beliefs of the observer establish a prior that impacts perceived relationship. Independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions, which may be correct or incorrect, or with a certain degree of accuracy. The rules of valid inference (if property applied) help the establishment of neutral logical conclusion with higher probability of correctness”.

 

[LIIA]

You lost all of your past debates. That is not my problem.

have a good night.

 

[LIIA]

Instead of spending all of this time spouting nonsense why not spend a day or two learning the basics of science? It will make you a better debater.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[LIIA]

If a living organism is not equipped with what it needs to survive from day one, it will simply not survive till day two. It will not have a million year to somehow get what it needs to survive. If it doesn’t survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

Similarly, a non-living organic molecule will always quickly disintegrate, it will not persist for a million year waiting for a random chance to evolve.

Only a perfect living organism (equipped with required functional systems/life processes from day one) that can persist/survive and successfully have offspring can adapt through directed mutations. It’s never a random evolution; it’s always a directed adaptation. The adaptation process may give rise to a variant, but a species would never transform into totally different species.

I’m curious, was there ever a theory addressing the passage of air or food to either the trachea or the esophagus in mammals. Currently the epiglottis is responsible for this function.

The epiglottis is a special flap at the back of the throat that acts as the valve/doorway between the air tube (larynx and trachea) and the food tube (esophagus). It’s a simple organ but if it doesn’t exist or doesn’t function properly, or more precisely if there is no system to divert passage of air or food to either the trachea or the esophagus from day one, the animal would eat or drink, then the airway immediately gets blocked and animal choke to death. The animal will not have a million year to develop a functional system. it will immediately die. Let alone all required complex systems that must work in harmony form day one.

Some may think that a single celled living organism is a different case. It’s absolutely not. A single celled living organism is an extremely complex system that must carry out all life processes to survive. If any of the essential processes is not functional from day one, the organism will not survive till day two. It will not have a million year to develop the essential life process.

Regardless of the fact that many deliberately chose to adopt it but the idea of evolution/transformation of one species into another is the most ridiculous myth in the history of mankind.

 

[LIIA]

It’s unfortunate that continuous ad hominem, red herring, unethical debate, fallacious attacks, etc. got me to respond back lately in a manner that contradicts my beliefs and the purpose of my argument. I’m not supposed to engage or waste time in such nonsense but after all, I’m only human. I apologize to all.

خُذِ ٱلْعَفْوَ وَأْمُرْ بِٱلْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ" (الأعراف - 199)"
“Keep to forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.” Al-Araf 199.

(الفرقان - 63) "وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلْجَٰهِلُونَ قَالُواْ سَلَٰمًا"
“And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the ignorant ones address them [harshly], they answer: Peace” Al-Furqan 63.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very true, you actually reminded me of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016. See # 911
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

View attachment 66565

So what? A minority opinion is meaningless if he and others cannot support it. And they are not discussing whether evolution occurred or not. They all agree on that. They are discussing how it happened. No matter who wins, you are still a monkey.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s unfortunate that continuous ad hominem, red herring, unethical debate, fallacious attacks, etc. got me to respond back lately in a manner that contradicts my beliefs and the purpose of my argument. I’m not supposed to engage or waste time in such nonsense but after all, I’m only human. I apologize to all.

خُذِ ٱلْعَفْوَ وَأْمُرْ بِٱلْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ" (الأعراف - 199)"
“Keep to forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.” Al-Araf 199.

(الفرقان - 63) "وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلْجَٰهِلُونَ قَالُواْ سَلَٰمًا"
“And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the ignorant ones address them [harshly], they answer: Peace” Al-Furqan 63.

Then I would suggest that you stop doing that.